The Charlotte News
Thursday, June 24, 1954
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that in London, the Western powers had announced this date that they had proposed an immediate ban of use of nuclear weapons except in defense against aggression, plus a freeze on military manpower and arms expenditures, but that the Russians had rejected it. The proposal, also calling for gradual progress toward abolition of nuclear weapons, with effective safeguards of enforcement imposed on both sides, had been made at the conclusion of 20 fruitless meetings in London of the U.N. subcommittee on disarmament. The Western powers had rejected the Russian disarmament proposals, which they said had not provided for adequate means of enforcement behind the Iron Curtain. The Western plan had been advanced by Britain and France, with the support of the U.S. and Canada, the four nations plus Russia making up the subcommittee. The Russians had demanded immediate and unconditional prohibition of all nuclear weapons, which would have stripped the West of its principal weapons, the atomic and hydrogen bombs, while leaving the superior numerical forces of the Communist land armies intact, at least temporarily. In addition, there was no assurance that the Soviets would abolish their nuclear weapons under their plan.
In Geneva, the French had begun secret talks with the Vietminh Foreign Minister Pham Van Dong, according to an informed source, with chances of settling the Indo-China war now appearing "reasonably good". After a meeting the previous day in Bern, Switzerland, between new French Premier and Foreign Minister Pierre Mendes-France and Chinese Communist Premier and Foreign Minister Chou En-lai, the two had jointly expressed the belief that their meeting would permit the Geneva conference "to make progress". Chou this date left for New Delhi for a conference with Indian Prime Minister Nehru. It was reported that the Vietminh Foreign Minister, however, had not been as encouraging with the French Ambassador to Bern as had been Chou, indicating that the French might have to make considerable concessions before the fighting could be ended. A scheduled close session on the Indo-China part of the Geneva peace conference was postponed from this date until the following day, with talks reported ready to begin between the military representatives of the French-Laotian command on one side and the Vietminh on the other.
British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden had proposed in Commons the previous day in London, without advance indication to the U.S. of the contents of his proposal, that a Locarno-type system of security guarantees for Southeast Asia be implemented. The State Department, through a spokesman, indicated that Secretary of State Dulles was angry that Mr. Eden had given no preliminary hint of his proposal, on the eve of a meeting between the President and Prime Minister Churchill, to be accompanied by Mr. Eden, it appearing to the State Department that the latter had interposed a new condition to that for which Mr. Dulles had been working, the SEATO pact agreement for mutual Southeast Asian defense against Communist aggression. The British proposal would be for nonaggression treaties of the type worked out at Locarno between the two world wars, regarded by the State Department as worthless in Southeast Asia, as the Communist governments could not be trusted to maintain such guarantees and because it would only lead to Western complaisance.
From Tegucigalpa, Honduras, it was reported that with the Guatemalan war entering its seventh day, most of the fighting was still apparently raging over the propaganda airwaves and in the diplomatic arena, with no indication of a major battle shaping up anywhere, the anti-Communist "liberation army" appearing to be bogged down by a lack of transport just north of the Honduran border, not having yet made an appearance in force in the field. The five-nation Inter-American Peace Commission of the Organization of American States, meeting in Washington, referred to Guatemala a proposal by Honduras and Nicaragua that the Commission conduct an on-site investigation of charges by the Arbenz Government in Guatemala that the two neighboring republics supported "aggression" against Guatemala. Nicaragua formally denied that it was guilty of any aggression, saying that the charges by Guatemala were intended to conceal the Communist affiliations of the Government. The Guatemalan "liberation army", led by a former colonel of the Guatemalan Army, had used the frontiers of Honduras as a staging area for entering Guatemala. A Guatemalan broadcast said that President Arbenz had indicated to the U.S. Ambassador in Guatemala City, John Peurifoy, that the safety of U.S. citizens living in the country would be assured.
The Senate Agriculture Committee this date rejected, by a vote of 8 to 7, the Administration's flexible farm price support program, voting to extend rigid supports for another year. The Committee, by a vote of 9 to 6, had rejected a proposal for a two-year extension of the mandatory supports on the basic crops of wheat, cotton, corn, rice, tobacco and peanuts.
In Des Moines, Iowa, the Des Moines River poured through the city this date, reaching an historic crest of just over 30 feet, 18 feet higher than its normal stage, but flood officials indicated that they believed they had it "whipped", after three days of raising levees, with the crest-waters appearing to be in their final hours and all major dikes holding. No lives had been lost. The crest was 3.5 feet higher than the official peak raised in the disastrous 1947 flood, when a major levee had broken, causing a residential area to be flooded. Levee workers were being hampered by sightseers almost as much as by the rushing waters. The previous night, National Guardsmen equipped with bayonets had shooed away visitors who swarmed into the critical levee area, crawling over sandbags and ripping holes in them, getting in the way of the trucks. People had been descending on the area by the thousands, treating it as a sideshow. Guard officials stressed, however, that there was no clash with the sightseers, that they were simply herded quietly back to keep them out of the road.
Near Goldsboro, N.C., a lone bandit robbed a branch bank at Fremont, getting away with roughly between $18,000 and $20,000. The robber wore dark glasses, pulled a pistol and ordered the cashier and a customer to lie on the floor, then forced two female tellers to hand over all the bills on their counters, never attempting to enter the bank's vault, then exiting the bank after only about three minutes, departing in an automobile, about a 1950 model black Ford, which had been parked around the corner from the front of the bank. The State Highway Patrol, the FBI and Wayne County officers had begun an intensive manhunt. It's probably the male of the couple who wore dark glasses in that other bank robbery last week in Calypso, those Yankees.
In Fayetteville, N.C., a 25-year old black man charged with deserting his wife and four children, had his trial continued the previous day after he told a story of being forced to work as a slave in Georgia by a white man. Officers declined comment on the story, pending its investigation. The man said that he was on his way from Fayetteville to Charleston, S.C., to look for work the previous February when a man had given him and a companion a ride, eventually asking them to go with him to Georgia to work on a construction project at $1.40 per hour, and that after they had accompanied him to a swampy area, were forced to clear land under the supervision of armed guards, and were locked up at night, his companion eventually escaping, after which he had also escaped but was caught by pursuers and forced to return, the armed men then taking a hatchet and chopping off his right index finger. He said that he had managed to escape again and eventually got back to Fayetteville. Under questioning, he could not recall any of the towns through which he had passed or in what part of Georgia he had allegedly been held, the first town which he could identify during his escape having been Georgetown, S.C. The man's uncle testified that during his nephew's absence, he had received a letter saying that his nephew was being held as "a hostage", but he did not have the letter at present and was unable to identify its author. The City Recorder, after observing that the defendant's right index finger had been severed, ordered the case continued until his story could be investigated.
In Wilmington, N.C., a Recorder's Court judge ruled that newspaper photographers could take pictures during a general court session, possibly establishing a precedent. The trial being photographed was of ten defendants charged with distributing or posing for lewd and obscene pictures, and the trial photography took place over the objections of the defense attorneys. Among the defendants was the supervisor of elementary school education for New Hanover County for 15 years and a former science professor at Wilmington College, both of whom had allegedly been involved in taking the lewd photographs. Police contended that a camera shop in Wilmington had been used as a distribution center for the photographs, and the operator of the shop was charged with publishing, selling and distributing obscene literature. A former bursar of Wilmington College, a woman, was charged with indecent exposure while a student, for allowing the lewd and obscene pictures to be taken of her by the former science professor.
In Battle Creek, Mich., a 68-year old man, who had been driving for 40 years, traveling during that time an estimated 500,000 miles with only three minor accidents, had, the previous February, flunked the written portion of his license test, twice more flunking it before an appellate board. A judge then gave him another chance, asking him 100 traffic questions, which the man answered satisfactorily, the judge then ordering his license restored.
Near Tampa, Fla., three convicts had escaped from a state road camp the previous night, after which one of the escapees had returned to camp, leading a bloodhound. The men had sawed their way through a barracks window while awaiting a physician. The returned man said that the other two convicts had left him after the escape, that he had tried to swim across a river but had gone under twice, his foot becoming entangled in a piece of wire under the water, from which he managed to escape by removing his shoe, at which point the bloodhound, Sadie, showed up and so he decided to return to camp, constructing a leash and leading the dog back with him.
In an unstated location, probably to protect him from gawkers, cross-eyed Henry, as captured in a photograph, was said to have a great disposition. He might have a future in pictures.
On the editorial page, "Must Korean Veterans Fight Again?" indicates that Korean War veterans, as had World War II veterans, were now settled into married life at home, raising children, completing their education, and planning a productive future in civilian life. But, just as with the World War II veterans called on to fight again in Korea, beginning in mid-1950, the Korean War veterans now faced the unpleasant prospect of potentially being called up again to fight in Southeast Asia or elsewhere.
As things now stood, they could be drafted again while younger single men remained at home, the veterans being trained and thus able to be deployed much more quickly. It indicates that such a situation would continue until universal military training were finally implemented. The U.S. had lost precious time in 1942 training recruits following the attack on Pearl Harbor, as well as after the attack on South Korea by North Korea in late June, 1950. Moreover, young soldiers suffered in battle from lack of adequate training, and in future wars, the U.S. might not have the luxury of time to train soldiers in the event of new hostilities in a nuclear world. The Congress, just prior to the start of the Korean War, had passed a law providing for universal training by all able-bodied young men over the age of 18 for a six-month period, with volunteers and draftees, when needed, from that pool serving for two years and all trainees obligated to serve in the reserve for eight years. But specific enabling legislation was required to put the law into effect, and Congress had not yet taken that step. It suggests that it do so.
"Social Security Is 'Respectable' Now" indicates that the liberals pressed for change over the objections of conservatives who modified and eventually endorsed the reforms, thus giving them permanence and respectability, that a century earlier, only wild-eyed radicals had advocated progressive taxation, soil conservation, and abolition of child labor, all of which having been advocated by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, eventually embraced by both Republicans and Democrats. Sometimes, it observes, that sweep of history was overlooked and forgotten.
Recent action by Congress on the Social Security program afforded a good opportunity to remind of the usual pattern of social change. The House had overwhelmingly passed the new Social Security program, which would extend social insurance to almost ten million additional persons, including most of the labor force, and the bill was likely soon to become law. Nineteen years earlier, when the Social Security program had first been initiated, it had been viewed by a large segment of the public and of Congress as pernicious, with Representative John Taber of New York having said that it would enslave workers and Governor Alf Landon of Kansas, the Republican presidential nominee in 1936, having campaigned against it as a "cruel hoax". Republicans had voted overwhelmingly against expansion of coverage during the late 1940's and early 1950's, until General Eisenhower and the Republican Party in 1952 had promised extension of the Social Security program, now fulfilled. The conservative Business Week had praised the commendable progress made possible by Social Security, helping freedom and initiative of the individual.
It finds the radically changed concept of Social Security not to mean that the U.S. was becoming Communist, but rather that by improving its own institutions and adapting itself to changing conditions of society, it was preserving its system of government, guarding against revolutionary changes which had beset capitalistic governments refusing to respond to popular demands.
"'Gimmicks' Aside, It's Still a Debt" indicates that North Carolina's two Senators, Alton Lennon and Sam J. Ervin, had not crawled very far out on a limb when they said that they would oppose any increase in the Federal debt limit unless Administration Republicans could prove that an increase was unavoidable. It finds that it was more important that the two Senators keep their eyes open for "gimmicks" which would increase the debt limit without appearing to do so. The Wall Street Journal had indicated three such devices which had already been suggested by aides to Secretary of the Treasury George Humphrey, the exemption of tax anticipation securities from the public debt limit, making the debt limit apply only at the end of a fiscal year, and exemption from the public debt limit of "special issues", such as taxes on Social Security and railroad retirement, which the Government used for current expenses and issued bonds to various Government trust funds, totaling 48 billion dollars, currently counted against the debt limit.
The Journal had said that Secretary Humphrey was personally opposed to those devices and preferred to face realistically the debt limit issue, was prepared to ask Congress to raise the limit if absolutely necessary. It finds that to be the best policy, that the reason for the debt was that in all save three years since 1932, Congress had voted to spend more money than it was collecting in revenue and so should assume the responsibility for increasing the debt limit without resorting to subterfuge.
"No Comment" quotes an Associated Press piece from Washington, dated June 22, stating that the President, an old American Legionnaire, had asked the Congress for a special appropriation of $103,000 to maintain "public order" during the American Legion convention in Washington the coming August 30 through September 2.
A piece from the Memphis Press Scimitar, titled "In a Sturdy Old Model A", indicates that in the days of the variously named new automatic transmissions, it was impressed with the solution to a mountain-climbing problem reached by the owner of a 1930 Model A Ford, by cutting 18 inches from the front of the driveshaft, installing a second Model A transmission, hooking the two together and climbing an 11,752-foot hill, still employing the original four-cylinder engine, accomplishing the climb in three hours. At idle, with the car chained to a concrete floor, the motor had transmitted enough torque via the gears to permit the wheels to turn calmly until the tire tread was burned away.
Drew Pearson indicates for that for some time a new technique of government operation, revenge by investigation, threats, retaliation and political blackmail, had been transpiring in Washington, a technique reminiscent of Hitler's reign and previously nearly unknown in government. Those who had introduced the technique were Senator McCarthy and the small group around him, but it had grown to such an extent that it was now becoming a pattern, starting with Senator McCarthy having raised money to defeat Senator Millard Tydings of Maryland in his bid for re-election in 1950, after Senator Tydings had refused to go along with Senator McCarthy's charges of card-carrying Communists within the State Department, first made in February of that year. The technique had continued through the campaign to defeat Senator William Benton of Connecticut in 1952, to the more recent attempt to defeat Senator Margaret Chase Smith in her Republican primary race for re-election in Maine in 1954. While those cases were well known to the public, other cases were not so publicized.
When Senator McCarthy had learned that Assistant Secretary of Defense H. Struve Hensel had written the Army memo, released to the Senate Investigations subcommittee in March, regarding the efforts of Roy Cohn on behalf of Senator McCarthy to obtain special treatment from the Army for Private G. David Schine, a previously fired FBI agent, Don Surine, and McCarthy staffer, James Juliana, were sent by Senator McCarthy to investigate Mr. Hensel's business activities. On March 25, a man had called at the home of the mother-in-law of Mr. Hensel's former business associate, identified himself as a detective from police headquarters and said that the woman's daughter had been involved in a hit-and-run accident and that the police were looking for her, causing the woman, in her eighties, great distress until later that evening, her daughter called to say that she was fine and had not been involved in an accident. The following day, Messrs. Surine and Juliana located Mr. Hensel's partner and admitted that his address had been obtained from his mother-in-law, though it could have been obtained through public resources. Senator McCarthy, who had also obtained a confidential copy of Mr. Hensel's income tax returns from his friend, IRS commissioner Coleman Andrews, had now admitted that he had no case against Mr. Hensel, but had been following a technique of hitting below-the-belt, once taught to him by an Indian in Wisconsin. The technique was being used also by Mr. Cohn against Senator Henry Jackson of the subcommittee, after the Senator had shown up Mr. Cohn's friend Private Schine, Mr. Cohn having been investigating Senator Jackson's past and come to the hearings with a file ostentatiously labeled "Jackson's record"—which had apparently led to the argument between subcommittee minority counsel Robert F. Kennedy and Mr. Cohn after the afternoon session of the June 10 hearing, a few days before hearings ended on June 17, in which, according to Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Cohn had threatened to "get" Senator Jackson in connection with certain Communist matters, while Mr. Cohn claimed he had said that he was going to "get at" the truth about the matter through examination of Senator Jackson. When Col. Earl Ringler of Fort Dix in New Jersey had refused to give Private Schine certain privileges, Mr. Cohn had determined to perform a "rundown" on him.
It was not known how many records Senator McCarthy had maintained on fellow Senators, but it was known that he had been checking on Senators Stuart Symington of Missouri, John McClellan of Arkansas, and Thomas Hennings of Missouri, the first two of whom were Democrats on the Investigations subcommittee normally chaired by Senator McCarthy, and the latter having once served on the subcommittee which had looked into Senator McCarthy's finances in 1952, as had Senator Symington. Senator McCarthy accused Senator Hennings of employing Communists and the latter had asked the FBI to investigate the entire staff. Mr. Pearson indicates that what made the revenge technique of Senator McCarthy particularly sinister was that it operated in part with private money of Texas oil millionaires and others, giving him his own private detective force, while he had the power of Senate subpoena and was able to obtain tax returns, with the power and prestige of the U.S. Government. He appeared to be able to obtain tax returns at will, even though they were not supposed to be provided to him without a vote of the Investigations subcommittee.
Joseph & Stewart Alsop indicate that the best measure of the insanity of the times was the air defense story and its relationship to the case of nuclear scientist Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, a story which had begun early in 1950, when the National Security Council had been anxiously exploring the problems created by the first Soviet atomic test the prior August, one of those problems having been adequate continental air defense against Soviet atomic attack. But the Air Force had not wanted to face that problem and fought hard to prevent the NSC from facing it. The trouble was the peculiar psychology of the generals, always dominating the Air Force, who advocated development and use of big bombers.
In early 1950, the NSC had issued a firm directive to give continental air defense paramount priority in all defense planning and programming, leaving it to the Air Force to implement that decision. But the Air Force only initiated the Lincoln Project at MIT to study air defense possibilities, and nothing further happened until the summer of 1952, when the Lincoln Project leaders organized a special study group to examine the mass of accumulated data. Dr. Oppenheimer became a consultant to that study group, which issued two findings to the Air Force, that the Soviet air-atomic threat to the country was already becoming very serious and that certain technological breakthroughs had made it possible to develop a truly effective air defense, albeit at a heavy cost and not completely impermeable.
The Alsops indicate that from their own first-hand experience, the Lincoln Project report sent the Air Force high command into a "neurotic tailspin", as General Hoyt Vandenberg and others still angrily opposed serious air defense efforts and so began to discredit the Lincoln report. They indicate that it was a flagrant attack on the national policy set forth by the NSC in early 1950, but in the hearings on Dr. Oppenheimer's loyalty, that "sorry stuff" was repeated by the former chief scientist of the Air Force, professor David Griggs.
Doris Fleeson indicates that a showdown was near on the President's efforts to promote private power utilities as opposed to TVA, by way of the Atomic Energy Commission's statutory authority to form 25-year contracts. When the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy convened, Representative Chet Holifield of California would move that the Committee instruct the AEC to hold up the contract in question, which the President had ordered the AEC to sign and with which TVA would be ordered to cooperate. If that motion failed to pass, the fight would go to the floor of the House, and then to the Senate, where Senator Albert Gore would take up the cudgels against the order.
The contract was to be formed with a private power syndicate which wanted to build a new 107 million dollar plant in the Memphis area, having persuaded the President to allow them to use the Government's credit to do so. AEC did not need more power, as it had a contract with TVA, but AEC's contractual rights were vital to the new, proposed project. The power syndicate in question was proposing to put up only about five percent of the total cost of the project, whereas testimony before the Committee had shown that usually private utility financing called for a 40 percent investment. The AEC staff estimated that the contract would cost annually 3.6 million dollars more than the similar arrangement with TVA, about 90 million dollars more over the life of the proposed contract. Representative Holifield regarded it as a free ride for the utilities, at the end of which, they would own the utility plant, paid for by the taxpayers. In addition, the contract contained a penalty provision whereby should AEC cancel it within three years, it would be subject to a 40 million dollar penalty, and for nearly six years thereafter, the syndicate would have the right to take over 100,000 kilowatts annually for its own use, such that at the end of nine years, it would have recaptured all of its capacity and could sell electricity to private users at a higher price than to the Government. Should the overall construction cost exceed the original 107 million dollars, the Government was obligated to put up half of the additional cost, up to nine percent of the total.
It had become clear in testimony before the Committee that the AEC commissioners had explored the President's idea and rejected it, with three commissioners opposing it as "incongruous" and outside AEC's "sober and exacting principal mission". AEC chairman Admiral Lewis Strauss, and one other commissioner, both Eisenhower appointees, testified glumly that they were ready to cooperate with the scheme. Representative Holifield believed that the attraction of the proposal for the President was that it relieved him from dipping into his budget to expand TVA. He had pointed out that the President was accepting great liabilities, both actual and contingent, plus a rate overcharge, for 25 years, and required by the order the AEC to build a new nine million dollar transmission line, while at the end of the project, the utilities, not the Government, would own the new plant.
A letter writer comments on the two candidates for Charlotte Town constable in the upcoming primary runoff, both of whom had criminal records consisting of several offenses, suggesting from the experience that every candidate should be carefully screened before they were allowed to place their name on the ballot. She hopes that the voters would ignore both men on Saturday and wait until November to write in a third candidate.
You cannot "screen" people so as to prevent them from running for public office, unless they are specifically barred from doing so by statute, such as in the case of felony convictions. Moreover, the prevention of someone from running for public office, even by statute, would have to be based on at least a rational basis for the deprivation of the fundamental right of free speech and petitioning of the government for redress of grievances, by running for public office, to pass muster under the Constitution. The screening process, as the newspaper had previously pointed out and admitted its omission in doing so, has to be done by the public and the press prior to elections.
A letter writer from Gastonia indicates that since everyone who did not agree with Senator McCarthy was a Communist, he guesses that he is one also. He thinks the Senator was a traitor to his country. The writer indicates that he was wounded several times during World War II, while Senator McCarthy's war record appeared to be one of obtaining as many leaves as possible and then a dismissal from the service during wartime, which the writer regards as "treacherous and bordering treason", that if the rest of the veterans had done so, "we would all have ended up in the gas chamber." He says that during the war, he had not engaged in flag-waving or telling his shipmates how patriotic he was, that he had done what he was supposed to do and wound up thankful that he remained alive. Senator McCarthy had obtained a Purple Heart, developed a sympathetic limp, told everyone within hearing distance that he had been shot in the leg, and secured the nomination for the Senate from Wisconsin—the letter writer omitting, as previously told by Drew Pearson, how the Senator got his limp, through hazing during the King Neptune ceremony, traditional on passing the equator, the future Senator having fallen down a ladder during the hazing, later using his connections to obtain the Purple Heart and accompanying commendation for valor. The writer says that in the event of another war, he would fight if the armed services would have him, is sure that Senator McCarthy would be waving the flag.
A letter writer indicates that he was uncompromisingly opposed to any integration or non-segregation of public schools beyond the "traditions, laws, and customs practiced and abided by the two races in North Carolina and the South for three quarters of a century." He says that one previous letter writer had especially attracted his attention, a black veteran of World War II, stating that blacks had fought and died on the battlefields for the freedom of his race in America. He admits that blacks had done so but wanted to ask the previous writer what the hundreds of thousands of white boys were fighting for, whether they were having a picnic. He indicates that veterans had been fighting for their homes, mothers, way of life in America, against an enemy which would have destroyed the country, making everyone in the country a slave "just like, or worse than, the Negro race was." He says that if people did not like the way of life in the South, they should go elsewhere, that North Carolina had a Constitution requiring segregation of the public schools and that the residents of the state would abide by it or "know the reason why." "Hotheads had better calm down and listen to level heads with good reasons and good judgments."
You are one of those people who needs to sit down, calm down and read the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, and realize that it is the supreme law of the land, above the statutes, common law and Constitution of North Carolina or any other state or territory when infringing the fundamental rights of citizens. As you said, like it or leave it, that is, the United States, not the confederated States. Meanwhile, learn the difference between a confederation, with a limited central government responsible only for a common defense and accumulation of a common treasury for that purpose, and our own Federal system, which protects the "general welfare" of the citizenry as against encroachment, not only by foreign powers, but also by the power of individual states and localities.
A letter writer from Chester, S.C., wonders whether the newspaper had set up its editorial page "for the whites and colored to fight it out as to whether the Supreme Court is right or wrong", that all which could be said or written would make no difference as to the future of that problem, which could be solved by facing it "with level heads", while working together to make a better South.
A letter from the secretary of the Debutante Club thanks the newspaper, especially the society page editors, on behalf of the directors of the Club for the coverage given to the debutantes and their ball.
A letter writer from Rockingham responds to a letter of June 12 from a black woman who had said that it was time for black people to have their place, thinks that if she would read her American history, she would quickly find that blacks had a place in the world at one time, but because some Northern merchants had not been making enough money, the latter had "'bootlegged'" the blacks from their "place in the world into the white man's place."
A letter writer thinks that the question of segregation was a matter for the states and not the Federal Government to decide. He believes that there was an "invisible underworld government within our government, working to destroy everything we southerners have stood for through the centuries." He does not believe that the majority of blacks wanted integration "more than the whites do", but it appeared that most church denominations were "falling for the idea". He wonders what right nine members of the Supreme Court had to tell more than 150 million Americans what they could or could not do, concludes that it must have been their hatred for the South.
You, also, need to read the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, as well as Article III regarding the Federal judiciary, and the Fourteenth Amendment, and understand how those provisions interrelate to make your silly states' rights supremacy argument turn to dust, consigned to the ashes of the Confederate soldiers who died for your cause, long ago laid to rest and forgotten by all but the insane and ignorant beyond belief.
Links-Date — Links-Subj.