On May 17, 1954, after nearly two decades of legal challenges against racial segregation in public schools and higher education, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that school segregation was unconstitutional. Their decision paved the way for desegregation of educational institutions. Prior to Brown v. Board of Education decision, legal segregation had existed under the "separate but equal" doctrine. However, the separate educational facilities and opportunities the Southern states offered to Black Americans were inferior, not equal, to those designed for white Americans. In 1956, Virginia's General Assembly adopted a policy of Massive Resistance, using the law and courts to obstruct desegregation and to not comply with changes which were being made nationwide in response to Brown v. Board of Education. Virginian's reactions to Brown v. Board of Education were varied -- while some approved the decision enthusiastically, there were also those who bitterly opposed it.
In 1957, in the midst of Virginia’s effort to maintain segregation in public schools, James Lindsay Almond Jr., won the gubernatorial election by pledging to uphold Massive Resistance. In September 1958, he closed schools in Charlottesville, Front Royal, and Norfolk rather than see them segregated. By January 1959, both the federal court and state supreme court demanded that schools be reopened, and Massive Resistance laws overturned. Almond continued to appeal these rulings, however the closed schools ultimately reopened to an integrated student body. The courts ordered the admittance of small numbers of Black students into formally all-white schools around the state. The federal government put more and more pressure on the state to integrate its schools and the Departments of Health, Education, and Welfare threatened localities with loss of federal funding if they did not comply.
However, Prince Edward County officials defied these court orders and on June 26, 1959, the county board of supervisors voted to cut off revenues to the public schools. Prince Edward County was the only locality in the nation to take this step. County officials were heavily encouraged by segregationists across the state and the South to close schools and remove funding for public education. The schools did not open on September 10 as scheduled. The schools in the county remained closed for the next five years. While white students attended the new private school, Prince Edward Academy, Black students were left with no educational facilities. Some local churches provided rudimentary education and some Black students attended classes in nearby counties, or, with the aid of Quaker-affiliated American Friends Service Committee, relocated to other areas. However, most Black students had no form of education and most Black teachers lost their jobs.
The letter from the Baptist Ministers Conference asked the General Assembly to reopen the public schools as the lack of education would have a potentially devastating impact on the young Black students across the state. They also asked that Jim Crow laws be removed as well as they were unfair to the Black community and were rendered non-enforceable based on court rulings. Legal battles for the schools to reopen and integrate continued from 1959 to 1964. The legal cases attracted national attention. Finally, on May 25, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward that the county had violated the students’ right to an education and ordered the schools to be reopened.
Citation: Letter from Baptist Ministers’ Conference of Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Vicinity, to Governor J. Lindsay Almond Jr., Richmond. January 19, 1960. Virginia, Governor (1958 – 1962), Executive Papers, 1958-1962, Accession 26230, State Government Records Collection, Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.
Preview Activity
Scan It: Scan the transcript of the speech. What words of phrases stand out to you?
Post Activities
Virginia Validation: Virginia often seems to be in the spotlight for much larger, national issues. Why do you think Virginia has had such a long and varied history near the center of political and social conflict?
Current Connections: Do you think all students receive an equal education today in the United States? Why or why not?
Food for Thought: Imagine you were a student in Prince Edward County when the schools were closed. Would you have been able to receive an education? If so, how?
On May 17, 1954, after nearly two decades of legal challenges against racial segregation in public schools and higher education, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas that school segregation was unconstitutional. Their decision paved the way for desegregation of educational institutions. Prior to Brown v. Board of Education decision, legal segregation had existed under the "separate but equal" doctrine. However, the separate educational facilities and opportunities the Southern states offered to Black Americans were inferior, not equal, to those designed for white Americans. In 1956, Virginia's General Assembly adopted a policy of Massive Resistance, using the law and courts to obstruct desegregation and to not comply with changes which were being made nationwide in response to Brown v. Board of Education. Virginian's reactions to Brown v. Board of Education were varied -- while some approved the decision enthusiastically, there were also those who bitterly opposed it.
In 1957, in the midst of Virginia’s effort to maintain segregation in public schools, James Lindsay Almond Jr., won the gubernatorial election by pledging to uphold Massive Resistance. In September 1958, he closed schools in Charlottesville, Front Royal, and Norfolk rather than see them segregated. By January 1959, both the federal court and state supreme court demanded that schools be reopened, and Massive Resistance laws overturned. Almond continued to appeal these rulings, however the closed schools ultimately reopened to an integrated student body. The courts ordered the admittance of small numbers of Black students into formally all-white schools around the state. The federal government put more and more pressure on the state to integrate its schools and the Departments of Health, Education, and Welfare threatened localities with loss of federal funding if they did not comply.
Preview Activity
Scan It: Scan the transcript of the speech. What words of phrases stand out to you?
Post Activities
Food For Thought: Imagine you were a student at this school during this time. Create a petition to Governor Almond on why you think the schools should be open and your thoughts on Brown v. Board of Education.
Social Media Spin: Create a social media post for the anniversary of the signing of the letter to Governor Almond. Be sure to include relevant details about relevant issues which support your post.
Current Connections: Do you think all students receive an equal education today in the United States? Why or why not?
On May 17, 1954, after nearly two decades of legal challenges against racial segregation in public schools and higher education, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas that school segregation was unconstitutional. The decision paved the way for desegregation of educational institutions. Prior to Brown v. Board of Education decision, legal segregation had existed under the "separate but equal" doctrine. However, the separate educational facilities and opportunities the southern states offered to Black Americans were inferior, not equal, to those designed for white Americans. In 1956, Virginia's General Assembly adopted a policy of Massive Resistance using the law and courts to obstruct desegregation and to not comply with changes which were being made nationwide in response to Brown v. Board of Education.
Thomas B. Stanley served as governor of Virginia (1954–1958) during the turbulent first years of Massive Resistance to school desegregation. His initial reaction to the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas was moderate, but he eventually relented to pressure and backed legislation designed to maintain what supporters called “separate but equal” schools. Virginian's reactions to Brown v. Board of Education were varied—while some approved the decision enthusiastically, there were also those who bitterly opposed it.
Eliza L. Fitch, a self-described ordinary citizen of Charlottesville, wrote to Governor Stanley after he expressed his desire that public schools remain segregated. She described her hope that cooler heads would prevail and that people would accept the Supreme Court decision. She explained that she had no objection to her children attending schools with Black students and Black teachers. Her letter was one of many sent to the governor supporting the school integration.
In 1958, two white schools in Charlottesville closed rather than integrate. They reopened with a small number of Black students in 1959 after state and federal courts ruled ruled that closing the schools violated Virginia’s constitution.
Citation: Letter from Eliza E. Fitch, Charlottesville, to Governor Thomas B. Stanley, June 26, 1954, Thomas B. Stanley Executive Papers, 1954-1958, Accession 25184, Box 110, Barcode 1057563, State Government Records Collection, Library of Virginia.
Preview Activity
Scan It: Scan the letter. What words of phrases stand out to you?
Post Activity
Analyze: Why did Eliza E. Fitch bring up the Army? Does it make her argument stronger?
Think About It: From your reading and study, how do you believe the experiences of a Black student in a Virginia public school were different from that of a white student? Be specific.
Another Perspective: If you were the governor of Virginia, how would you reply to Eliza Fitch's letter?
After the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that school segregation was unconstitutional in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education, Virginia's white political leaders at the state and local levels led a Massive Resistance movement, even threatening to close public schools rather than desegregate. Governor Thomas B. Stanley backed legislation in the General Assembly to maintain so-called "separate but equal" schools. The reactions by Virginians to Brown v. Board varied—while some approved the decision enthusiastically, there were many who bitterly opposed it.
Carl E. Auvil, a navy veteran of World War II and a resident of Falls Church, Virginia, wrote to Governor Stanley in November 1954 to express his views on desegregation. Describing himself as part of a "minority" of Virginians, he informed the governor that his family supported the Supreme Court's decision. He expressed his hope that his young children would be able to attend integrated schools.
In 1958, Virginia governor J. Lindsay Almond ordered the closing of public schools in Warren County, Charlottesville, and Norfolk, rather than allow Black students to attend white schools in those localities. In January 1959, a federal district court declared Virginia's Massive Resistance laws unconstitutional based on the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals declared that they violated the state constitution. Many localities in Virginia, however, continued to resist efforts to desegregate public schools into the 1960s. Black students began attending public schools in the independent city of Falls Church in 1961.
Citation: Letter from Carl E. Auvil, Falls Church, to Governor Thomas B. Stanley, Richmond, November 15, 1954, Office of the Governor, Thomas B. Stanley Papers, Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.
For more information about "massive resistance," see Encyclopedia Virginia.
Preview Activity
Scan It: Scan the transcript of the speech. What words or phrases stand out to you?
Post Activities
Analyze: Why do you think Carl Auvil described himself as in the "minority" of Virginians? Do you think he was? Why or why not?
Think About It: From your reading and study, how do you believe the experiences of a Black student in a Virginia public school were different from that of a white student? Be specific.
Another Perspective: If you were the governor of Virginia, how would you have responded to Virginians' reactions to Brown v. Board of Education?
The Cuban Missile Crisis was a major event of the Cold War that took place during John F. Kennedy’s presidency. In October 1962, a United States spy plane captured evidence of the Soviet Union (present day Russia) moving nuclear weapons into Cuba which lies 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Upon hearing this news, President Kennedy had to made plans within 7 days in secret, before word of this potential international issue was released to the public. President Kennedy met with his most trusted advisors, including his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, to create a plan of action.
President Kennedy announced to the world that they had discovered nuclear missiles were being transported to Cuba. The U.S plan of action was to impose a naval blockade to prevent further shipments to Cuba. While the blockade was successful in stopping additional nuclear weapons from entering Cuba, the missiles already in Cuba were in the beginning stages of becoming operational. President Kennedy seemed to be facing two options: attack or accept the presence of Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba. Kennedy, however, choose to reject both options and proposed a policy that the U.S would not invade Cuba, if the Soviet Union removed all nuclear weapons from Cuba. Soviet Union Premier Nikita Khrushchev agreed to this deal, partly due to a secret clause that the United States would also remove U.S missiles from Turkey within 6 months of the removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba.
Citations: Allison, Graham. "The Cuban Missile Crisis at 50." Foreign Affairs 91, no. 4 (July 2012): 11-16. Military & Government Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed November 23, 2015). CIA documents on the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962/ Central Intelligence Agency; editor, Mary S. McAuliffe, Washington D.C, History Staff, Central Intelligence Agency, [1992].Federal Documents Microfiche, Library of Virginia. Richmond, VA
Preview Activity
Scan it: Scan the document. What words and phrases stand out to you? List the words and phrases.
Post Activities
STEM STAT: The map which accompanies the document provides a visual depiction of the reasons why leaving Cuba would have had dangerous consequences. Using the map, list 3 or 4 possible reasons why the Soviet Union would choose to place nuclear arms in Cuba and why the United States needed to ensure that they be permanently removed.
Current Connections: How can studying the Cuban Missile Crisis help policy makers today? Consider policies regarding Iran, North Korea, and China.
The Racial Integrity Act was introduced in 1924 in the General Assembly as Senate Bill No. 219, then as House Bill No. 311. When the act was passed, it prohibited interracial marriage and defined a white person as someone "who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian." The act was passed to preserve “whiteness” against race-mixing and required that individuals fill out a certificate of racial composition. Originally, the act required that all individuals register their race, but many white Virginians did not want to do so. The act changed the requirement for individuals born before June 14, 1924, and the completion of certificates would be voluntary. In addition, the cost to register was placed on the individual, not the state.
When the act was introduced, persons with traces of American Indian ancestry were still granted the right to marry white individuals -- this exception came about as some prominent white elites claimed to be descendants of Pocahontas and John Rolfe. During that time, a white person was defined as an individual who had less than one sixty-fourth part Indian and no African American heritage. The law was later revised and changed the definition of whiteness in Virginia a "whose blood is entirely white, having no known, demonstrable or ascertainable admixture of the blood of another race.” The Racial Integrity Act remained law until 1967 when the U.S Supreme Court found it unconstitutional in the Loving v. Virginia case.
Richard and Mildred Loving were from Caroline County, Virginia. After a long courtship, they decided they wanted to be married. On June 2, 1958, Richard and Mildred Loving traveled to Washington, D.C. to obtain a legal marriage. They then returned to Virginia where interracial marriages were illegal. On July 11 of the same year, a warrant for their arrest was issued stating they broke the law by obtaining a marriage license in violation of the Racial Integrity Act. They were found guilty and were told to leave the Commonwealth of Virginia for 25 years. They could only return to visit family if they traveled separately and were not in the Commonwealth at the same time. They coupe moved to Washington D.C. and lived there for five years before deciding they wanted to return to Virginia. After returning to the state to visit family, the couple was arrested again and released on bail. They took action to challenge the Racial Integrity Act on Constitutional grounds. They wrote a letter to the United States Attorney General Robert Kennedy, asking for his help. Kennedy then referred Mildred Loving to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for further assistance. In June 1963, Bernard Cohen, an ACLU attorney took up their case and a few months later, Philip Hirschkop, a lawyer who had been working on civil rights cases in Mississippi also joined the Loving’s legal team. The case was appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court, where Cohen argued that the Racial Integrity Act violated the Lovings’ rights to due process. On June 12, 1967 the ruling in Loving v. Virginia was unanimously in favor of the Lovings stating that the Racial Integrity Act violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
The article published in Life Magazine on March 18, 1966, was written on the Lovings legal situation following the Virginia Supreme Court decision to uphold the 1924 Racial Integrity Act. Life Magazine was a national publication and brought the issue of interracial marriage in Virginia to the attention of people across the country.
Citation: The Crime of Being Married, Life Magazine, March 18, 1966, Virginia Chronicle, Library of Virginia.
Preview Activity
Look At It: Look at the headline and images. What might be the subject of the article?
Post Activities
Think About It: Why do you think it took 43 years to overturn the Racial Integrity Act and allow interracial marriage in Virginia?
Social Media Spin: Create a social media post announcing the U.S Supreme Court's decision to rule in favor of the Lovings.
Current Connections: How is the right to marry the one you love still relevant today? Do challenges to marriage equality still exist today? Explain.
The 5-cent Battle of Gettysburg commemorative stamp is the third in a series of five stamps marking the Civil War Centennial from the U.S. Postal Service. Sales of the stamp began at the Gettysburg, Pennsylvania post office on July 1, 1963.
According to this broadside promoting its sale, the stamp was designed by Roy Gjertson of San Pedro, California. He submitted the winning entry in a nationwide competition for professional artists. The stamp depicts a Confederate soldier in a gray field and a Union soldier in a blue field representing the colors of their respective battle uniforms.
Definition: Broadsides were posters, announcing events or proclamations, or simply advertisements.
View and learn more about the stamps from this era from Smithsonian National Postal Museum.
Citation: 5-cent Battle of Gettysburg "Civil War Centennial" commemorative postage stamp, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1963. Broadside 1963 .F5 FF, Manuscripts & Special Collections, Library of Virginia
Preview Activities
Take A Look: Look at the image of the stamp, what do you notice about the image? What does the stamp represent?
Post Activities
Artistic Exploration: Design a commemorative stamp for the centennial of another American War. What symbols and color choices do you feel are important to convey the importance of the event you have chosen?
Social Media Spin: Create a post or tweet for the commemoration of the American Civil War. Including at least one image and provide a description of why you chose that image.
In 1958, the members of the Lee- Jackson Camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans drafted a resolution in which they suggested the Fourteenth Amendment was illegal as it, in their opinion, had not been properly ratified. The justification they used for their resolution was connected to how the amendment was passed after the Civil War. Congress required the states of the former Confederacy to ratify the amendment before it readmitted senators and representatives into Congress from those states. The Supreme Court refused to hear their case questioning the validity of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The SCV was founded in 1896. By the mid-1950s it had so called camps in many states and communities which included male descendants, not merely sons, of Confederate soldiers. The organization was one of many heritage groups that preserved historic sites and records, commemorated the dead, and encouraged reverence for the past. The defeat of the Confederacy, the abolition of slavery, and the enforcement of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth amendments and the Civil Rights laws of the 1860s changed the culture of the old South.
Many of the heritage organizations like the SCV reacted with hostility when the Supreme Court relied on the Fourteenth Amendment to strike at the heart of the states' historic right to regulate their domestic affairs, including public education and race relations. The 1958 SCV resolution was a reaction to the Supreme Court landmark decision in Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas in which segregation was found to be unconstitutional.
USI.1, USI.9, USII.1, USII.8, USII.9, VUS.1, VUS.7, VUS.14
Preview Activities
Scan It: Scan the document. What words or phrases stand out to you?
Post Activities
Be the Journalist: You are writing a story about the SCV resolution for a current newspaper. What information would you need to write your story? Who might you interview? Why? Explain.
Current Connections: Organizations like the SCV have been vocal about recent events, especially events which occurred during the summer of 2020. Why do you think they have become more vocal? How have their opinions shaped current discussions about civil rights?
On May 17, 1954, after nearly two decades of legal challenges against racial segregation in public schools and higher education, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas that school segregation was unconstitutional. Their decision paved the way for desegregation of educational institutions. Prior to Brown v. Board of Education decision, legal segregation had existed under the "separate but equal" doctrine. However, the separate educational facilities and opportunities the Southern states offered to Black Americans were inferior, not equal, to those designed for white Americans. In 1956, Virginia's General Assembly adopted a policy of Massive Resistance, using the law and courts to obstruct desegregation and to not comply with changes which were being made nationwide in response to Brown v. Board of Education.
Virginians came down on both sides of the issue which was reflected in the policies of coutnies and cities across the Commonwealth. This petition written by the citizens of Halifax County is just one example of the strong sentiment many Virginians had against integration.
USII.1, USII.9, CE.1, VUS.1, VUS.8, VUS.13, GOVT.1, GOVT.3, GOVT.10
Preview Activity
Scan It: Scan the document. What words or phrases stand out to you?
Post Activities
Another Perspective: Imagine that this petition had been printed as a letter to the editor, or made public in some other way. What might have been the response?
Food For Thought: The petition was written the year before the Brown v. Board of Education decision. How might have the petition been different, if it had been written after the Supreme Court declared segregation unconstitutional.
Preview Activity
Look At It: Look at the image. Based on clothing and posture, what can you infer about the subject of the image?
Post Activities
Artistic Exploration: Look at the portrait of Byrd, the colors the artist used, and the background. Briefly describe Byrd's facial expressions, posture, and setting. From the portrait, what can you conclude about Byrd the man and Byrd the politician?
Political Plans: You are a member of a group who opposed Byrd’s policies and those of the Byrd Organization. How would you approach the issues? What would you do?