Audio
Oral History Interview with Robert Carter
Transcript
Interviewer: Brown v. Board Oral History Collection, Supreme Court case interviews. Interviewee: Judge Carter; Interviewer: [unintelligible 00:21] with the National Park Service. Interview conducted in the chambers of Judge Carter in Manhattan, New York, on August 7, 2001. These interviews are made possible through the Brown v. Board Oral History Research Project funded by the National Park Service for the Summer of 2001 as part of the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site Oral History Project. Judge Carter, what is your full name? Interviewee: Robert Lee Carter. Interviewer: And where were you born? Interviewee: I was born in Florida, in Kareyville, F-Florida. Interviewer: What part of Florida? Interviewee: Kareyville. Interviewer: Kareyville? Interviewee: Part of the Panhandle. Interviewer: How do you spell that? Interviewee: K—K-A-R-E-Y-V-I-L-L-E. Interviewer: What year—what’s your birthdate? Interviewee: 1972. Interviewer: And what were your parents’ names—your parents’ names? Interviewee: My father’s name was Robert, and my mother’s name was Annie. Interviewer: [Unintelligible 01:26] Interviewee: [Unintelligible 01:27] Interviewer: Were they also from the Panhandle of Florida? Interviewee: No. Well, they were from, uh, um—both of ’em was from North-North Carolina. Um, my—I was—my mother was there because my-my family—um, I mean, at least my father, had moved to, uh, New Jersey, and my mother was only there for—waiting-waiting [unintelligible 01:54] Interviewer: Okay. Interviewee: - so that I was, uh—I think I was there about six weeks [crosstalk 02:00] Interviewer: And then went to New Jersey? Interviewee: Yeah. Interviewer: Okay. So your father and mother left North Carolina, went to Florida, and your father went to New Jersey. Interviewee: Mm-hmm. Interviewer: Did he go there for work? Interviewee: Yes. Interviewer: Uh, what kinda work did your father do? Interviewee: I really don’t—he was in a factory, uh—some-some factory [unintelligible 02:17] Southerners were leaving— Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: - this was—we went in the early mi-migration north [unintelligible 02:23], and so he went and worked in a factory. I don’t know too much about, uh, my father. I didn’t have, uh, the opportunity to see much of him. He died when I was a year old. Interviewer: I see. And did your mother work? Interviewee: Yes. Interviewer: What kinda work did she do? Interviewee: My mother—after my father died, my mother was left with about eight children. Interviewer: Mmm. Interviewee: Um, and she hadn’t worked until then, up until that time, and so she had—she—in order to take care of us and raise us, she la—she got herself together for—I believe she was a laundress. She-she washed [unintelligible 03:04] Interviewer: What part of, uh, New Jersey did you grow up in? Interviewee: I was, uh, in Newark and East Orange, New Jersey. Interviewer: And so you started school in New Jersey? Interviewee: Correct. Interviewer: Uh, what school did you go to? Interviewee: [Laughter] I—no, I— Interviewer: What school system? What s—what school system? Interviewee: I went to—my first school in New Jersey was, uh—I think was Bernard Street Elementary School. Interviewer: And was it— Interviewee: And I went there for, I believe, about the sixth grade, and then-then my folks moved. My-my mother was, uh, movin’ to a better neighborhood, and I went to a school called, uh, Franklin High [unintelligible 03:43] Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: - Franklin S-s—uh, School. And then I, when I graduated, went to Bradford High School. Interviewer: Mm-hmm. S— Interviewee: And then we moved to East Orange, and I went to East Orange High School and graduated from East Orange High School. Interviewer: Okay. Um, did your parents have the opportunity, uh, to pursue their education while they were in the South? Interviewee: No. Um, my-my mo—my mother was not, uh—my mother wasn’t a formally educated woman, but she was a-she was a, uh—she was a very intelligent woman. Interviewer: Did your parents stress education growin’ up—the importance of education? Interviewee: Well, all I can say about that is that, you know, you’re talkin’ my parents. I only—I had one parent—for me it was one parent. Interviewer: Your mother. Interviewee: - one parent, my mother, definitely stressed it with me. Interviewer: Okay. Would you say that in general, uh, during those years, uh, many of the blacks that had not had the opportunity to go to school because of the need to work or, you know, the opportunities not being there, uh, were placin’ very high emphasis on education for their children, that it was something extremely important— Interviewee: I—you know, I-I-I can’t—uh, I can’t— Interviewer: - in general? Interviewee: - uh, I can’t make that kind generalize. I can’t, uh, I can’t say that I certainly know that it was one of the high priorities with my mother, but you must recall, I was born in 1917. That was roughly—uh, a little over a half a century after the close of the Civil War. Interviewer: Right. Interviewee: Um, and, um, that was—you know, coming North, and the reason that my family moved North was to—with-with the hope of a better life. Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Did you have opportunities to visit that part of your family that still lived in the South? Interviewee: No, I d—I-I’ve never been to Kareyville, and I-I know nothin’-nothing [unintelligible 05:49] In fact, [unintelligible 05:50] I didn’t even know where it was. I—Kareyville meant nothing to me because [unintelligible 05:56] I was just there, but I was, uh, going to New Orleans from, uh, Jacksonville one day with a friend of mine, and we were on a plane flying from Jacksonville into New Orleans, and a friend of mine said, “Bob, we just passed over Pensacola. That’s where you were born.” [Unintelligible 06:16] That’s not true. I saw it, I guess, when I was-was, uh, a baby, but I-I can’t remember—six weeks-six weeks old baby. I can’t remember. Interviewer: Does your family still have relatives in North Carolina—your-your mother? Interviewee: My problem was that, as you know, I’ve had no—most of my-my mother’s family, um, came North, and then my-my aunt, and so most of ’em-most of them came-came outside of the South. Um, I’ve had no, uh, contact actually with my father’s family, and I, you know, I-I’ve had no, uh, in—no interest, and all of a sudden, when it’s late, and my mother’s gone, and, uh, my older sisters are gone— Interviewer: [Unintelligible 07:18] Interviewee: - and now I [unintelligible 07:20] I’m very curious about, uh, my father because, you know [unintelligible 07:27] Interviewer: I understand. Interviewee: [Crosstalk 07:30] hard for me—it’s h-hard for me to find out about it. Interviewer: I was wondering, um—I asked that because I was wondering if you had had any experiences during the formative years with segregation, with that kind of prejudice. Interviewee: Well, now, the—New Jersey, uh, is—New Jersey was very close to the South. I didn’t have to go South to-to experience it. Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: The, uh, uh, theaters in, uh, in Newark w-was—were segregated for [unintelligible 08:12] they came—they stopped being segregated earlier than-than E—in East Orange. East Orange stayed segregated— Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: - for a long time. Um, I—the high school I went to was, uh—it had—uh, East Orange High School had Blacks and-and whites, but the Blacks were not—were really not wanted in the school. Uh, in East Orange—the parts of Jersey during that period of time was—it was like the South. Interviewer: I see. Interviewee: And even though there was not the rigid segregation, the theaters were, um, segregated. But, uh, you know, it wasn’t separate-separate, uh, towns and things like that. Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: The attitude was just as bad. Interviewer: Uh-huh. Did that attitude have any impact on the education that was received by students in New Jersey during your years in school? Interviewee: Well, um, two things happened, a-and when I was in Newark, my—as I came up in school, I-I had a, uh—some of the teachers were very, very nice, and others—I had another teacher who was, um, you know—t-t-treated me badly because of-of, uh—because of race, but my—and some of them felt, you know, I-I showed some intellectual gifts, and some of them were very interested in pushing me. Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: But, uh, my eighth-grade teacher, when I told her that I was going to Barringer High School and taking-taking the classical course for, uh—’cause I wanted to go to college, she was outraged. She said she thought I should go to vocational school. Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: And, uh— Interviewer: Was this a white teacher? Interviewee: Oh, please. Of course it was a white teacher. As-as a matter of fact, I’m in school, and the—and this is the period of time I’m in school s—it’s in the early ’30s. I think there were very few, uh, uh, Black teachers in-in-in the public school system in New Jersey— Interviewer: [Crosstalk 10:28] Interviewee: - in, uh—a-at that period of time—uh, maybe one or two, but I d—I never saw any Black teacher— Interviewer: Yeah. Interviewee: - um, in the-in the public school system. And I really—fortunately for me, I didn’t realize the—I didn’t realize the implications of this until I was getting my master’s degree from Columbia— Interviewer: Yeah. Interviewee: - and, uh, I had a similar situation with my advisor and it all— Interviewer: At Columbia? Interviewee: - it all came out to light, I realized— Interviewer: Mmm. Interviewee: - what this woman was, but she was a-she was a racist, but it was—fortunately [unintelligible 11:03] about 10 years later, so it had no impact on me— Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: - when she that. Interviewer: What was it that the person at Columbia said? Interviewee: I was, uh—he was an advisor of mine, and, um—on the dissertation that I was writing, and he [unintelligible 11:22] I was the first Black, uh, person—he was from Alabama, an authority on Constitutional law, and we definitely had different, uh, ideas [unintelligible 11:32] our views. Um, and he was—kept, um, you know, picking at my this and criticizing this, that, and the other. And, uh, and I would challenge him about it all the time. So finally-finally-finally, when came our interview, and he said, “You’re very persistent,” and he said, “I’m gonna approve this,” and he said, “Now, I hope you don’t think that because I’m from Alabama that I was prejudiced against you.” He said somethin’ [unintelligible 12:06] and I said, “Of course not,” but of course that made me know he did. Interviewer: [Laughter] Interviewee: And I went back—I was standin’ in International House— Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: - and I went back-and I went back to my room, and I said, “I’ll be doggone.” Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: “Pro-Professor Dowling is a racist, and so was Miss-Miss [unintelligible 12:22].” Interviewer: Hmm. Interviewee: All of a sudden I had—that was a light in my head. Interviewer: Right. Interviewee: But I really hadn’t-hadn’t thought about it— Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: - prior. Interviewer: But you-but you did have teachers that encouraged you? Interviewee: Oh, yeah. Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: ’Cause, you know, that-that was the period of time that they skipped you, and so I graduated from, uh, high school when I was 16. Interviewer: Wow. Interviewee: And they, uh, they pushed you along. They don’t do that anymore. Um. Interviewer: With your mother being a single parent and with a number of brothers and sisters, were you forced to work while you were in school? Did you have to work after school— Interviewee: Oh, no, I— Interviewer: - or were you fortunate enough to be able to concentrate on your studies? Interviewee: I—the three youngest of us were concentrating on school. Interviewer: Okay. Interviewee: No, we didn’t have-we didn’t have to work [unintelligible 13:10] When I went to college, I of course got a job, and, uh, and so forth, in-in the summer, but no. Interviewer: Had you already decided what you wanted to do with your further education by the time you graduated from high school? Interviewee: No, no. All-all I knew was I couldn’t do a doggone thing with my-with my hands. I’d best try to-try to train my brain or I’d be lost. Interviewer: [Laughter] Interviewee: That-that I did know, but what I was gonna do with it I didn’t know. Interviewer: So when you went to, uh—got your undergraduate degree, it was a general—more of a general degree. You weren’t already focusing on law? Interviewee: Uh, no, I concentrated, you know, on things I liked. I concentrated on political science and, uh, history, uh, and, uh—but I-I had no idea that there—as a matter of fact, I thought that I was going to, uh, get a master’s in political science and teach, and as it happened, uh, they were recruiting for Howard University Law School, and, uh, they offered me a scholarship for law. And that-that, uh—I went to law. Interviewer: So you went to Howard? Interviewee: S—yeah. And that was—the scholarship-scholarship did it. That w—that made up my mind. Interviewer: So y-you got your undergraduate degree— Interviewee: At-at Lincoln University. Interviewer: Lincoln University in political science? Interviewee: Yeah. I—you know, that was my major, and— Interviewer: Yes, your major. Interviewee: - and I got-I got an A.B.— Interviewer: Mm-hmm, with a major. Interviewee: My-my major was in-in political science, and then I went to, uh—I got, uh, a, uh, uh, scholarship, and I went to Howard; finished Howard, uh, and then I got a Rosenwald Fellowship—finished Howard, and then I started to do graduate work at, uh, at Columbia, and I chose Columbia— Interviewer: Ah. Interviewee: - to do my graduate work, so I got a master’s in law at Columbia. Interviewer: Okay. And what did you do after graduation from Columbia? Interviewee: I went in the Army. Interviewer: And— Interviewee: I w—I was drafted. This was in—I finished-finished in 1941. I think it was—I finished my work in—well, let’s say in June, and, uh, you know, we were at war with Japan in December, and that—we were also—they were-they were drafting people— Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: - [unintelligible 15:34] probably too young to know that, but they were drafting people in the Army when—going in the Army for a few years— Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: - but in August, I think I was, uh, I was drafted [unintelligible 15:48] preparing-preparing for the war. Interviewer: And went to the Pacific. Interviewee: Me? Interviewer: Yes. Where’d you go after? Interviewee: I—and, um, I didn’t leave the United States. Interviewer: The whole time? Interviewee: The whole time. Interviewer: And so after the war was over, did you begin your law career at that time? Interviewee: Mm-hmm. After the war was over, or after I fin—uh, after I finished my work in-in the Army, and the war was over, I—uh, Bill Hastie—do you know who is? Interviewer: I’ve heard of him. Interviewee: Well, he was, uh, the dean of, uh, Howard Law School. Uh, he and Thurgood Marshall were-were, uh, colleagues, and Thurgood was looking for someone, and he [unintelligible 16:39] recommended me, and I went over and had an interview, uh, with, uh, Thurgood, and he hired me. So, uh, my job after that—and I became a, uh, on the legal staff of the NAACP. Interviewer: Okay. Let me go back. Uh, was the reason that Hastings contacted you—was it through your having gone to Howard as a student? Interviewee: Well— Interviewer: You knew him from [crosswalk 17:04] Interviewee: Well, he knew me, I guess. I think that that’s-that’s—well, yeah, I guess so. Interviewer: Now, Thurgood was a student of Howard, but he was in New York. Is that correct? Interviewee: Thurgood Marshall was in the NAACP. He was the chief counsel for the NAACP at the time, and-and then [unintelligible 17:25] NAACP national office was located in Manhattan, and, uh, he had begun—this was in 19—oh, boy—about 1944, and he had begun to, uh, expand the staff. And this was—they started to-to build on the staff [unintelligible 17:52] Interviewer: Did you know Houston when you were at, uh, Howard? Interviewee: No, I didn’t. Interviewer: [Crosstalk 17:58] Interviewee: And I knew of him because Houston was, uh—what Houston had done with—at Howard was to make Howard the school that was trainin’ people like Thurgood Marshall and-and so forth to, uh, go into civil rights and-and fight these cases. Interviewer: Would it be correct to say that Houston, uh, helped to shape Thurgood Marshall, especially in terms of tackling segregation? Interviewee: He taught Thurgood Marshall. He had a, you know, direct impact on, uh, direct impact on Thurgood and everyone else. He set up the whole business of, uh—Houston’s thesis was that the-the, uh, way that-that we were going to—Blacks were going to eliminate discrimination [unintelligible 18:52] under the Constitution was-under the Constitution was utilizing it [unintelligible 19:01] at the time was [unintelligible 19:05] that they train these lawyers to be people that go out in-in the community and bring test cases— Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: - testing [unintelligible 19:16] segregation, and they should be-and they should be trained to do that. And that’s what-that’s what he used-he used Howard for. Interviewer: Mm-hmm. With the NAACP, because of their political, uh, activism and lobbying and so on, um, they formed a, um, sister organization that was able—more-more able to raise funds, and that was the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Is that correct? Interviewee: The— Interviewer: Was, uh, Thurgood Marshall’s legal work done directly with the NAACP or with the Legal Fund? Interviewee: Well, you know, you’re-you’re getting a—you’re gettin’ very complicated. The NAACP and the Legal Defense Fund were one and the same for a long time, until roughly about 1956— Interviewer: Okay, and then there was more of a difference between the two, but initially— Interviewee: And, uh, at that point, the, uh, the, uh, the executive secretary of the, uh, NAACP was the secretary of the Legal Defense Fund. Uh, Thurgood was special counsel for the NAACP and director of the Legal Defense Fund. I was assistant special counsel for the NAACP and assistant counsel for the-for the Fund. Interviewer: Okay. Interviewee: We got-we got a small amount of our-of our salary from the-from the NAACP, which was to enable us to testify before Congress and-and support anti-lynching legislation and so forth. Bulk of our salary came from the Legal-Legal Defense Fund, but the Legal Defense Fund was, as you, uh, indicated—uh, contribution—individual contribution, corporate contributions were tax deductible. Uh, they, uh—and when—after the Brown case was decided, there was a whole lot of agitation, uh, and, uh—about this and about the whole business, and so Thurgood got concerned, and what he did—no-none of the board, members of the board of the NAACP were-were members of the board of the Fund, and so he wanted to separate them so we wouldn’t have any problems. And so, uh, it was-it was a separate organization at that—that was [unintelligible 22:06] but it turned out that, uh, that [intelligible 22:12] separation wasn’t ne—wasn’t necessary because about five years later, I formed the Special Contribution Fund, which was the-the same thing for the NAACP, so-so that it was—he was worried about it—he worried about it, and so he split the two organizations, but it wasn’t really necessary. Interviewer: Walter White was the president of the NAACP at that time. Is that correct? Interviewee: [Crosstalk 22:36] No, I don’t think so. No. I think, uh, I think when this occurred Walter had probably died. Interviewer: When was that committee started [unintelligible 22:51] Interviewee: Well, I started it in-in ’44, I guess. Uh, I don’t know. Walter had gone—was on leave at one point— Interviewer: I see. Interviewee: - and then he came back, but [unintelligible 23:05] that was, but it switched between [unintelligible 23:09] and Walter White. Interviewer: Uh-huh. With the NAACP, were the cases that developed that challenged segregation—were those cases a result of looking at what cases would be the best challenges, or were they w—a result of the circumstances that were going on in local communities? In other words, did you actu— Interviewee: I understand what-I understand what you’re sayin’. What-what happened was that, uh, we would decide at the national office [unintelligible 23:50] point had been decided with, uh, with, uh, Houston. And Houston was—for a short period of time was the chief counsel of the NAACP, and then he was succeeded by Thurgood. But they—what had been decided was that they were going to fight in education to eliminate segregation and discrimination in education. And first the theory was to go with the law school, but then Houston decided to start at the-at the upper level, and his—what he decided he wanted to do, his theory, was that he would make the separate but equal doctrine—segregation was-was authorized under what’s called the separate but equal doctrine, that is, if you had separate Black school, it had to be equal to the white school, which of course was a joke, but anyway—I mean, uh, that was the thesis. Uh, so what Houston said, deciding what to do, was to bring law suits in all these segregated states—bring law suits for law, journalism, medicine, and so forth where they had a-a state university but no facility for Blacks. And this he—his feeling was that it would become so burdensome if they had to establish a medical school for Blacks, a journalism school [unintelligible 25:33]] a law school for Blacks that what would happen was that the white school would decide that they would-would [unintelligible 25:41] Uh, and he brought a couple of, uh, cases, uh, and [unintelligible 25:48] one was a case in Missouri that went to the Supreme Court. Um, when—you know, I came along, and others, and got a little—it was, uh—it was taking too long [unintelligible 26:04] people get restless, and so the theory then was to attack segregation— Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: - per se [unintelligible 26:16] Interviewer: Right. Now, at the point when they decided they would attack segregation, uh, were they continuing to go out and look for local situations where they could do that, or were the NAACP local chapters sending things to the national [crosstalk 26:36] Interviewee: Well, what would happen is that the national office would indicate that this is what we’re gonna do and support, um, and then our local—state and local chapters, if they found a situation, and people would be willing to-to contest it, that’s how-that’s how the cases came about. [Crosstalk 27:00] Interviewer: Which— Interviewee: [Crosstalk 27:02] Interviewer: [Unintelligible 27:02] Interviewee: No, [unintelligible 27:04] I-I think this is, uh—you’re-you’re givin’—I didn’t know I was gonna be givin’ the history of the NAACP. I thought we were talkin’ about something else. Interviewer: Well, we’re leading to it because that’s— Interviewee: Oh, that’s good. Interviewer: - it’s-it’s a— Interviewee: It’s a long way. Interviewer: It’s im—it’s important for the context because a lotta the things that— Interviewee: Well— Interviewer: - have been questioned have been because people haven’t really been able to understand the context. Interviewee: You have to know—you have to know the context first. Interviewer: Yes. What of the—which of the cases did you work with directly? Interviewee: [Crosstalk 27:32] Interviewer: The bubble cases before coming to the Supreme Court—which of the cases—uh, I know you had mentioned earlier about Kansas. Interviewee: Um, I-I re—uh, I worked with all the-all the state cases. I guess I didn’t have a—I didn’t work with [unintelligible 27:45] for the cases in Delaware. Interviewer: The Delaware case. With the—which of the cases, uh, was actually the first one that you did— Interviewee: Uh. Interviewer: - of the-of the state cases? Which one [unintelligible 28:00] in terms of— Interviewee: [Crosstalk 28:02] Interviewer: - preparing—you know, getting the petitioners signed and-and developing, you know, that local case, ’cause I understand they were very close in time together. Interviewee: South Carolina. Interviewer: South Carolina. Interviewee: And I-I—South Carolina case, uh, and then, uh [crosstalk 28:21] Interviewer: You worked directly with— Interviewee: - Carolina. Interviewer: - with Boulware there? Interviewee: What? Interviewer: You worked with Boulware in South Carolina? Interviewee: Yeah. Boulware was-was a part of that, yes. Interviewer: Now, e—w—in that case, uh, that went to the court in Charleston, I understand that Waring, uh, wrote the dissenting, uh, point of view. Waring had taken a big risk, hadn’t he, in-in, uh, making the decision to [unintelligible 28:50] Interviewee: Well, I’m-I’m not sure what, uh—he was a, uh—I think he was a, uh—you know, a man that had s-some stature as a white person there. He was—certainly what he did is he-he took on the fact that he was against his class, and he took on the fact that he was gonna be, uh, disapproved of by the white community. Uh, but, uh, that—I’m not-I’m not sure if he took—that he was any physical risk [unintelligible 29:31] Interviewer: Yes, I understand that he left the state because there some [unintelligible 29:34] Interviewee: Well, he—after a while, he did leave. He married the—his wife was someone from I think Michigan, and they-they—after a while they left, uh, South Carolina. Interviewer: Is there anything about the South Carolina case that you think is important for people to understand in that—with that-with that particular case in particular? Is there anything—’cause I know the cases were different—you know, what was being asked for and what the situation was. Ultimately, it was integration, uh, desegregation, but— Interviewee: Well, the, uh, the thing about South Carolina, I think, more so than, um, Kansas was that, uh, the, uh, parents that went—that brought the case had to—they had to live with themselves, and had—they were subject to a lot of economic pressure. And as a matter of fact, uh, before we took the case, I met with, uh, with all of them in a-in a church in South Carolina, explained to them, uh, what we were doing, that we were gonna fight segregation, and that I-I knew that, you know, we were [unintelligible 30:56] we would come in and out, but they had to take all the pressure. And I knew it was gonna be relentless pressure on them and maybe economic [unintelligible 31:06] What I wanted them to understand was that they could—if they didn’t feel they-they could take that kinda pressure, that they should bow out, and we would un—we would understand. Interviewer: [Unintelligible 31:21] Interviewee: And what was—what shocked me about it was that so few people took the opportunity to bow out. Interviewer: And a lot of them did suffer, you know [crosstalk 31:30] Interviewee: I-I-I can’t say that. I wasn’t—I’m not that—you know, I wasn’t that close to [crosstalk 31:35] Interviewer: Yeah. We that opportunity to-to interview a lotta their children. Interviewee: They certainly-they certainly-they certainly were exposing themselves to— Interviewer: W-which of the cases was the next one that was worked on after South Carolina? Interviewee: Kansas. Interviewer: And what was particularly significant about, uh, the [unintelligible 31:56] Kansas for the court cases? Interviewee: Well, the only—the thing that was significant in Kan-Kansas—Topeka, Kansas—was the fact that we had a three-judge court, and the decision of the court—it was of-it was of course maintaining segregation, but the decision was in fact that if this—if we were not bound by the Supreme Court, uh, the Supreme Court, uh, precedent [unintelligible 32:29] segregation was wrong. That was what the Kansas-Kansas judges said [unintelligible 32:36] Interviewer: Okay, so they did make that statement even though they were forcing— Interviewee: Well, you know, not-not-not [unintelligible 32:41] don’t take this as a quote, but— Interviewer: No, I underst—I understand. Interviewee: - but that was the essence—that was the essence of it, but they felt that-that segregation was wrong, but they would [unintelligible 32:50] gonna be able to [unintelligible 32:51] Interviewer: So was Virginia the next state? Interviewee: Yes. Interviewer: And was there anything significant about the Virginia case that made it stand out? Interviewee: A lot. Now, in terms of the trial, what made Virginia stand out was the fact that after the case was decided—the Brown case was decided in, uh, ’54 and ’55—what they did was to try to, uh, uh, evade the decision, and they sought to, uh, close down the Black schools and send all the-all the—close down the public schools, which meant closin’ down the Black schools, and send all the white children to a private school and finance that, and then of course we had to fight that. Interviewer: And I know this was quite a few years that that lasted [unintelligible 33:44] Interviewee: Well, uh, I—it was, uh—I argued the case-the case at the Supreme Court that knocked it out, uh, after, but I don’t remem—I don’t-I don’t remember the year. It was—I think it was in the ’50s, but I’m not sure. Interviewer: Who were the local lawyers that you worked with in Virginia? Interviewee: Uh, Spottswood Robinson and Oliver Hill. Interviewer: And Kansas? Interviewee: The Scotts. Interviewer: Was it George and John? Interviewee: Now, John I remember. Um, I don’t know [unintelligible 24:19] there the two Scott brothers, but John was the one who I, uh—who probably had more to do with it. Interviewer: Did you work directly with the Bolling v. Sharpe case in Washington? Interviewee: No. Well, what we did in terms of that case was, uh, that—but at that point all the cases were all together—we-we, uh, wrote the brief for all of them in New York-in New York City. Interviewer: Now, that was the only case that was, uh, challenging segregation based on the Fifth Amendment as opposed to the Fourteenth. Interviewee: Mm-hmm. Interviewer: That had somethin’ to do because of the status of, uh, residents of the District of Columbia. Is that correct? Interviewee: The Fourteenth Amendment applies to the states, and so Kansas, Virginia, Delaware, were Fourteenth Amendment cases—equal protection. The District of Columbia is not a state. It’s under the feder-federal, and so therefore it was the due process clause of the Constitution instead. But the due process clause of, uh, of the Constitution, um, incorporates—or the difference is that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [unintelligible 35:52] incorporates the due process clause as well. Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: So that’s what—that’s different too. Interviewer: What—was there a different strategy at the Supreme Court than had been used with the local cases? Interviewee: [Crosstalk 36:09] Interviewer: Was there anything different [unintelligible 26:10] Interviewee: No. Interviewer: Was the, um, case at the Supreme Court, uh, dealing at all differently with the issue of constitutionality than local cases had? Interviewee: What do you mean by that? I don’t-I don’t understand what you [unintelligible 36:31] Interviewer: Oh, the readin’ I’ve done had suggested that there was a shift, uh, in the focus of the case, uh, that while the issue was still segregation of schools, uh, that what made it a little—what made it a-a-a unique case, or one of the great cases, in the history of the Supreme Court was the fact that there was not just the issue of segregation but a challenge to, um, Plessy vers-versus Ferguson and that it went to the core of the interpretation of the Constitution. Interviewee: No. I think that you got a little confused. I think what you—what you’re confused about is the fact that [clears throat] the cases that come up—in all the state cases, I think that part of the argument [unintelligible 37:33] was that the facilities were not equal and that segregation was unconstitutional, but also that the facilities were not equal, and that even if the facilities—the theory is even if you—even if Plessy v. Ferguson is the law, uh, these cases—that it hasn’t been fulfilled. When we went to the Supreme Court, we conceded for the purposes of that that the facilities were equal and s—and argued that segregation was unconstitutional. Interviewer: And was it the case that—now, that-that process happened in stages. Were there— Interviewee: What-what do you mean by that? Interviewer: Um [sighs], I understand that there was a point when, um, you were presented with a set of questions, you know, having, you know, presented your case. Interviewee: Yeah, but the—but, please, the questions [unintelligible 38:42] have to do with that. The questions that you’re talking about is that—what we had to do s—the Supreme Court did s—present us with a group of questions, and those questions had to do with what the framers of the Constit—of the Fourteenth Amendment, what was their intent on the issue of segregation. And that’s what we had to—that’s what they wanted us to focus on. We—and the fi-final analysis was that that made no difference anyway. Interviewer: And was the primary purpo—person arguing for the defense, uh, John Davis? Interviewee: Yes. Interviewer: What do you, uh— Interviewee: [Crosstalk 39:26] the Supreme Court, yes. Interviewer: Yes. Interviewee: Yes. Interviewee: Um, what was his argument? Interviewee: Well, I don’t remember the—please, I [unintelligible 39:33] Um, his argument was-his argument was, uh, was [unintelligible 39:40] argument. It was ridiculous— Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: - in the final analysis. He was attempting to-to-to show that segregation was constitutional. I-I don’t [unintelligible 39:49] I don’t recall his argument. Interviewer: That was in essence what he was saying [unintelligible 39:52] Interviewee: [Crosstalk 39:53] you know, make some [unintelligible 39:54] Interviewer: So finally the Supreme Court asked if, uh, segregation was ruled unconstitutional—did they not ask the, uh, the NAACP lawyers what your, uh, recommendations would be on how to [unintelligible 40:17]? Was that also [unintelligible 40:19] Interviewee: What they did was that they came down with the decision ruling that segregation was unconstitutional, um, in the-in the sc—public schools, and that-that ruling came down, I think it was, uh, May 17, 1954, and they set the case down for re-argument on remedy. That’s how [unintelligible 40:51] So we had-we had to go back up there the next time, and I guess it was about a year later— Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: - to, um, [unintelligible 41:02] what was gonna happen [unintelligible 41:04] Interviewer: Did the statement “with all deliberate speed,” uh, send mixed messages to the South in terms of how they would have to respond to this decision? Interviewee: The problem with the-the-the whole business was that it was the first case that I’d known, um, of constitutional vindication where you were not vindicated immediately, and what the Supreme Court tried to do—they tried to soften the blow in the South by gradually telling the South that this—they were gonna have to do so over a period of time, gradually, uh, and “with all deliberate speed.” It wasn’t somethin’ that-that had to be done o—at once. Um, this is in the teeth of how they had used to treat litigants who had won their-their-their-their-their rights, and so they weren’t treating these people as if they were individuals. They were sort of trying to group [unintelligible 42:10] uh, uh, remedy, and, uh, the problem with it—my problem with it—was what’s done is done, uh, the—and I don’t believe that it would’ve made any difference in terms of the—of what went on if they had said, “You have to do this immediately,” I think it would [unintelligible 43:34] those pro-problems, but I think the Supreme Court’s integrity would have had--would have been upheld. Interviewer: Mm-hmm. Interviewee: I think it-I think it, uh—I think that the decision they made was-was, uh, not one that-that would stand scrutiny in terms of, uh, um, uh, [unintelligible 42:58] the integrity of the court. Interviewer: I see. And what was it that the, uh, Legal Defense, uh— Interviewee: [Crosstalk 43:09] Interviewer: - the lawyers of the NAACP—what-what did you at that point, um, determine it was best to do under those circumstances? Interviewee: We of course [unintelligible 43:19] we argued that the-these people, they had declared that their right-that their rights had been violated, and they should be vindicated immediately. That was what I—that’s what we argued. Interviewer: And it was more or less a nonstop fight from that point on through various challenges. The states would try to avoid it, and I understand that [crosstalk 43:46] Interviewee: Well, the, you know, the-the states weren’t doing very much about anything about it, and the Supreme Court didn’t wanna [unintelligible 43:54] I think the next year they had Arkansas—a case in Arkansas. And I don’t think the—the Supreme Court didn’t wanna handle that case for a long time, and then, uh, they got a little restless too because nothing had happened over a period of maybe 10 years, and it—case came up [unintelligible 44:17] Interviewer: How—from the point of view of the lawyers that you worked with at that time, how would you feel they would evaluate the outcome today, not just in the South but more in terms of, uh, how effectively, uh, schools are desegregated [unintelligible 44:38] education [unintelligible 44:39] Blacks would see [crosstalk 44:41] Interviewee: Uh, I-I, you know, I can’t really speak for-for-for anybody other than—anybody else. I think some of them might say things have gone well. I think that-that, uh, it’s been—in terms of, uh, desegregation it’s been-it’s been a failure. Brown has-hasn’t—I think there’s more-more segregated schools today than there were in 1954 when Brown was decided. There’s more dis—there’s more unequal education for Black-Black kids North and South [unintelligible 45:19] well, I think the South has probably done a little better, uh, than when Brown was decided [crosstalk 45:24] Interviewer: Now, I guess-I guess my question— Interviewee: Wait a minute. Let me finish what I was— Interviewer: I’m sorry. Interviewee: Uh, when—since—uh, when Brown was decided—so the—as a school case, I think segregation—I think that, uh, Brown hasn’t done so well. What Brown has done and what makes it a great decision is that it changed the—it changed the race relations in this country because of the fact that what Brown said to Black people was that you are entitled to be equal in this country, and you’re entitled to be free of segregation, and it is not—has nothin’ to do with the good f—goodness a-and religion and so forth of-of the whites. This is your constitutional right, and you therefore have a right to-to be free and equal to all other citizens. And this has changed a dimension of race relations in this country, and that’s [unintelligible 46:24] education, no, it hasn’t done well. Interviewer: With the problem that exists—persists—with education, is it one that you think ultimately will be decided by the law, or is there something else that has to happen for that to be achieved? Interviewee: I, uh, I-I think one of the problems with, uh—that we had—now, this is not my theory, and, uh, and I may stand alone in this. I think that, um, education—educators have not done enough. We w—we —the lawyers have [unintelligible 47:09] this business of-of [unintelligible 47:15] I think that the educators are gonna have to come out with what constitutes equal education. They’re gonna have to phrase some content. Lawyers have talked about [unintelligible 47:31] and it s—it seems to me that educators have to enter into it—into-into this. Um, even in the-in the-in the North now, you—demographically, uh, with, uh, segregated housing and so forth, it’s gonna be very difficult in some of these places to secure integration. Uh, you’re gonna have concen-concentrations of-of Blacks and whites and, you know, Puerto Ricans, and so forth. But what has to occur is that in these various schools—now I think New York City is a joke. The Black schools are woefully—they’re not really teaching the kids [unintelligible 48:29] awful in terms of this, and because there are—what’s happening in the-in the schools—I think this is throughout the country—the power structure [unintelligible 48:44] white community has no-no interest in really doing very much about it. Um, and so there are all these various things [unintelligible 48:56] this, this, and that, and nothin’ happens. Uh, it’s-it’s-it’s a disgrace that—what the status of schools. But I think that—I don’t—I mean, even-even smaller communities where really, uh, integration should[unintelligible 49:13] I don’t think it—it isn’t-isn’t more—it was occurring more successfully in the South until recently with the urbanization of the South [unintelligible 49:23] It’s a problem that people don’t want to-want to resolve. Interviewer: Well, we really appreciate you taking this time. And there are some pieces of information that we were missing, especially context because it’s important to understand something in context [unintelligible 49:50] just as it’s important to understand, uh, as you said, that the case had a very great impact on the country even though it may not have been in the ed—area of education. Thank you very much. Interviewee: [Unintelligible 50:03] [End of Audio]
Description
Brown v. Board Oral History Collection, Supreme Court case interviews. Interviewee: Judge Carter; Interviewer: [unintelligible 00:21] with the National Park Service. Interview conducted in the chambers of Judge Carter in Manhattan, New York, on August 7, 2001. These interviews are made possible through the Brown v. Board Oral History Research Project funded by the National Park Service for the Summer of 2001 as part of the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site Oral History Project.
Date Created
08/07/2001
Copyright and Usage Info