Not even past. And in this way we, as a nation, who we are because of who we were. Hidess not a nation that from its history or hides its history from its history books. And indeed one reason why we can are is, in of who we part, because of who we once were, a nation that divided its own citizens by race. Root and branch Charles Hamilton houston, Thurgood Marshall, and the struggle to a storyegation tells of how two men, two lawyers, take this country from where we were to where they knew one day could be. Thexplores how the moment, brown v. Board of education about. Came brown is not the miracle it is often purported to be. Unanimoushat it was a decision still stands as judicial miracle but the Supreme Courts decision in brown v. Board of education was the result of careful planning and a careful strategy by Charles Hamilton houston and enacted by houston marshall. Od in 1935, walter white, who was secretary of the naacp, and truly an extraordinary character in his right, an extraordinary herican, in his own right, asked Charles Hamilton houston to please devise a strategy by which the naacp could seek to desegregate education and transportation in america. Who was at the time the most famous africanamerican lawyer in American History and the most educated africanamerican lawyer in looked at thery, budget of 10,000 and said, to pick oneou need or the other. Pickedton and white education. Charles hamilton houston was a college, a amherst washington, d. C. Native, colleged from amherst at the age of 19. Served in the army and went on to Harvard Law School and was the first africanamerican to serve on the harvard law review. He earned a doctorate of science from harvard, studied in spain while he was at Harvard Law School and was very famous at this time because he had recently defended a very sensational murder rural virginia. Known by americans across all races and class at the time. He wanted to attack segregation course would be successful. The law of the land at the time ferguson, the 19th Century Supreme Court decision doctrine ofshed the separate but equal and those words never appear in the but the lawbe sure was that so long as states, as government provides separate and equal facilities for africanamericans and for white americans, the constitution is satisfied. Houston could not walk into and seek and ask a District Court judge to overturn separate but equal. Would not work. The District Court judge first of all does not have the secondly to do so and it was the way that individuals lived their lives so the question became how was he going this and id like to briefly read two paragraphs here. Two paragraphs because the legal strategy was so brilliant in its simplicity that be summarized in a very short number of words. A lawyers case is his ship. His wind is the law that he must command. S gifted attorneys sometimes persuade courts to extend existing law but rarely to reverse it. While often heralded as a longstanding jurisprudence, the supreme decision in the cases gathered as brown v. Board of was in fact an extension of the courts earlier decisions. Brown expanded existing law and launched by charles houston 20 years earlier at last unchartered shores. In 1935, however, the wind blew steadily in the opposite direction. Separate but equal schools and constitutionally permissible under the plessy v. Ferguson decision. To challenge plessy would be the mission of a doomed fool so when walter white asked houston to present a plan by which the a sustainedlaunch Legal Campaign to end agregation, houston chartered novel course, to defeat the law of separate but equal he would enforcement of separate but equal. In southern states, he would argue that segregations mandates needed to be met. He would seek to end segregation scourge by arguing for its promise. So here was the strategy. If you as a state say that were segregating our black and white citizens, houston said, thats fine, were not going to challenge that right now. What we will say is that you have these facilities need to be separate and they need to be equal. And they started in the law schools. First houston hires thurgood his favoritewas student at Howard Law School. Graduated valedictorian of his class at howard law theol and came to work for naacp and they went to work on this mission of desegregating the desegregating schools. And they started in the law schools. Why . Judge has gone to law school and the judges do not need to rely so much on an to tell them what separates one law school from another, what makes this law School Better than that law school. And they started in maryland where Thurgood Marshall was born and where Thurgood Marshall wanted to attend law school but could not. Fact, did not apply to the university of maryland law ofool because the University Maryland law school did not accept black students. Now that he was an attorney with the naacp and working with charlie houston, mr. Marshall about that. Ee they filed suit on behalf of a young student, scion oft grad and prominent baltimore family. They filed suit against the of maryland and their case was deemed so hopeless by whitemarylanders and folks paid it no mind in maryland, that no one showed up the case. No one except Thurgood Marshalls father, willie, who it hadave been there if been a hitandrun trial. Simple. Gument was the university of maryland is plessy v. Under ferguson to provide separate but equal law schools. Of marylandty provides the university of maryland for its white students. Schoold provides no law for its black students. They dont have one. So until maryland builds a law school for its black students an equal law school for its black students, maryland its black applicants who are qualified to attend the maryland. Of houston and marshall assured the judge, were not asking you to overturn plessy, were plessy v. To enforce ferguson. You have to make it separate but is no separate school, your honor. And they put on the witness who the simple fact, is there a law for negroes in maryland . Thank you very much. There a law school for white students . Yes, there is. Thank you. The only way to equalize them was to allow the black student into the university of maryland. And until maryland is able to build this law school for its black students. The shock of everyone the trial judge issued his ruling from the bench and said, you right, there is no law school for black students. Thisaw is very clear on point. And therefore, mr. Murray, youre admitted to the of Maryland Law School. The appeals went on and went marshallnd houston and prevailed and Donald Murray graduated from the university of Maryland Law School in three years and had a very long and career in baltimore and other africanamericans the universityto of Maryland Law School after that and keep in mind were 1936. G about 1936 this is is happening. An amazing accomplishment, amazing development. Africanamericans were so it, they thought segregation was going to end in , that charlie houston had to write an editorial in the widely read naacp newspaper, the crisis, he wrote an editorial called too soon because there was so much euphoria in the black community and charlie knew there was a long road ahead. He knew it would be some time before africanamericans would to apply to law schools, colleges, and indeed one day Elementary Schools of their own choosing. Want,said, shout if you but dont shout too soon. He knew that they needed federal precedent. The maryland case was only good law in maryland. They did not go to the Supreme Court of the United States. They needed federal precedent and they found it in missouri a few years later. Lord gaines, another promising theg man, applied to university of Missouri Law School and you see theyre still in law school. He applied to the university of missouri and the university of missouri denied his application saidcount of his race and missouri has a policy where we your tuitionte to at an outofstate school because we dont allow missouri thek citizens to go to university of Missouri Law School. Gaines charles houston and Thurgood Marshall took on lord gaines case. Its way to the Supreme Court of United States. They could finally put their test, saying, to the justices, there is no law for black students, so there is no separate but equal. We dont even reach the question of equality because theres no there,e, theres nothing theres nowhere for them to go. Because this is a personal amendment is a personal right that each individual, each american citizen enjoys, you have to remedy it immediately and the only way to remedy that is to our client, mr. Gaines, to attend the university of Missouri Law School. The justices agreed. They said it is a personal right, the 14th amendment and he be allowed to attend the university of Missouri Law School. Mysterious development, lord gaines disappeared and to one, there is no record, no one, not even his own family knows what happened to him. Are numerous theories about it. Some say he was of course murdered and buried. Others say he went to teach english in mexico. There are a number of rumors knows tobut no one this day but finally the naacp and houston and marshall had precedent that said, if there is no other to, youor them to go have to let them go here. Oklahoma wasnt having that. Oklahoma said we dont care what the Supreme Court of the United States says, we do not allow to attend the university of Oklahoma Law School and that. Houston took up the case of aida lewis, a young, very talented woman, very bright and gifted young woman, took that case back to the Supreme Court. By now were up to 1948 and the Supreme Court is getting irritated. The Washington Post described it as a hazing. Inflictedhe justices a hazing upon the counsel, the lawyers for the university of asking why does this woman have to come all the way school go to this law when we issued this opinion 10 years ago . You, you have to let her go and youre back here saying no . The justices decided you need to the university of oklahoma. Heres what oklahoma did. They allowed her into the classroom. She had to sit in the back of the class beneath a huge banner colored student section. She had to eat at a table that said,ly for her that colored dining section and in the library there was only one table she could sit at. There was a colored student section in the library. Noxious but it was stepping exactly into i dont want to say trap but it was the trap laid by houston and now they coulde move into the intangibles. Any could say, ok, we have individual, an adult, in the classroom. She can hear every word said by the professor. She can take all the notes she wants to take but shes under banner, literally this banner, a badge, saying that she otherferent than the students. They decide now its time to wind andt into the attack plessy v. Ferguson and be equal. Te cannot they get their case with an plan, george 68yearold man, already had a masters degree, wanted a ph. D. He was at the university of oklahoma. A 68yearold man in a classroom 20, 21yearold students and he went to School Every Day suit and he has to sit there and he calls it humiliating to sit beneath this eat at this one table at this specified time he was allowed to eat. Andaid its humiliating its hard for me to do my work. That case along with another of texas, those cases trundled forth to the supreme 1950, theon april 4, anniversary is coming up on justices1950, the heard oral arguments and this time Thurgood Marshall asked the justices to overturn plessy. He said separate cannot be equal. The justices unanimously said, youre right, mr. Sweat should attend theto university of texas. Mr. Mccorn, university of oklahoma, take down that banner that you have sitting above this man, colored student section, down. Hat banner that offends the constitution but mr. Marshall we decline to reach the question of overturning plessy v. Ferguson. Were not a going to overturn it and they dont say just yet but marshall noted after the came down, he said this is a decision replete with road marks. Was 1950. The path had been set. The foundation had been set and knew it. Texasas, in 1950, the legislature appropriated 3 million to build a law school for black students because the attorney general of texas said once they defeat segregation in graduate schools, theyre coming for Elementary Schools. Thurgood marshall went to saidrsity of texas and this is no secret. This is what i have been trying to do all this time. Was a huge rally, an integrated rally and when marshall finished speaking everyone clapped and was very excited and the white student a student leader got up and took the microphone and thanked mr. Marshall for coming have a big announcement to make, today weve signed the papers and its an naacp we now have chapter at our White University of texas and the whole place went crazy and no one could hear what the young man said after that. It was no secret that they were segregation. Ck they just did it slowly and took some time and by the time they got to 1950 they had the precedent because what we have now, we have an adult sitting in the classroom. How can a state, a state is not allowed to sit an adult in a banner thatneath a says colored student section to sittate is allowed thousands of children in a fording across the street colored children. You cant have both. The constitution cannot allow both. No logical document can allow both. So the court had been painted into a corner at this point. Took time. It took years. It took plaintiffs putting their livelihood on the line to get there but finally after 1950 going into brown, they had the issue square before them. If youre not allowed to have man in the same classroom but he cant be set off because of his race, how can of childrenousands to be set off in different race. Ngs because of their corner. T was in the to close, id like to leave you thought that i was left with after spending four year and writing root and branch. And that is that over the past so weve heard a great deal about activist judges. The phrase has been used so often by the right and the left its almost point bereft of meaning. At this point, an activist judge whose opinions you happen not to like. And i really meant on some occasions the courts of our nations history have been judges. By activist on every occasion, however, single time, the course of our nations history has been activist citizens. And often these citizens are activist lawyers. 35 of the 55 Founding Fathers activist lawyers who gathered with their fellow atizens and were so enraged the treatment they received that they formed a new nation. These activist citizens like aida lewiss, like sepriol, like george mccorn. Activist citizens who helped make this country great because they believed in their country believed their country in them and they joined with Charles Hamilton houston and Thurgood Marshall and together they defeated staggering odds so sometimes when i hear this talk about activist judges, i think giving the judges a little too much credit. Structurural beauty of the that houston and marshall put into place was its its feignedy, patience. They chipped away at the doctrine of separate but equal asking only that the doctor of separate but equal be because they knew it couldnt. They knew that separate could equal. E and history, time and justice them right. Theres an airport now in named after Thurgood Marshall and there are a number after charlesed hamilton houston, but the true of their labor are the lives that you and i are able to each day because each day that we are able to gather as we here this evening, each day that we can come under one roof our race, of regardless of our gender, religion, eachur one of those days is both a celebration of the outstanding work and the won by theset and two great americans. Thank you. [applause] whos going to take up 40 acres and a mule . Up . Ake they took up the clause to desegregate. Theres always a bit of among folk that, oh, dont bring that up, youll get that. Butyou think, well, ok, there is efforts to bring forth action. I followed one case where about five years ago, a local lawyer had taken a d. N. A. Of blacks of long lineage in the thatry and filed a case on merit. So how do you see that discussion legally . Whenever istand bring it up someone says to me, conners, representative conners, continues to put forth that with congress. Toyoure referring reparations . Yeah. In some way . Yeah. I see that going forth, the word reparations has been a toxicnto something of word but i see progress being that front in individual channels. An example ill give you is the recent settlement of africanamerican farmers, that the department of agriculture the signed, secretary of department of agriculture under obamast administration, 1. 6 billion. President bush was not moving forward on that. Moveew administration did forward to that. No one would call that reparations. They wouldnt put that word attached to it but what it is is a whole lot of taxpayer dollars that wast a wrong inflicted upon thousands of africanamerican farmers over of years so as i see that developing, i see it being done in not limited, but in very discrete ways individually. So attack agriculture in this education inter another way. Thats how i see that progressing and i dont think anyone will put the word reparations on it because it much more difficult to move through the legislation, conyers, congressman has been doing a good deal of michigan. At out of colloquial expression of 40 acres and a mule. Is too sophisticated for me. The other point that is anfacing is what constitutes africanamerican. Yesterdays u. S. A. Today, has come upit repeat theatedly even when president was running for office that he dodged questions about mixed marriage and mixed race and all that. So what constitutes an now . Anamerican if one was to pursue the thought of reparations . [inaudible] you raise a good point as far constitutes an africanamerican. Heinz kerry raised a shet deal of furor when declared herself an africanamerican. As a matter of fact, she is and lives in american. I see it as referring to black americans, the race. Its an extension of afroamerican which interesting term that Thurgood Marshall refused to use until the last three or four years of his life, even through the 1980s, he was still referring he still africanamericans negroes and insisted on calling them him,u were talking to referring to africanamericans as negroes. I think its an evolving question. But i think africanamericans is i like the term. I use. E one [inaudible] i appreciate you. A question. Talk a little bit more about the relationship between houston and marshall, which was pretty interesting. Their relationship, they started as teacher and student. Was the dean of Howard Law School and was in the school of turning the from an academic backwater into veritable point for civil houston wasacy and a very buttoned down individual, guy. Piece suit kind of Thurgood Marshall walked with a strut that was so mean that his called himents turkey. And dean houston was so tough studentsgorous on his that his students called him, irono his face, called him shoes. So they were two very different of individuals and when they met they immediately took to each other. Part because marshall was an atremely gifted lawyer and gifted student. Marshalls class started with 36 students and only six of those graduated. Working them very hard at Howard Law School at that time. Marshall by virtue of his ranking first in his class after two years was able to get a job working in the library and for the first time he worked alongside houston and thats really when their relationship took off. Were marshall, later Justice Marshall, in his 80s, say, everything i learned about the law i learned from charlie houston and that botheredng Justice Marshall deeply that abouteople did not know Charles Hamilton houston and his contributions and he would speak him unprompted at every given opportunity so that people man did andhat this what he sacrificed. Goodhey also became very friends. But it certainly was a case of opposites attract. They ended up traveling together throughout the south on road trips and working cases together, obviously working cases very successfully but the relationship was a teacherstudent, became mentormentee and at the end became very, very Close Friends one ofshall was mr. Houstons pallbearers but he refused topeak and speak to the media about mr. Houston for some time after because it was so emotional for him. An emotional event, losing houston at such a young age. Houston was only 54 when he away and it was very difficult for marshall. Statement which really puzzled me but then it was so clear. The work thatall Thurgood Marshall did, and all he helped pass and helped put together and somebody whatever heow what, as, something to the point awning backed up whatever he pushed it wouldnt mean nothing because the people rebelled against it and when they told me how much the a part in making sure that these laws are passed because if not the people that didnt want to do it wouldnt have done it had not the military was there. Ironic that is a lawmeone to have such degree and put things together march and organize and construct only to find out that had it not been the behind, it would have been it wouldnt have went no place. You bring up an excellent place, that because the Supreme Court issued these rulings and the law did not mean that people woke up one day and decided to follow it. All know that did not happen and it did take the army. Airborne whichd president eisenhower sent in to years rock, arkansas, after brown v. Board of education. Is not marshalls job, it is not the Supreme Courts job to enforce the law. The branches of government, you have the legislative, you have judiciary and you have the executive branch. The executive branch, the laws,ent executes the puts them into force and makes sure that people follow them and eisenhower was forced to act. He did not want to. He did not want to act. The brown happy about decision at all. And in fact the white house refused totary comment on the brown v. Board of education decision. The only other major official refused to comment was the governor of mississippi. Those were the two people who on brown v. Omment board. The president was not happy about it but as the years went he realized there was a great deal of resistance, rebellion in some places and he had to execute the laws so he did send in the military. It was very sad. One was happy that that had to happen. But, yes, he had to use the military on United States soil law. Force the when what does that mean people organize, they think theyre doing something right the courtsnk that are supposed to be the final sayso or the government or the governmenten itself is like, you know, where the particular individual that said, oh, we won then again, we didnt win youuse had not we had know, its almost like, you so in spite oft that the logic, the truth and the and moralness of pushing a certain agenda that equalityng about some to a group of people and yet to see it not real because, what even now, ifnow, all of a sudden if the military or whatnot is really holding this together from a group of people that may be more to take back whatever rights that other theme may have and for to so to me thats like im know. G on thin ice, you knowing just that, all these beenlled laws that have put down that only reason why theyre here is because the military would back it up. But what would happen im not really thats all we have, though. Thats like the military would we have there are laws but people follow the law because there are themquences if you break so its i see it i guess yourepside of what presenting is i see it something as a comfort. Its a wary comfort. Your uneasiness about it but at the end of the day the law will be enforced and happened with little rock and thats what happens when they bring the police. This is what im saying. Though it may be a force but every time somebody see a get someone,le to to get my brother, to shoot him somebody a to deny certain type of right, you know, then, you know, so im saying didnt carry over to moral, did phase into degree. To a its more or less like if somebody could take a pot shot at you. There are 300 Million People some of themry and are not on the straight and narrow and some of them dont care what the law is and some of those people who dont care what is in the past some of them have been governors and thats part of the price that we society. Ving in a free i had a wonky question. Passedv. Ferguson was well after the 14th and 15th amendments that sort of ensured personal civil rights. How much of the legal strategy and hamilton was built around the unique nature and the sort of regressive nature of that awayion that was taking rights that nominally existed . Plessy was the big mountain had to climb. The means by which they were means byget there, the which they got there was the 14th amendment which guaranteed, no state shall violate the rights of an individual. Thats an awful paraphrasing of the 14thamendment but amendment was the means. I think it was almost like the climbers boots that they had to climb over plessy. Plessy was the big mountain they had to get over and the question was when could they go right at it. They went around it and chipped away at it. Fallacyosed it for the that it was and once it was exposed as a fallacy by the same they realized and toshall wrote in a letter houston saying i think we should challenge plessy now and set forth the reasons why and part was because were not going to get a court this good. Another reason is because they president truman in office and they said president truman will enforce what the supreme as if to bend proven right a few years later we had eisenhower and it took a great deal of doing for his administration to enforce the law so the 14th amendment was the means by which they had to plessyer or tear down v. Ferguson and in the District Of Columbia they had to do it through the 5th amendment of rules in washington, d. C. Including taxation without representation. Hello, thank you for coming to harmel. Harlem. We appreciate it. Ask you isd like to today, what do you think is the state of the judiciary today . Naacp and other civil rights organizations are fighting hard for all minorities on all fronts you think we stand today . I part of it is my being a lawyer but thats how i a senator i had i live in washington, d. C. So i dont but if i had a senator is determine how i vote and how i determine my present vote is based on judges because article 3 federal judges are appointed for life and i think the state of the judiciary right move itsard to hard to change it from right to right becauseo everything stops in the senate so its a political issue of confirmation. I think that certain there has been a great deal of judiciary in so much as by the time thurgood was nominated by Lyndon Johnson to be or by the time nominated by john f. Kennedy to be a federal appellate judge here in new York Second Circuit Court of appeals, by then, in the short period of time, senator could and say go on the floor theant have a negro be appellate judge for the Second Circuit so they picked other subterfuges by which they wanted to attack him and some legitimate disagreements with the way he would interpret others didnt like the fact that he was a civil rights lawyer and they didnt like the civil rights. So the judiciary is constantly very, veryt it moves slowly but once someones there, that man or woman is on the bench, if federal court, theyre on the bench for life so its important and its a priority for any president , democrat or republican, its a them. Ty for i think the last president , president bush, i think did an shaping thejob of federal judiciary to what he wanted it to be and what his wanted that court to represent. I think he did an outstanding job with that. He got very few road blocks think its a and i model this president could emulate hopefully. Right. Id like to thank hueman having meagain for and thank you for leaving work early to come out and talk with me about this. Thank you. [applause] on history book shelf, hear countrys best known American History writers from saturdaydecade every at 4 00 p. M. Eastern and to watch these programs any time, website, cspan. Org history. Youre watching American History tv, all weekend, every weekend, on cspan3. The war, atime in lot of soldiers had been away from their homes for about three wereur years and they getting letters home saying the pieces,falling to patrollers in the area are taking supplies from us, when come home so to there was a large problem with desertions at this time and it desertions from the standpoint of soldiers not wanting to go into battle but heartstrings were pulled by their families needing them so what lee had imposed was a fairly strict set that deserters would there were several occurrences of this happening. Thisoral was so low, about time Les Miserables came out severalform and confederate troops in the themond shop saw it on us, leessaid, thats miserables. 6 00 and 10 00 war, ontern, the civil American History tv on cspan3. This labor day, on the cspan 5 30rks, on cspan at eastern, an Education Department in schools. Llying at 8 00, bill nye the science ham debate evolution. 7 00span 2s book tv, at eastern congressman james his life ins about his youth in the jim crow south to his leadership position in the house of representatives. At 8 30, author sylvia dukes book, price of clair boothe luce. Of the10 00, discussion hidden world of High Frequency stock trading. At 7 15 eastern time, american artifacts looks at declassified documents related to the 1964 gulf of tonkin incident that led to the escalation of the vietnam war. At 8 00, president hardings love letters. 9 45, the life of milton friedman. Schedule at cspan. Org. Let us know what you think about the programs youre watching. Call us. Twitter, use c123. Join the cspan conversation, like us on facebook, follow us twitter. Next, author larry ball legacy ofthe life and westerner tom horn who lived from 1860 to 1903. Describes horns work as a gunman for the Pinkerton Detective agency and wyoming Cattlemans Association as well and execution in 1903. At the new mexico history museum. About 1 10. I want to thank thomas and invitation to the speak and i sure appreciate all of you coming out today to hear the remarks i make. This has been a rather long project on my part and i was to finally see it reach print. Notablee most personalities to arise on the frontier, tom horn occupies a prominent place. Throughout the last quarter of 19th century, he participated in many dangerous miner,ies as a cow hand, indian fighter, law man and toective, and managed survive. Aficionados do not consider horn an equal of wyatt earp ands billy the kid, he runs them a second and he has been the subject of numerous articles, books and hollywood movies