But what is "Black Monday"? Well, in this pamphlet at least, it refers to Monday, May 17, 1954--the date the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Brown v. Board of Education. Since tomorrow is the 54th anniversary of the decision, I felt it would be worthwhile to look back at what certain people thought of it at the time. Let's start with the appellation, Black Monday. In the foreword, Brady writes:
"Black Monday" is the name coined by Representative John Bell Williams of Mississippi to designate Monday, May 17th, 1954, a date long to be remembered throughout this nation. This is the date upon which the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its socialistic decision in the Segregation cases on appeal from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware.
"Black Monday" is indeed symbolic of the date. Black denoting darkness and terror. Black signifying the absence of light and wisdom. Black embodying grief, destruction and death. Should Representative Williams accomplish nothing more during his membership in Congress he has more than justified his years in office by the creating of this epithet, the originating of this watchword, the shouting of this battle cry.
Black Monday ranks in importance with July 4th, 1776, the date upon which our Declaration of Independence was signed. May 17th, 1954, is the date upon which the declaration of socialistic doctrine was officially proclaimed throughout this nation. It was on Black Monday that the judicial branch of our government usurped the sacred privilege and right of the respective states of this union to educate their youth. This usurpation constitutes the greatest travesty of the American Constitution and jurisprudence in the history of this nation.
Not much for hyperbole, is he? Yes, the Supreme Court "usurped the sacred privilege and right of the ... states ... to educate their youth" by commanding that they actually educate all their youths, and not just the white ones. Strange, that. You'll notice also that he keeps calling the decision "socialistic"--this is because he was rather unabashedly trying to tie it to Communism and say "See? This is what Stalin would have wanted, so it must be bad. Because Stalin was evil, because he was an atheist and evil."
No, really. The inside cover bears this bit of text underneath portraits of Jefferson and Stalin:
Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Stalin were both instrumental in the establishing of secular governments. Both men made mistakes and both men are dead. Their respective governments survive them.
Jefferson's government is founded on a firm belief in God, the dignity of the individual and on the institution of capital. Stalin's government is based on atheism, the absolute sovereignty of the State, and collectivism. Jefferson's government is the father of freedom and liberty. Stalin's government is the master of regimentation and slavery. Jefferson's government symbolizes light, truth, peace and life. Stalin's government represents darkness, deceit, war and death.
The principles upon which these two governments are founded are irreconcilable. They cannot be fused any more than can day exist in night. The twilight of the martyrdom of man will result. They are now engaged in a mortal conflict, and only one can survive. "Choose you this day whom ye will serve."
The United States of America had nothing at all to do with slavery, no sir! That's what commies do.
There's that much insanity, and we haven't even actually started the speech yet.
So, at some time in the distant past, we need not be concerned about the exact date, during the earth's eternal pilgrimage about our sun, the insurgence of vertebrates and mammals took place. Man was created last, and it was then that the origin of all our problems occurred. This creation, as detailed in "The Conquest," by Dr. Breasted, took place in the "Great Northwest Quadrant." This territory embraced "All of Europe, all of Africa north of the Sahara. Its eastern boundary extended to the Ural M1ountains, which divide Europe and Asia, and a line parallel to the 60th Meridian east of Greenwich, extended from the Ural southward into the Indian Ocean. In addition, it includes the Near East, which embraces Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Persia and Arabia. This is the original home of the Great White Race, Homo Caucasius."
"On the east of and adjoining the Northwest Quadrant, in the secluded plateaus of high Asia, there arose and developed a man with straight and wiry hair, round head, almost beardless face, and a yellow skin, Homo Mongoloideus."
"South of the Northwest Quadrant, separated from the Great White Race by an impassable desert barrier and to the west by unconquered seas, lay the teeming black world of Africa, the home of Homo Africanus. Isolated to themselves, their evolutionary development was very homogeneous. They are wooly-haired, long-headed, dark-skinned Negroids."
He seems to be quoting someone (Charles Wallace Collins and his book Whither Solid South to be precise) to say that people sprung up fully-formed in their respective habitats, and hence are members of different species with different taxonomies. Or he could just be butchering biology, or both. He certainly thoroughly butchers biology and evolution in the following paragraphs, where he discusses how far the white and Asian "species" had progressed in history, describing it as an "evolutionary march" and a "marvelous and complex evolutionary development." Then he goes on to discuss blacks in his made-up evolutionary context, spouting nonsense like "the negroid man ... evolved not", and "he did not evolve simply because of his inherent limitations."
Brady then spent several pages trying to show that amalgamation with blacks had destroyed Egypt, India, the Mayans, and he does so by quoting James Densons Sayers' Can the White Race Survive? solely and repeatedly. Nothing shows your mastery of history like quoting a man who thinks that only blacks and whites exist and everyone else is just a product of black-white couplings.
Brady's abhorrence of miscegenation and its supposed consequences is hard to overstate. He refers to it as "the white man [drinking] the cup of black hemlock", and countries which he believes are in a dilapidated state because of such miscegenation as having "the mark of the beast":
The mark of the beast is apparent today, even to the most casual observer, in the various types in Mexico, the Yucatan Indians, the Hondurans, the North Central Americans and Caribs. The Proto-Negro sign withs its accompanying destruction cannot be disputed.
This might also be Sayers' influence, as in the following section ("Purity of Jewish Blood", where he continues quoting Sayers), he writes
The word negro does not occur in the religious writing, but the word Ethiopian (negroid Egyptians) is present and later came to mean negro. Frequently "the beast" is referred to. To lie before the beast was prohibited and punishable. The beast too was required to sit in sack cloth and ashes and repent. (Jonah, 3rd Chapter; Exodus, 22:19; Leviticus, 18:23; 20:15, 16.)
And we already know that Sayers thought 'the beast' meant 'Negro'.
Much later he returns to the topic of miscegenation in a seemingly-random two paragraphs, which have no relation to the preceding or following paragraphs:
The loveliest and the purest of God's creatures, the nearest thing to an angelic being that treads this terrestrial ball is a well-bred, cultured Southern white woman or her blue-eyed, golden-haired little girl.
The maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relationship, which have been conducive to the well-being of both the white and negro races in the South, has been possible because of the inviolability of Southern Womanhood. Cases of moral leprosy and degeneracy have produced sporadic instances of amalgamation of whites with negroes. It is such instances as these which produced the negro hybrids of America.
This of course explains the whole real reason behind his, and many others', resistance to Brown--they didn't want whites and blacks mingling, or at least not white women and black men. Their supposed peace and harmony was based on white women not having sex with black men... however that works. So by providing black schoolboys access to white schoolgirls, the Supreme Court threatened the peace and harmony of the South. Generally because the white men would then kill the black men.
Of course, Brady had to include a masturbatory, self-congratulatory paean to whites in the midst of his nonsense (separate from the above paragraph on white women), so he talks about Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Milton, Galileo, and so on, and gives a special nod to the biologists whose works he so thoroughly and unabashedly mangles to support his preconceived notions of how the world works. "The true miracles," he says, were not the discovery of the New World by Columbus but were those which "were to be discovered by Darwin, Huxley, Hall, Mendel, and their contemporaries." Maybe if he actually read Darwin, though, he wouldn't have been talking about "three different species of man" in the next paragraph, since Darwin was a monogenist. Or maybe he did read Darwin and just dismissed him when he felt like it, since he had a higher authority to rely on for his racism--God!
The Supreme Architect of the Universe saw fit that there should be, and are today, on this planet, three distinct species of man. If God had deemed it wise and just that there should be only one specie of man on this earth, the laws of heredity and the stimuli of environment would have produced this uniform man. There are those today who would improve upon the handiwork of the Divine Architect and would cause the amalgamation of all races if they had the power to do so. If the Omnipotent Creator had willed it, this single specie of man would have been located over all the face of the earth. The three species of man would not have been placed in different locales.
Of course, by this logic, if God had intended to prevent people of different races from having kids, he would have made it so that they couldn't, so clearly God's plan is for everyone to go out and have a multiracial baby, and Brady was being blasphemous for trying to stop that. Right?
The next bit is your typical racist claptrap. Blacks are incompetent savages who are unable to do anything; slavery was good for them but I don't support it but really the abolitionists were the evil ones and hey the South wasn't responsible for slavery anyways because all we did was keep buy and keep slaves, we didn't sell them; whites like me are so awesome, just look at how many accomplished whites I can list off the top of my head, and the fact that I don't know of any accomplished blacks means that they must not exist; Reconstruction was hell brought to earth because Negroes had civil rights and we hadn't taken them away yet. And finally, he gets to the court case in question, starting his discussion of it by essentially accusing the court of being 'judicial activists':
The Supreme Court does not possess the legislative power. When a case comes before the Court, as does a case before any court, the issue is joined, arguments are made and a decision rendered. That decision binds the parties to that particular case. The legislative power of the Federal Government is vested in the Congress of the United States. The Supreme Court has no power to make a decree which could have the effect of an Act of Congress. The Supreme Court can, of course, exceed its powers and violate the Constitution and invade the province of Congress and that of the state legislatures--as has frequently been the case. Has the Supreme Court the power to establish by decree a national segregation policy which would bind all of the forty-eight states--a power which Congress itself does not possess?
This is the true question which "Black Monday" actually decided.
Yes, there's nothing in the case itself about constitutionality of state's actions at all.
He starts out by quoting some from the Attorney General's brief, mocking most of what he quoted, and then turns to the opposing briefs and several other sources for "warnings" of what would follow the decision:
In addition to giving the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the
amendment, and the enactment of the constitutional provisions and statutes of South Carolina, they also point out the grave dangers which are attendant upon the abolition of segregation in the schools of that State. These warnings the Supreme Court completely ignored.
These warnings basically consisted of the fact that whites would riot in the streets if blacks were allowed in their schools, so if you want peace and safety you'd better not rule against us. Brady quotes one of the briefs describing the testimony of a superintendent, putting in bold the conclusions
that there would not be community acceptance of mixed schools at this time; that there would be a probability of violent emotional reaction in the communities; that it would be impossible to have peaceable association of the races in the public schools; and that it would eliminate the public schools in most, if not all, of the communities in the State
I wonder how people think this is a compelling argument before the Supreme Court? "This law must be constitutional because we really, really, really wouldn't like it if you found it wasn't." Yet Brady laments that "The Supreme Court's mind was impervious to the pathos of this appeal and these arguments."
Later he says that while the Supreme Court should be respected, you shouldn't actually abide by what it says. In fact, if you do think that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law and hence its decisions should be followed, then you're unpatriotic.
The Supreme Court should be accorded all the deference and respect possible because of the nature of the office. It should be given at least the esteem accorded Pontius Pilate. It should, however, be borne in mind that it is not infallible, and it is not clothed with "the divinity which doth hedge a king." To blindly submit to an erroneous decision which breaks all long established rules of law, violates the principles of stare decisis, and adopts sociological assertions instead of laws as its guide is not loyalty or patriotism. It is simple folly or ignorance. Since when has a fallacious opinion of the Supreme Court been above review or censure? There are those who confuse freedom of thought and criticism with subversiveness. Each decision stands on its own legs and if it is unsound, is not based on solid rules of law which have been in force and effect it should be so classified. If the result of the decision will be harmful to the bulk of the people of this country, will be calculated to foster those forces which seek this country's destruction, then to fail to resist the decision is morally wrong and the man who fails to condemn it and do all that he can to see that it is reversed is not a patriotic American.
Hm. If "each decision stands on its own legs and if it is unsound, is not based on solid rules of law which have been in force and effect it should be so classified", then why are you making such a big deal about stare decisis? Maybe he's saying that he can decide if a decision is unsound and thus should be ignored, but the court itself cannot. He later repeats the sentiment that the decision should be resisted because it's un-American, it's communistic.
Communism disguised as "new democracy" is still communism, and tyranny masquerading as liberalism is still tyranny. The resistance of communism and tyranny, irrespective of whatever guise they may adopt, is not treason. It is the prerequisite
of freedom, the very essence of liberty.
And then he continues quoting people who chastised the court for not realizing that the decision was wrong because it pissed off a lot of white people. One was an editorial from the Jackson Daily News in Mississippi:
"Human blood may stain Southern soil in many places because of this decision, but the dark red stains of that blood will be on the marble steps of the United States Supreme Court building.
"The Supreme Court is responsible for our being bloodthirsty savages, because surely we're not responsible for our own actions."
Brady also quotes Senator James Eastland, who seems as confused as he is:
"Let me make this clear, Mr. President: There is no racial hatred in the South. The negro race is not an oppressed race.
If it weren't so tragic that he actually believed that, that statement would be hilarious.
Free men have the right to send their children to schools of their own choosing, free from governmental interference and to build up their own culture, free from governmental interference.
Gee, if Eastland actually believed that, he would probably have approved of Brown v. Board because, well, it just concluded that yes, "free men have the right to send their children to schools of their own choosing, free from governmental interference." But of course Eastland doesn't believe that black people are free, or have rights, or that it's governmental interference when the state governments interfere with the right of black kids to go to school, or however the fuck he rationalized this in his own mind.
And he goes on and on about Communism, ranting about how "Marxian Christianity" and "Marxian Education" (the headings of two sections) are to blame for people thinking that blacks actually have rights. And they're to blame for miscegenation, which blacks go along with because they all recognize that they're stupid, inferior trash, and want to improve themselves by fucking whites. So some of his suggested solutions are "I. We must stop the influx of Communists in our country", "II. We must teach our children the truth about Communism, its infiltration of our country, and the facts of ethnology", "III. The Neo-Socialist and Marxian Christians should be exposed".