Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President Sends Troops to Little Rock [50 years ago this month, Eisenhower sends 101st airborne]
The New York Times learning pages ^ | September 24, 1957 | ANTHONY LEWIS

Posted on 09/12/2007 9:05:03 AM PDT by syriacus

President Sends Troops to Little Rock, Federalizes Arkansas National Guard; Tells Nation He Acted to Avoid An Anarchy

Eisenhower on Air Says School Defiance Has Gravely Harmed Prestige of U.S. President

Warns of Anarchy Peril

Washington, Sept. 24--President Eisenhower sent Federal troops to Little Rock, Ark., today to open the way for the admission of nine Negro pupils to Central High School.

Earlier, the President federalized the Arkansas National Guard and authorized calling the Guard and regular Federal forces to remove obstructions to justice in Little Rock school integration.

His history-making action was based on a formal finding that his "cease and desist" proclamation, issued last night, had not been obeyed. Mobs of pro-segregationists still gathered in the vicinity of Central High School this morning.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: US: Arkansas; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 1957; anniversary; eisenhower; integration; littlerock; troops
Almost exactly 50 years ago ( in the face of opposition from Arkansas' Democratic Governor Orval Faubus) Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, an action which ensured the peaceful integration of Little Rock Central High.
1 posted on 09/12/2007 9:05:14 AM PDT by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: syriacus
Telegram from parents of AR students to Eisenhower, thanking him for sending 101st to protect kids
2 posted on 09/12/2007 9:08:45 AM PDT by syriacus (If the US troops had remained in S. Korea in 1949, there would have been no Korean War (1950-53))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: syriacus

This action by Ike showed that the federal government would enforce integration, by force if needed.

How ironic that southern Democrats of the time were so against this action, by a Republican president. Yet today the Democratic party gets 90+% of the black vote, and Republicans are alleged to be insensitive to minorities.

Ike had nothing to gain politically by sending troops to Little Rock. Could we give Ike credit for taking a principled stand?


3 posted on 09/12/2007 9:35:19 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: syriacus

I was in a STRAC unit at Fort Hood and we went on full alert.


4 posted on 09/12/2007 9:59:45 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: syriacus

In 1956 my dad dragged us kids kicking and screaming from the western states to the hills of Arkansas. When the crisis hit in 1967 we had to ask..”What is segregation?”

We had gone to schools with Hispanics, Blacks, Indians and could not comprehend keeping kids out of school because of the color of their skin.

The school here which was all white in 1956-7 now has whites, Laotians,Hispanics (Lots of hispanics)Chinese and Japaneese. Our town even had a Hindu temple.

My how times have changed.


5 posted on 09/12/2007 10:00:16 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Ever see WILLIS SHAW backwards in your rear view mirror? I have!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Our town even had a Hindu temple.
Our town even HAS a Hindu temple.


6 posted on 09/12/2007 10:00:59 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Ever see WILLIS SHAW backwards in your rear view mirror? I have!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
Ike was a great man and a fine President. Much better than the MSM and academics will ever give him credit for. In contrast, when “the torch” passed, the Kennedyites royally screwed just about everything up by 1968.
7 posted on 09/12/2007 10:08:21 AM PDT by colorado tanker (I'm unmoderated - just ask Bill O'Reilly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
90% of the slave-owners were Democrats also.

Amazing how this fact is hidden from the public at large.

8 posted on 09/12/2007 10:49:25 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: syriacus

They were ready to kick some democrat ass, if necessary.


9 posted on 09/12/2007 10:52:49 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: what's up

That was the OLD Democratic Party.
Today’s Democrats are ultra liberal quota supporters,completely the flip side of the old Bilbo-Talmadge-Russell Democrats of old.


10 posted on 09/12/2007 10:53:03 AM PDT by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610
Today’s Democrats are ultra liberal quota supporters

Today's Democrats don't know their party used to be the slave party.

The leaders did a switcheroo and gave big Fed money to the blacks to cover their sin. Then they lied and imply that the Repubs were the slave-owners.

Today's stupid Dems believe that.

11 posted on 09/12/2007 10:55:50 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

“How ironic that southern Democrats of the time were so against this action, by a Republican president. Yet today the Democratic party gets 90+% of the black vote, and Republicans are alleged to be insensitive to minorities.”

Every time I use an analogy like that when posting to the libs at my local newspaper message board one will inevitably reply “The old democrat party of the south is the republican party of today”.

Idiots.


12 posted on 09/12/2007 10:57:41 AM PDT by Rb ver. 2.0 (Reunite Gondwanaland!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: what's up
Today's Democrats don't know their party used to be the slave party.

This is a popular argument on FR, but it's invalid and a waste of time to pursue. The "Dixiecrats" of the 50's (Strom Thrumond and his ilk) all switched to the Republican Party later, so trying to claim today's Democrats represent the party of slavery and a legacy of Southern white supremacy doesn't really work. Blacks know this, and are never going to blame modern liberal Democrats for what Southerners who called themselves Democrats did in the past. They see (correctly) that the few remaining heirs of that tradition have all become Republicans.

Today's Democrats have plenty of genuine flaws - there's no need to invent new past sins for them.

13 posted on 09/12/2007 11:04:00 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("Wise men don't need to debate; men who need to debate are not wise." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610
That was the OLD Democratic Party. Today’s Democrats are ultra liberal quota supporters,completely the flip side of the old Bilbo-Talmadge-Russell Democrats of old.

Don't kid yourself. In most respects, they haven't change at all. In the 1950s, they were all "New Deal" FDR types looking for Federal bucks wherever they could get them and they played to race and class cards at every opportunity to divide and conquer. Other than dealing the race card from the other side of the deck now, nothing has changed. Segregation and Quotas are not the "flip side" of a coin. They are both racial discrimination.

14 posted on 09/12/2007 11:19:38 AM PDT by Ditto (Global Warming: The 21st Century's Snake Oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
There are plenty of southerners who had a slave-holding heritage who embraced and promoted the big government philosophy of buying votes from the blacks (I believe Jimmy Carter is one of these).

Yes, the Dixie-crats who always believed in small gov't came over, but the Dems who just want power for power's sake? Stayed in the party and bought black votes through social programs.

I need to look more into this.

15 posted on 09/12/2007 11:22:40 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
The "Dixiecrats" of the 50's (Strom Thrumond and his ilk) all switched to the Republican Party later...

Name one other beside Thurmond who switched to the GOP. I don't recall Richard Russle, Robert 'Sheets' Byrd, William Fullbright or Al Gore Sr. ever becoming Republicans.

16 posted on 09/12/2007 11:22:53 AM PDT by Ditto (Global Warming: The 21st Century's Snake Oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

I agree.Both segregation and quotas are un American.
Yet I think the 1964 Goldwater debacle forever changed the landscape.Dems made him out to be the anti civil rights candidate and the charge,unjust as it was,stuck in the minds of blacks and white liberals.


17 posted on 09/12/2007 11:32:31 AM PDT by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
The "Dixiecrats" of the 50's (Strom Thrumond and his ilk) all switched to the Republican Party later

Liberal propoganda. Most "dixiecrats" stayed within the Democratic fold.

18 posted on 09/12/2007 5:01:05 PM PDT by lowbridge ("We control this House, not the parliamentarians!” -Congressman Steny Hoyer (D))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson