Start Over Collection William A. Elwood Civil Rights Lawyers Project

51. Interview with Juanita Kidd Stout (1:04:10)

Date:
2006
Main contributors:
Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola
Summary:
Part one. Judge Juanita Kidd Stout remembers hearing Charles Houston speak in 1937 in the Gaines case in Missouri and describes what it was like in the courtroom. She talks about becoming a lawyer, being an African American woman; she declares she never felt discrimination in the field of law. She tells the story of how she came to work for Houston when she was young. Stout recalls what Houston was like, his belief in the Constitution and the rule of law, and his plans for challenges to US law decades into the future. Part two. Judge Stout wants to know why Houston is not well-known, as most lawyers consider him to be one of the best legal minds ever. It is tragic that he is not taught in civil rights courses. Judge Stout declares that people now don't realize the deprivations that African Americans suffered before the civil rights movement. She recalls that everyone was aware then that it was Houston who did all the groundwork for Brown v. Board of Education. Stout discusses how Houston prepared for the case. She also talks about Judge William Henry Hastie and his appointment to the Third Circuit appeals court. Judge Stout's advice to young people: we will always need more lawyers because we always have new laws to handle changes in society. Part three. Judge Stout describes how she became a judge and remembers cases that stood out for her and her career. She declares that law is not passive; it must grow, change and be discarded. Also, many laws have been wrong and unjust. Stout recalls that Houston died at age 54 just before the the Brown decision. At 11:40 to end, footage of Judge Stout in her office, working. Part four. Footage of Stout's office.

52. Interview with Julius L. Chambers (1:00:27)

Date:
2006
Main contributors:
Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola
Summary:
Part one. Footage of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund offices including that of civil rights attorney, professor, and NAACP director counsel Julius L. Chambers. Part two. Mr. Chambers discusses the origins of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Charles Hamilton Houston, Thurgood Marshall, Jack Greenberg, important cases in fund history, the Keyes principle, and employment cases like Duke Power. Part three. Chambers recalls the most important civil rights case that grew out of his practice, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education in the US Supreme Court, which became known as the busing case. He talks about current concerns of the fund, responding to Reagan administration challenges to civil rights, developing protection for the poor. Part four. Some 1987 fund work in cases dealing with discrimination against the poor. More footage of fund offices.

53. Interview with Leone Lane (40:31)

Date:
2006
Main contributors:
Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola
Summary:
Part one. Mrs. Leone Lane describes her career as a teacher in Chester, South Carolina. J.W. Greene joins the interview at 7:26. Part two. Mrs. Leone Lane and J.W. Greene discuss the effects of integration on schools in Chester, South Carolina. At 5:55 footage of rural South Carolina and Brainerd Institute.

54. Interview with Lorin A. Thompson (1:21:58)

Date:
2006
Main contributors:
Elwood, William A
Summary:
Part one. Mr. Lorin Thompson discusses the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education, which in practice gave states the opportunity to close public schools in order to avoid desegregation. The Charlottesville schools closed in the fall of 1958, the teachers volunteered to teach in other venues. The crisis over school desegregation eventually became an important social, economic and moral issue. Mr. Thompson asserts that people should find an amenable solution and recognize the rights of all people. Thompson was the director of the Bureau of Population Economic Research at the University of Virginia which studied problems of urban development. Part two. Different camera angles.

55. Interview with Louis L. Redding (1:47:06)

Date:
2006
Main contributors:
Elwood, William A, Higginbotham, A. Leon (Aloyisus Leon), 1928-1998
Summary:
Part one. Civil rights attorney Louis Redding recalls his family, childhood, and going to Brown University. Part two. Mr. Redding tells his family’s history at Brown. After Harvard Law School, he returned to still segregated Delaware to practice law. Immediately, he tried to abolish separation based on race in courtrooms. He discussed the Parker case, its background, African American admission to University of Delaware, and Judge Collins Seitz. Part three. Redding says that he would not have filed the Parker case if he didn't know that Judge Collins Seitz would get the case. In Gebhart v. Belton, the public school case, Redding used testimony from psychology and sociology experts about how separate but equal was inherently detrimental to African American children. He also comments on Jack Greenberg, Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, and the day the Brown v. Board of Education decision was announced. Part four. The day the Brown decision became public, Redding heard the news on the radio while driving and crashed into the car in front of him. Mr. Redding discusses the Burton case, Charles Hamilton Houston, Thurgood Marshall, William Hastie, William Robert Ming. He also tells how John W. Davis, the lawyer defending separate but equal, wept during arguments in front of the Supreme Court in the Brown case. Part five. Charles Hamilton Houston. Advice to young lawyers. At 9:00 until end, still photos.

56. Interview with Louis T. Rader (40:51)

Date:
2006
Main contributors:
Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola
Summary:
Part one. Historian William H. Harbaugh describes the irony of John W. Davis defending the separate but equal doctrine in Brown v. the Board of Education and explains why Davis took the case as its appellate lawyer. Harbaugh also comments on Thurgood Marshall's opinion of Davis. At 9:20 interview with engineer and business professor Louis T. Rader begins. Mr. Rader talks about his life and career, as well as his support of public education in the promotion of a successful business climate. During Massive Resistance, he protested closing Virginia public schools using the argument that businesses don't want to operate in a community with poor schooling. Part two. Mr. Rader recalls his support of public schooling in Virginia during Massive Resistance in order to sustain economic development within the commonwealth. At 5:30, interview with George R. Ferguson begins. Mr. Ferguson recounts the lawsuit brought by the Charlottesville NAACP to desegregate schools immediately following the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954. Court proceedings continued into 1958, when the judge assigned several black children to attend otherwise white schools in Charlottesville. The commonwealth then closed schools in Charlottesville under the policy of Massive Resistance. Mr. Ferguson describes how the Boatwright committee of the Virginia General Assembly harassed Charlottesville NAACP members.

57. Interview with Matthew J. Perry (1:14:03)

Date:
2006
Main contributors:
Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola
Summary:
Part one. Judge Matthew Perry recalls his service in the US Army during World War II in Europe. His travels overseas allowed him to participate in a society without segregation. He discusses his upbringing and education, especially the segregation of higher education institutions. He decided to be a lawyer after seeing Thurgood Marshall and Robert Carter try a case in Columbia, South Carolina concerning segregation in education. Part two. Judge Perry recounts the story of seeing Thurgood Marshall and Robert Carter try a case to desegregate South Carolina University Law School. Perry's own law school alma mater, South Carolina State College Law School, was established in response to the above case. He practiced law in South Carolina until his 1976 appointment to the federal judiciary serving on the United States Court of Military Appeals. During his private practice, he fought to desegregate grand juries. Part three. Judge Perry talks about the state of the New South. He discusses how the law was used to institutionalize racism in America. He notes that it was also the law that was used to defeat the system. He goes over the legal strategy he and his colleagues used to integrate colleges and graduate schools in South Carolina. He talks about Briggs v. Elliott, one of the Brown v. Board of Education cases. Part four. NAACP Legal Defense Fund and NAACP General Counsel provided money and expertise to small, local lawyers all over the South. Judge Perry remarks on Baker v. Carr and various sit-in and protest cases like Edwards v. South Carolina.

58. Interview with Modjeska Simkins (1:22:07)

Date:
2006
Main contributors:
Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola
Summary:
Part one. Civil rights activist Modjeska Simkins discusses her childhood in South Carolina and the influence of her grandmother, who was a slave. She tells vivid stories of her family's ordeals with slavery and post-Civil War freedom and discrimination. Part two. Ms. Simkins shares stories about her family's experience with racial discrimination. She talks about people using the Bible to support their prejudices and why she quit the church. She explains the power structure among rich white people, poor white people, and African Americans. She recalls when NAACP lawyers like Thurgood Marshall would come down to South Carolina to try a case and stay in her house because they couldn't stay in any hotels. She tells how African American schools didn't have buses or fuel for heat. Part three. Ms. Simkins talks about her education. She recalls encounters with the Ku Klux Klan and her fearless attitude toward the Klan. She returns to a discussion of the power structure in the South, both when she was a child and in 1985. She expresses her opinion of Robert Bork. Part four. Ms. Simkins talks about her work with the NAACP. She talks about the salary case, transportation case, and the vote case in South Carolina. Her home was the center of South Carolina civil rights legislation in a way because out-of-town African Americans could only stay in private homes. The militia was called out in South Carolina; she remembers cannons on Statehouse grounds. She chats about Judge J. Waites Waring and Thurgood Marshall.

59. Interview with Oliver W. Hill (2:04:59)

Date:
2006
Main contributors:
Elwood, William A
Summary:
Part one. Civil rights attorney Oliver Hill recounts his childhood in Roanoke. High schools for African Americans there were at least 100 miles away, so he moved to Washington DC to go to Dunbar High School. He recalls knowing Charles Houston in the early 1930s while at Howard Law School. Hill discusses the difference between desegregation and integration. Part two. Mr. Hill examines his first civil rights cases, the most important being Alston v. School Board of the City of Norfolk. He discusses the differences between trying a case in front of Virginia federal court and Virginia state court. Part three. Mr. Hill explains the civil rights court case strategy to force the “separate but equal” doctrine to be observed, which would be expensive and difficult, so the only reasonable alternative would be to integrate. Mr. Hill observes that it was essential to eliminate the disparity between African American and white teacher salaries because the South needed to retain good teachers. He won the Alston case then went off to World War II. He describes what segregation in the Army was like. He also discusses taking the Morgan v. Virginia case, which was based on federal interstate transportation law, to the US Supreme Court. Part four. Mr. Hill thinks that the war retarded the growth of the civil rights movement. He recalls the Tunstall case concerning traditional African American railway jobs as firemen. He was also involved in one of the five court cases that led to Brown v. Board of Education, the Prince Edward County case, chiefly concerning equal education facilities. He talks about the judges involved in Prince Edward case. Part five. Mr. Hill continues to discuss the judges involved in the Prince Edward case, including Judge Sterling Hutcheson. Mr. Hill explains that 10 years after the Brown decision there was no integration in Prince Edward County because the Supreme Court didn't order desegregation. Hill points to Harry Byrd as the chief antagonizer in Massive Resistance; Hill says that if Harry Byrd hadn't opposed the Brown decision, integration would have happened much sooner in Virginia. Part six. A message to young people from Oliver Hill: we have to stop thinking of ourselves as colors or ethnicities or nationalities and start thinking of ourselves and each other as humans. Interview ends at seven minutes. Footage of Old Dominion Bar Association convention begins at 7:10, conversations among bar members and William Elwood, chiefly concerning Samuel Tucker.

60. Interview with Oliver W. Hill and Samuel Wilbert Tucker (1:55:59)

Date:
2006
Main contributors:
Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola, Freeman, Anne Hobson, 1934-
Summary:
Part one. Civil rights attorneys Oliver Hill and S.W. Tucker discuss the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, including the meaning of "with all deliberate speed." They remark upon how long it took to desegregate schools. They comment on the policies of Senator Harry Byrd and President Dwight Eisenhower. Mr. Hill talks about his service in the military during World War II. Mr. Tucker also served, and he relates stories about how Jim Crow worked in the military. Discs two to five. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Hill recount stories of life under Jim Crow, including experiences with seating on trains and other forms of transportation, service at restaurants, taking the bar exam, race riots, and trying to reserve a bridal suite on a honeymoon. They also tell the story of Dr. Charles Drew. Part six. Mr. Hill reviews Virginia's policy of Massive Resistance, the General Assembly's Boatwright committee and Thompson committee, Virginia courts and judges, and the people placement board. At 11:20, Anne Hobson Freeman talks about her new book on the law firm of Hunton and Williams in Richmond. The firm represented the school board of Prince Edward County in 1951 when students there sued the district for integration.