Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis

Pravda Sputnik (press release) 1957
The first artificial Earth satellite in the world, created by Soviet scientists, engineers and workers, is making its flight around our planet. On the morning of October 9 it passed over Tunis, two minutes later it flew over Rome, four minutes later over Moscow, and 18 minutes later it flashed over Tokyo and flew in the direction of Western Europe. The prominent scientists of today are speaking of the arrival of a new era, of that period in the history of civilization when a gigantic step forward has been made in the conquest of interplanetary space. Herein lies the historic significance of the Soviet discovery.
Today the entire population of the Earth sees the great victory of our Soviet science and technology, our highly developed industry, our technical might, which the great Soviet people created under the leadership of the Communist Party year after year during the five-year plans, in accordance with a strict scientific plan, consistently carrying out Lenin's general line in building socialism. The launching of the artificial Earth satellite is a victory of Soviet man who, with Bolshevist boldness and clearness of purpose, determination and energy, knows how to march forward. This is a victory of collective labor, which alone is capable of creating real wonders in the world.
It has again been proved convincingly and vividly that the Soviet socialist system is the best form for the organization of human labor which is free of the shackles of exploitation. In its own way the capitalist press is also forced to acknowledge the superiority of the socialist system. The New York Journal-American, analyzing the state of work on the creation of the artificial Earth satellite in the United States, bitterly refers to the "squabble among the different branches of the armed forces which has delayed our development." The squabble among the different branches of the armed forces in the United States is only a facade which conceals the struggle among powerful monopolies -- steel kings who advocate the priority construction of warships at any price and magnates of the aluminum industry who are trying to push the Navy into second place and obtain orders for building aircraft.
The world of selfishness and profits, with its boasted "freedom of enterprise," puts obstacles in the path of the development of production forces. In Soviet society there are no such obstacles. That is why the New York Herald Tribune had to conclude: "Our country has suffered a defeat in the epic competition of the 20th century." Without boasting, without the clamor and advertisements characteristic of capitalism, the Soviet people, led by the Communist Party, are working out grandiose plans and carrying them out. They are building, inventing and astonishing the world with their creative, inspired labor. Lately, many false tales have been invented in the West regarding the fate of scientists, technicians, inventors and innovators in the land of the Soviet Union. Do you, gentlemen, want to know the fate of scientists, innovators and inventors in the land of the Soviets? Then watch the flight of the Earth satellite!
In our times scientific and technical progress has become a major component of the peaceful competition of two systems. The new, socialist world has a powerful technology, is creating a new technology of its own and is steadfastly marching along the path of progress. We are not afraid of peaceful competition with capitalism and willingly accept it. Major political conclusions must be drawn from the new victory of the Soviet Union in this competition. One must discard all the assertions which reactionary circles in the West, contrary to the logic of life, are indulging in. These circles are trying to reduce the peaceful competition between the two systems in the field of technical progress to an armaments race. The American newspaper Daily News states, for instance, that "the launching of the artificial Earth satellite by the Russians means that Congress -- if not the government -- will demand more rapid implementation of the various programs of the Pentagon (U.S. Defense Department.)"
However, is it not time for American ruling circles to emerge from the vicious circle which they themselves created? After all, they began the arms race by proclaiming their monopoly of atomic armaments. But their calculations failed. They continued the armaments race, shouting about the U.S. monopoly of the hydrogen bomb. Again their calculations failed. They rejected the Soviet proposals on disarmament and boasted about their rocket weapons. Again they suffered defeat when the U.S.S.R. created the intercontinental ballistics rocket. Are these examples not enough? Is it not time to evaluate the facts of present-day life more sensibly and soberly? The New York Times now complains that U.S. policy has been known to have an "undeviating tendency to underestimate Soviet potentialities." The paper urges abandonment of the "traditional, stereotyped view of the United States and the West that the majority of Russians are ignorant and illiterate peasants." The time has come to end this stupid fable. Apparently someone in the United States, blinded by hatred of communism, has overlooked the Great October Socialist Revolution, has failed to note the 40 years' experience of victorious socialist construction in the land of Soviets, the vigorous development of its economy, science and culture. Now in the United States, too, certain sober voices are warning that blindness should not be permitted to be a factor in world policy.
The road to the development of present-day international relations is clear. It is the peaceful coexistence of two different systems, their peaceful competition in the field of economics, science and technology. The Soviet Union and all the countries in the socialist camp have proposed that the capitalist camp choose just this path. And the best propagandist for this path is the Soviet artificial Earth satellite which revolves around our planet on which the socialist and capitalist countries are situated.

U.S. Reaction To Sputnik
Twelve days after the successful launch of Sputnik by the Soviets, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles held the following news conference to express the reaction of the U.S. government to this historic event.
Dulles' comments reflected those of the National Security Council. He expressed the importance of America's role in space and the need to increase America's scientific education and research.

Secretary Dulles' news conference of October 16, 1957

Secretary Dulles: I am sorry there has been an interval longer than usual between my press conferences, due to the United Nations and various incidents of the United Nations including the visitations here of foreign ministers. I suspect that the interval has allowed a number of questions to accumulate; if so, I will be glad to hear them.
Q. Mr. Secretary, relating to one of the things that happened in this interval, would you evaluate the relative power of Russia and the United States in the light of the ICBM and satellite successes they have had?
A. I can give you a rough approximation, although that, of course, is a question that perhaps should be directed primarily to the Department of Defense. But also, of course, it is very vital from the standpoint of the conduct of foreign relations. I would say this: The Soviet Union started back in 1945 to work intensively on this guided-missile program. It took over the assets of the Germans at Peenemunde. I recall that when I was in Moscow in 1947 with Secretary Marshall, we were impressed at the time with the intensity of effort along those lines and the VIP treatment being given to the Germans who had been taken in from the Peenemunde experiment. They have been pushing very actively along that line and I would think probably have some advance over us in respect to that particular area of potential military activity.
On the other hand, I think that we have in terms of actual military power, and potential military power for some years to come, a very marked superiority over them, particularly in terms of heavy bombers, which are for now and for some years to come will be the preferred and most effective means for the delivery of missiles.
I think that this satellite coming along as it did is a very useful thing to have happened, so as to avoid any possible complacency on our part with our present superiority. It arouses the whole country, I think, and the Congress, to the importance of pushing forward actively in this field, which may be the field where superiority will be militarily decisive perhaps 5 or 10 years from now.
Q. Mr. Secretary, as a historical note, there has been some confusion in Washington as to whether or not the administration anticipated the kind of worldwide reaction which has taken place in light of the launching of the satellite. Can you tell us whether at the time in 1955 the Vanguard project was decided upon -- whether you were consulted and considered the problem of what might happen and its effect upon our foreign relations if the Russians were the first to launch this satellite? And did that play any part in the decisions on how we handle that program?
A. I cannot recall that there was any particular discussion about the satellite project as such. There was considerable discussion about the missile program and the importance of not allowing the Soviet Union to gain any decisive superiority in the use of outer space for its missiles. But I do not recall a particular discussion about the launching of the satellite, although I believe there was some discussion at one of the National Security Council meetings that I was not present at.
Q. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Sandys of Britain have called for a great deal closer cooperation between the United States and Britain and a lowering of the barriers to the exchange of scientific information, especially in view of Sputnik. Do you now favor eliminating all of these present barriers to a complete exchange of cooperation between the two countries on this problem?
A. I have always favored a very large degree of cooperation, a larger degree perhaps than has actually taken place. We are under certain legal restrictions, as you know which were put on by Congress some years ago -- I think back in '48 or '49 -- at a time when it was believed we had a monopoly of knowledge with respect to atomic weapons - and, indeed, we did have, I think, at the time that original position was taken. It was hoped to preserve that monopoly in the interests of world peace and so that we could carry out our offer at that time to internationalize all use of atomic energy. That was the so-called Baruch Plan. I think that that legislative point of view has become somewhat obsolete with the passage of time and that there is a basis for a closer cooperation than has existed.
Some of it can be done, perhaps, under the present law, but I think it would be useful to give a fresh look at that law at this time because I think it may have become obsolete.
Q. Mr. Secretary, from a foreign policy point of view, do you believe that recent developments have called for a new look in our defense policies?
A. In our defense policies?
Q. That is right; and I am thinking particularly of reductions in our military establishment and some cutbacks in scientific programs.
A. Well, I would say that that defense policy is constantly getting a new look. Every year the budget is very closely examined from the standpoint of striking an appropriate balance between security on the one hand and budgetary burdens on the other hand and the problem of balancing the budget. I do not think that any recent developments call for any different kind of "new look" than occurs every year.
Q. Mr. Secretary, on that point of possible closer scientific cooperation, how do you regard this? Do you regard this as urgent, or do you regard this as a desirable thing that might be worked out in time? And could you say whether basically you think that the United States, unaided, as it is now progressing, can catch up in the missile field and indeed move ahead in all the defense fields where it is important?
A. I feel absolutely confident that there is no doubt whatsoever of our ability to move ahead and, I believe, keep ahead in this field. As I said before, I think that perhaps it is a good thing that this satellite was put up in good time, so that there would not be an undue complacency anywhere. I do not think that there has been complacency within the administration, but there has been a certain complacency, I think, felt generally that we were almost ahead of the Russians in every respect. Well, that is not so, and those of us who have been close to the situation have, I think, realized that for some time. You cannot take a nation of the size of the Soviet Union, under the kind of despotic government they have, and have it concentrate for now 40 years upon almost a single objective without getting some results. Now, the Russians have always had good minds. That has been shown by the fact that the Russians have over the years produced great chess players, champion chess players quite frequently, and their artillery in the past has been extremely good. Now when you take a despotic form of government and you provide scientific training -- and scientific training is almost the only training that is provided -- and you pick out all the best brains you have and funnel them into this scientific course of training, you are going to get outstanding results. So it is no surprise, I think, to any of us who followed the situation closely to know that that is going to happen.
I recall a Cabinet meeting some two or three years ago where this was fully discussed. The question was raised whether we should try to get our people to concentrate more upon scientific work. I think we all felt at the time that there was need, not only for scientists, but, for our form of society, you had to have ministers and historians, teachers, and people interested in the humanities, and that we did not want to become a lopsided society. If you are going to have this great force in a democratic form of society, you have to have not only the power to use it but you have got to have the power to exercise self-restraint and self-control. That is inherent in our form of society.
But I still think that, even though we have a balanced society, with balanced teaching and balanced training, there is still the capacity to do that and at the same time, if we handle ourselves properly, to keep ahead of the Russians in this particular field.
Q. Mr. Secretary, I am confused. Is Sputnik a good thing because it taught the administration something or because it taught the American people something?
A. I think it has created a unity of purpose and thinking between the administration, the Congress, and the people which is very desirable at this stage.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 9981
Whereas it is essential that there be maintained in the armed services of the United States the highest standards of democracy, with equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who served in our country’s defense:
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority invested in me as President of the United States, and as Commander in Chief of the armed services, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.
2. There shall be created in the National Military Establishment an advisory committee to be known as the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, which shall be composed of seven members to be designated by the President.
3. The Committee is authorized on behalf of the President to examine into the rules, procedures and practices of the armed services in order to determine in what respect such rules, procedures and practices may be altered or improved with a view to carrying out the policy of this order. The Committee shall confer and advise with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of the Air Force, and shall make such recommendations to the President and to said Secretaries as in the judgement of the Committee will effectuate the policy hereof.
4. All executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Committee in its work, and to furnish the Committee such information or the services of such persons as the Committee may require in the performance of its duties.
5. When requested by the Committee to do so, persons in the armed services or in any of the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall testify before the Committee and shall make available for use of the Committee such documents and other information as the Committee may require.
6. The Committee shall continue to exist until such time as the President shall terminate its existence by Executive Order.
Harry S Truman

The White House

July 26, 1948

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+)
347 U.S. 483
Argued December 9, 1952
Reargued December 8, 1953
Decided May 17, 1954
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS*

Syllabus
Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment -- even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors of white and Negro schools may be equal.

(a) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment is inconclusive as to its intended effect on public education.
(b) The question presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the full development of public education and its present place in American life throughout the Nation.
(c) Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.
(d) Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal.
(e) The "separate but equal" doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, has no place in the field of public education.
(f) The cases are restored to the docket for further argument on specified questions relating to the forms of the decrees.

Opinion
WARREN

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.

In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called "separate but equal" doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Fergson, 163 U.S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.

The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not "equal" and cannot be made "equal," and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction. Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court.
Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then-existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.
An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment's history with respect to segregated schools is the status of public education at that time. In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences, as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public school education at the time of the Amendment had advanced further in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas; the school term was but three months a year in many states, and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education.
In the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race. The doctrine of "separate but equal" did not make its appearance in this Court until 1896 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation. American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this Court, there have been six cases involving the "separate but equal" doctrine in the field of public education. In Cumming v. County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528, and Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged. In more recent cases, all on the graduate school level, inequality was found in that specific benefits enjoyed by white students were denied to Negro students of the same educational qualifications. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337; Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637. In none of these cases was it necessary to reexamine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt v. Painter, supra, the Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education.
In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.
In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.
We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.
In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession." Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:
Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.
Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.
We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question -- the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the Court for the reargument this Term The Attorney General of the United States is again invited to participate. The Attorneys General of the states requiring or permitting segregation in public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do so by September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954.
It is so ordered.
* Together with No. 2, Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, argued December 9-10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953; No. 4, Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al. , on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, argued December 10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953, and No. 10, Gebhart et al. v. Belton et al., on certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware, argued December 11, 1952, reargued December 9, 1953.