Mississionary Baptist Minister Defends Segregation as Biblical

Allow image comparison in viewer

What is IIIF?

Collection:: Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas
Title:: Mississionary Baptist Minister Defends Segregation as Biblical
Publisher:: Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries
Date of Original:: 1958-04-09
Subject:: African Americans--Arkansas
Civil rights--Arkansas
Race discrimination--Arkansas
Segregation--Arkansas
Location:: United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044
Medium:: articles
Type:: Text
Format:: application/pdf
Description:: Personal letter from R.A. Raney to Herbert L. Thomas providing biblical justification and constitutional authority in support of continued racial segregation.
Racism -- Segregation -- Desegregation -- African-Americans -- Blacks -- Little Rock Central High School -- Little Rock (Ark.) -- Carthage (Ark.) -- Missionary Baptist Church -- Communism -- Carthage -- Dallas
any right to pass a decision for Bible believers to violate God's Positive law against mixing races. The only way law can act toward Christion believes, is to protect, or to protest against infringement on the laws of the country TURNING TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE U.S. Court order. In viewing of the fact that Segregation being,a Bible doctrine, therefore a matter of reli- gion, therefore the Supreme Court's decision violates article I. of the Constitution, which reads" "Congress shall make not law respecting an establishment of religion, or pro- hibiting the free exercise therof, of abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of greiva nces." Article II. of the Amended Constitution, reads: "A well regulated militia, being ne- cessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This article was most certainly violated when the Prsident sent Federal Troops to Little Rock, Mr Faubus had the matter under much better controle, than the Federal troops, in fact Mr Faubus was within jurisdiciton of his rights, and the rig- hts States rights. According to the Constitution, the Supremecourt had no rightwhatever to declare Segregation unconstitutional, as proof I cite Article VII, which reads: "In suits at common law, where the value in cintroversy shall exceed twenty dollars, t the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be other -wise re-examined by any Court in the United States, than according to the common law." Article X. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (I) The Segregation question had been settled in the lower Courts, which rejected Integrat ion, a thing the Constitution does not require. The case was appealed to the U.S. Court, which according to the Articles X and XI., had no jurisdiction whatever. Article XI. "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against on of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State." Article XIV. Section I, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and sub- ject to the jurusdicitonthereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherei n they reside. No State shall make any law which shall abridge the priviliges or immuni- ties of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, lib- erty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdic-
Metadata URL:: http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/1488
IIIF manifest:: https://digitalcollections.uark.edu/iiif/2/Civilrights:1488/manifest.json
Additional Rights Information:: Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright.
Contributing Institution:: University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries
Rights: