good evening, everyone i'm

carter phillips. i'm the treasurer. the supreme court historical society. i actually stand in this room with some frequency, but i'm usually face in that direction, so it's a nice change of pace actually to be looking at. now there i am asked to remind everyone, please turn off all cell phones, tablets, apple watches, even if they're in silent mode, they can cause interference with the sound system in this courtroom. so i appreciate assistance on that. obviously, we welcome you this evening. this particular heritage lecture has been a long coming.

we began in 1991 with justice kennedy talking about the court packing plan. and then we had the privilege of doing it again. 2018 to celebrate justice 50th anniversary on court. and so it's sort of fitting we're now here once again after pandemic. it's nice to be back in the courtroom for the 70th anniversary of the court's landmark decision. and of course, this is a program that we put on with the white house historical association and the u.s. capital society. and we appreciate very our partnership and that endeavor. i'd like to express the society's gratitude this evening to justice ketanji brown jackson. this is the first event that we've had the privilege of having her participate with the society and she's doing double duty tonight. first, she'll be at home. she'll be a host and also a participant. after judge gergel speaks, she'll join him in a

conversation and discuss brown versus board of education as i suspect you all know, this is a pretty busy time for the for the justices of the court. so we we thank her for taking the time away from her many duties. and we're honored by her presence. it is cliche to say someone needs no introduction, but it is absolutely true in this context. nonetheless, my job is to introduce the introducer. so i will fulfill my responsibilities. justice jackson was born in washington on september 14, 1970. it's interesting that i at the same date that not the exact date, but the same day that the judge, constance baker, was born. most of you probably know about the judge. she was the first black woman to argue in the united states supreme court. first black federal district court. she argued ten cases in the supreme court and won nine of them. that is a record come nowhere

near. so she obviously she played a significant role in the brown litigation with thurgood marshall. justice jackson grew up in miami, attended private public i'm sorry. she graduated from harvard. radcliffe with a bachelor's in government and graduated from harvard's law school in 96. after law school, she had three clerkships that's become the tradition in my day was to was pretty much everything but these days get three including one with justice stephen breyer here at the court in addition to her professional experience in private practice she had other forms of public service. she worked in the united states sentencing commission for three years as a federal public defender, three years here in d.c. she returned to the u.s. sentencing commission and ten she served on the u.s. court for the district of columbia from 2013 to 2021 and president appointed her to the d.c. circuit. and 2021.

she was there long enough to a cup of coffee, basically. and that was nominated to the united states supreme court. and she was confirmed in 2022 and took the oath of office on june 30th, 2022. i am and grateful to present justice jackson and to thank her for being here this evening evening. thank you all very. thank you, carter, for that introduction and you for the invitation to. be with you this evening. my colleagues and i support the important work of the supreme court society and the work the society is doing to preserve the history of the court, the constitution, and the federal, and to explore educational outreach to the public about the supreme court's history. it is a pleasure host this special society program this evening here at the court

tonight's lecture conversation, as you heard comes just days after the 70th anniversary of the court's decision in brown versus the board of education. given that history, it is quite meaningful for to be in the courtroom tonight, to take part in the society's of brown. in a few moments we'll have the privilege of hearing from judge richard gergel, who presided in the same courthouse in south carolina where judge jay white's wearing served. and for those you who don't know much about, judge waring, you will learn a great deal about him tonight. judge richard gergel is a native of columbia south carolina, and the grandson of russian and polish jewish. he is a graduate of duke university and the duke

university school of law. he practiced law in columbia, south carolina, for 30 years, specializing in complex civil litigation before president obama nominated as u.s. district judge. and he was confirmed by the senate by a unanimous consent in august of 2010, shortly after his confirmation, judge gergel discovered that his maternal grandparents had been sworn in as american citizens in the very courtroom to which was assigned a fact that he has shared frequently while conducting naturalization ceremonies. he has presided in federal courthouse in charleston since and has handled a of significant cases, including the 2017 trial of dylann roof who killed nine people attending a wednesday bible study at emanuel african methodist church. judge gergel is the author of

numerous and books with a particular on american legal history with his wife, who is here with us tonight, dr. belinda gergel, a retired historian. he is the author of enforced of the tree of life, a history of the early -- in of columbia, south carolina. his most recent book from which tonight's talk drawn is an example of courage, the blinding of sergeant isaac woodard and the awakening of president truman and judge whites wearing. it has been referred to by new york times as riveting and remarkable and by professor henry louis gates as a timely a monumental achievement. the gurgles have two sons, both of whom are with us tonight. richie, who practices law in charleston, and joseph, who graduated yesterday from the fordham law school.

i could go on, but i won't because like you i'm anxious to hear from my friends. so please join me in welcoming judge gergel. thank justice jackson for that kind introduction. and we we have been initially i had been confirmed. we were sort of reconstructing our relationship i have been confirmed about a year in justice jackson was on the sentencing commission nominee for the district court but not yet. and we were at a sentencing commission conference and we had these wonderful conversations. and we have been friends and colleagues since. so we're so proud of her. and i'm truly honored to be here with in this event on december nine, 1952. thurgood marshall, the legendary chief counsel, the naacp stepped

to the podium in this courtroom and commenced his argument. the supreme court's longstanding precedent of plessy v ferguson should be overturned. he was followed by john davis himself, a living legend is one of the greatest oral of his day, who argued that plessy remained good law. the two titans of the bar met at the crossroads of history with the outcome of this historic to define what type nation america would be. the stakes were huge. would major portions america remain rigidly segregated in which many citizens lived in a twilight world between slavery and freedom. or would this country up to its promise of equal justice, guaranteed by the american constitution? many would assume that the case for this momentous argument

between thurgood marshall and john davis was brown versus board of education. that assumption would be wrong. the case argued that day continued into the next day. was briggs versus elliott which involved a challenge to the racially segregated public school system of clarendon county, south carolina. the briggs case would later be consolidated with three other school desegregation cases under the title brown versus board of education, thurgood marshall awaited argue the briggs case exclusive. lee in the first round of arguments in 1952, believed it was the most of the school segregation pending on the supreme court's. the first case that was filed, the first case that where the groundbreaking evidence, dr. kenneth clarke's doll studies offered and the only case in which a dissent had been filed asserting that plessy should

overturned. that by united states district judge jay waring of charleston, concluded that all government mandated public school segregation violated the equal protection, the 14th amendment and was thus, per se, uncosted. when the supreme court, its unanimous decision in brown on may 17, 1954, waring's per say standard was centerpiece of what is now regarded as the most important case in history. it is thus altogether fitting that in this program, honoring the seventh 70th anniversary of the brown decision, we turn our attention to the briggs case and judge waring remarkable dissent which helped this country untie the knot of jim crow. it should be noted, however, the forces which propelled the public school segregation issue onto the docket of the united states supreme court did not simply begin with the filing of

the briggs suit or the citizens petition, which made the simple request the black children of the clarendon school have access to a school bus just like white children. it was instead a now long forgotten of racial violence and on a returning african-american and world war two veteran that would set off a cascading series, events ultimately leading to the eventful day in december 1952, when thurgood marshall's stepped to the podium in this courtroom to argue that plessy v ferguson should be overturned as world war two came to an end, 900,000 african-americans, most from south, were discharged and returned home to their communities. while african-americans served soldiers served in segregated units of world war two, the military opportunities for training and advancement further having served their country and defended america and liberty and freedom abroad. returning african-american

veterans expected more respectful treatment at home once they returned. instead, the old practices disenfranchisement and jim crow segregation persisted and returning veterans who resisted acquiesce to these customs were often viewed as a threat to the racial status quo. the returning african veterans wanted their own new deal. late in the afternoon of february 12, 1946, sergeant isaac woodard, a battlefield decorated, boarded a greyhound bus in augusta, georgia. after discharge hours earlier from camp gordon and was traveling to columbia, south carolina and then on to his hometown, winnsboro, where he was to rendezvous with his wife. after several years separation occasioned by his war service, woodard struck an impressive figure in his dress uniform with sergeant stripes on his and battlefield decorations on his chest.

during of the frequent stops along the way, woodard approached the white bus driver and asked if he could step off the bus the next stop to relieve himself. at that time, interstate busses did not have restrooms, and greyhound drivers were instructed to accommodate such requests by their passengers. instead, the bus snapped at woodard. i ain't got time to wait and ordered him to return to his seat at the back of the bus. to the apparent astonishment, the bus driver, woodard snapped back, telling the driver, talk to me like i am talking to you. i am a man just like you. the stunned bus driver told woodard to go ahead, but at the next stop and burg, south carolina, the bus driver now no longer with staying on schedule, departed his bus in search of a police officer to have woodard removed from the bus and arrested. woodard soon found himself confronted by the police chief of bates burg, linwood shaw, who

responded to woodard's effort to explain himself by striking him over the head with his blackjack and escorting woodard off to the county jail. on way, woodard was repeatedly beaten with charles blackjack ultimately driving the end of the baton into both of his eyes. the sergeant was then thrown a semi-conscious state into a jail cell the night. when he awoke next morning, he realized could not see. later that day, woodard was transported. the veterans hospital in columbia where he was determined to be irreversible. he landed a count of the woodard beating and blanding were reported in the black press and received nationwide attention. when orson welles focused on the incident in his weekly national radio program on abc radio over four specific weeks mass, meetings were soon organized in black community across the nation for toelke to protest woodard to treatment. meanwhile, other black returning

to their homes in, the rural south confronted other of racial violence, including racially inspired murders. no state, no state prosecuted involved in any of these incidents. on september 19, 1946, a delegation civil rights leaders met with president truman. the white house deeply by this wave of racial violence against black veterans. prior to the meeting, truman staff said that despite his desire to respond to the concerns of the civil leaders, there was little he could do as president to address these assaults. as the meeting opened civil rights leaders urged truman to call congress back at a special session to address the spreading violence black veterans. the president expressed sympathy but lamented was little he could do because it was simply not public support for civil rights legislation. leading the group was.

walter white, the executive secretary of the naacp and one of truman's most loyal and prominent supporters in the civil community. it was apparent, white, that the president did not appreciate the gravity of the. why the discussion? by sharing with truman in detail the blinding of isaac woodard as a tragic story. truman sat riveted and became visibly with the idea that a uniformed and decorated soldier had been so cruelly treated, abandoning the advice of his staff. truman said, my god, i had no idea it was as terrible as that. we got to do something. the following day, truman wrote his attorney, tom clark, and shared him the story of the blinding of isaac woodard, noting that the police officer deliberately put out the sergeant's eyes. truman made clear that the time

for action had now arrived three business. days after president truman's letter arrived at the department of justice. the attorney general made the unprecedented announcement that the department of justice would prosecute bates byrd, police chief lynwood shull for the deprivation of the civil rights of isaac woodard during this era. a federal prosecutor have a white police officer for violating the civil rights of a black citizen in the south face daunting challenges. jury rosters drawn from voter lists and african-americans were almost entirely disenfranchized. all white juries and grand juries were generally hostile to any civil rights claims and local prosecutors were nothing to do with civil rights cases. indeed, the decision by the justice department to charge the police chief a misdemeanor was it was doubted that his south carolina federal grand jury would return an. the announcement of the

prosecution of the police chief brought an outcry from local south carolina elected officials who attacked what they argued was meddling in a purely local matter. the united states judge assigned the case j. wade is wearing was an eighth generation charleston yen and his father his father was a confederate veteran. judge waring was himself initially skeptical of the federal prosecution. but when the blinded sergeant took stand and detailed his vicious beating at the hands of chief shull, judge waring knew a grave wrong had been done. he was equally aware. that is all white jury would not convict the obvious culpable officer. he right. 28 minutes after deliberations commenced, the jury announced the acquittal. lynn would show and show supporters cheered his acquittal. few noticed that judge waring's elizabeth who had attended the trial, left the back of the courtroom in tears.

judge waring joined his wife later that evening, and both were by the trial over which he had just presided. the show forced the judge and his wife to stare directly into the racial abyss, a view which would forever transform both of them wearing described the show trial as his personal baptism of fire. it is michigan born wife's baptism in racial prejudice. the waring's returned home to charleston. the show trial, which was held in columbia, resolved to learn more about the issues of race, injustice a subject which they had given, frankly, little thought prior to the trial. these were not subjects that could be openly discussed among. white charles colonials of the day the waring's decided to undertake their own self-directed study each evening after dinner elizabeth would read out loud a portion of a selected work to allow the judge to rest his eyes.

after a day of handling his judicial duties, the would then discuss what they had read. often, while driving around, charles bland in the evening, a favorite pastime among the books they read was the cutting edge work of the american dilemma by. gunnar myrdal, a brilliant. 1400 page study of race in america funded by the carnegie foundation. which would later be cited in famous footnote 11 in brown versus board of education. once the waring's read all 1400 pages together, there was no turning back as judge waring's new views on race injustice evolved. george elmer, a black filed suit in the federal district court in columbia in 1947, challenging the south democratic party's all white primary. elmore was represented by thurgood marshall, the 39 year old chief counsel, the naacp, who was already a reputation of

almost proportions as a skilled, led, litigator and legal strategist. south carolina's political were united in their determination to preserve the white primary, notwithstanding clear u.s. supreme court precedent. smith versus. all right, holding white primaries unconstitutional. just a chance. they don't always to which i'll say right. judge waring understood would that any decision recognize using the right of minority citizens to would produce an intensely hostile and possibly violent public reaction. he came home the night he was assigned the case and told elizabeth up to. now we've been doing this privately but if i rule for the plaintiffs in this case, our lives will never be the same. elizabeth, now, a convert to the cause says i'm with you from start to finish. waring concluded as he later

shared with an a historian after he retired that his choice was either, quote, to be entirely by the doctrine of white supremacy or to be a federal judge. decide the law. on july 12, 1947, judge waring issued decision in elmore versus rice, declaring south carolina's primary unconstitutional. waring ended his order by stating it is time for south carolina to rejoin the union and to adopt the american way of conducting elections. the groundbreaking nature of the elmore decision was immediately by the leadership of the acp in a private note, the thurgood marshall william hasty, who would later be appointed the first black federal judge in american history, wrote. thurgood, i read the south carolina decision three times and i still don't believe it. in many respects, i think this is your greatest legal

achievement. but the segregationists would not give. sooner new party rule adopted allowing blacks vote in the priority primary. so long as they pledged their support to racial segregation. no surprise a new lawsuit was by thurgood marshall and judge waring then summoned an emergency hearing in his courtroom and all 93 members of the democratic executive committee be present. these were the political powers of south carolina. judge waring denounced their efforts to defy his earlier ruling and explained that a federal judge faced with contempt could, impose a fine or jail sentence. he one of those present to know that if they violate his orders again, there would be no fines. think about that one. thereafter african-americans by the thousands registered to vote in south carolina. the response of the whites of south carolina's supremacy was

thunderous. death threats written and oral were constant across was burned at the waring's residence and bricks were thrown through the living room window on the order of the attorney general. judge waring was provided 24 hour u.s. marshals, security, time magazine described. waring is the man they loved hate but also noted he was proving to be a person of color. if the purpose the unprecedented vilification waring was intended to cower him, it did not work. instead, he continued his study and reflection on race and justice in america and became convinced that the foundation of jim crow segregation in the supreme court's 1896 decision in plessy v ferguson was legally historic and morally wrong. after the supreme court ruled with the plaintiffs, nine zero

in civil rights cases issued in june 1951 involving a separate but not equal texas law school, that sweat versus paper and a graduate school where an african-american student was required to sit in a hall outside the classroom. that's mclaurin versus oklahoma board of regents. judge waring was convinced that the supreme court was ready to reverse plessy if a proper segregation case could be placed on its docket. judge waring noted his own his trial docket in. charleston, a case. clarendon from clarendon county, south carolina. briggs v elliott, which sought to equalize the facilities in the district and white schools at the time, litigate aiding civil rights cases in the south was very tough slog for the naacp lawyers, and they had a strategy using plessy as a sword. that is, they weren't

challenging segregation, but they were challenging lack of equality. this was a highly successful legal strategy. they were winning their cases and it a brilliant kind of strategy because it avoided challenging segregation. the original briggs but it had its controversy because every time plessy was used to uphold the rights of african-american citizens, it in another way securing the inferior inferior legal status. the original briggs complaint not explicitly allege that segregated public schools were unconstitutional. was not an accident. they were not asserting that at the time when the plaintiffs attorney, thurgood marshall, appeared at the charleston courthouse on november 17, 1954, a pretrial conference on the friday before the trial was the beginning. monday, he was advised judge wanted to see him in chambers

after being ushered the justice judge's office without opposing present wearing marshals. i don't want to try another separate but equal case. bring me a frontal attack on segregation. marshall responded. judge, it's on our agenda. it's just not tonight. we don't think this is the case. we don't. this is the time. what he was really saying was, they'll kill my plaintiffs in. clair county, south carolina, if we do this. judge waring was unpersuaded telling marshall, this is the case. this is the time. marshall urged judge to think practically, noting that any decision by him overturning plessy would be reversed on appeal by the fourth circuit, wearing that since they challenged the public school, contested constitutionality of the state law, he would request the appointment of a three judge panel and any appeal would automatically go into docket of the united states supreme court.

up to this point, the ucp's highly successful legal strategy had been carefully. it was a carefully built one case from the top of another, never trying to get ahead of the supreme court. the path waring was suggesting was a bold and unflinching on segregation route and branch. a few minutes after this dramatic encounter, waring convened the pretrial conference in briggs and publicly pressed on whether he was challenging constitutionality of public segregation. marshall he was an to dismiss his pending lawsuit and refile a file new briggs complaint as first frontal attack on public school in american history. the newly filed briggs was tried in the charleston federal courthouse. in may 1951 before a three judge panel, which included waring and prior years the civil rights cases in the south were sparsely

attended by members of the black community, lest they be identified as members of the naacp. that would get you fired if you were a schoolteacher. or they were. they may be seen as challenges to the racial status. but on the morning of may 28, 1951, as the sun in charleston, african americans lined up at the federal courthouse and down broad street. as far as the eye could see, hoping to absorb what many thought might be the most important case in history. as marshall entered the charleston federal that morning, he turned to his youngest sister, bob carter, and said, bob, it's all over. carter his youngest sister, was a bit mystified. what did he mean. he said they're not scared anymore. those in attendance in the courtroom not disappointed by the performance. thurgood marshall and his trial team. the trial included the testimony of dr. kenneth clark, a social

psychologist who had done groundbreaking on the effects of segregation on black children using black white dolls. the crowd was also entertained by thurgood devastating cross-examination of the state's key witness, whose last name was crow. you can't make it up. okay. as judge waring anticipated, the majority of the panel ruled that south carolina's mandated mandating schools were lawful under the plessy doctrine. but judge waring fully aware he was writing a dissent for the ages, wrote a elegant and brilliant attack on the foundations of segregation in america. he quote, we must face without or equivocation the question as to whether segregate in education and our schools is legal. under the 14th amendment. waring discussed in some detail the of dr. kenneth clark

regarding, his doll studies, which he stated demonstrated that quote, the humiliation and disgrace of being set aside segregated is unfit to associate with others of different color has a damaging effect. the mental processes of our young. after carefully examining language of the equal protection clause in the recent decisions of the supreme court, striking down segregated schools of higher, judge waring concluded segregation in education can never produce equality and it is an evil that must be. segregation in education and adopted in practice in the state of south carolina must. go and go now. segregation is per se. inequality. judge waring also noted his dissent. the targeted retaliation the briggs plaintiffs had as a result of their participation in the case, which included the loss of jobs, the calling

uniform home loans and the failure of the local volunteer fire department to respond to a fire that burned down the home of the plaintiff community leader, reverend joseph delaney. judge waring stated, that the plaintiffs, quote, have an example of courage in bringing and presenting this cause in the face of a long established and age old way of life, which state of south carolina has adopted and practice and lived in since as a result of the institution of human slavery? where is the senate issued june 1951? was the first challenge to government mandated segregation by federal judge since justice harlan's historic dissent in plessy 55 years earlier. in early 1952, some six months after his briggs elliott dissent, judge announced his retirement as a federal and exhausted by his ostracism in charleston. moved to new york city wearing follow closely later school

cases from virginia and kansas all which were consolidated before the united states court with briggs under the name brown versus of education, an of the other school desegregation cases involving 14 different judges. only way to swearing concluded that public school segregation even if the facility were equal, violated the 14th amendment of the united states constitution. on may 17, 1954, the supreme court handed unanimously its landmark decision in brown versus board of education. the court found that the public public school segregation, quote, generate a feeling inferiority in children and may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. citing the doll studies of dr. clarke, the court explicitly cast aside the separate but equal doctrine and adopted the per se rule that government mandated public schools was

unconstitutional. first advanced by waring and, his briggs dissent on the night of the brown decision, leadership of the naacp traveled to judge waring small east side apartment to toast man they viewed as the father of brown. judge waring met with chief justice warren shortly after the brown decision to express his admiration for the clearcut decision and told him i felt greatly relieved. when you decided the clarendon school had been pretty lonely up to that time. the chief justice responded that waring was the one to be admired because you had to do it the hard way. judge waring was always full soft about what he called the unpledged repercussions of his civil rights decisions. in an oral history late in life, waring observed taking the whole thing in balance. i think i am enormously fortunate because you don't often in life have the opportunity to do something. you really think is good. i think a great stroke of fortune came down my alley.

the other penalties don't amount to anything. they're offset by what i think is a really contribution to the history of our country. thank you. it's like you. all right this time. can you hear me? wonderful. well, that was really wonderful, really informative. and we have a few follow up questions that will turn it turn it over to the audience. be fine. so you mentioned that judge waring, alienated from the white political establishment in south particularly. do you have a sense of how was received by other judges. well, it's kind of interesting. he had know these white primary cases. they went up on appeal and.

the fourth circuit unanimously affirmed. his two decisions. john jay parker had been nominated to the court in at one point in the late twenties and did not get confirmed because of his received views on race. he he the decisions affirming where he was an admirer of white is wearing around the country was greatly admired and he knew the justices of this court very well. they they admired him. there was a session a point where he came to washington for a series of meetings. one was with chief justice vinson and he wrote a letter later to thurgood marshall said, i have met the chief justice. he shares our views in that. interesting, because, you know, the view is that vinson was resistant. he also in same visit met

president truman and their discussion began with truman saying. judge, do you know the story of the blinded sergeant? and he said, mr. president, i tried that case. so i would say that i you know, one of the things judge waring went say he was a kind of national in the late forties. he would reporters would ask him fairly commonly that what got into you? you know, how did you change? and would say, well, the bench i'd developed a passion for justice. that's a wonderful statement. but, you know, there were a lot of other southern federal judges who apparently did not develop at that time a passion for justice. and and so i think it wasn't like was a clamoring to follow him. it was really, you know, the fright. johnson and and the three great judges of the fifth circuit. tuttle and brown. that's really a little later.

he's already retired by the time they get on the bench. they're eisenhower appointees. so at the time, he's out there by himself so i think the answer was, you know, while wait is where he had become probably the most reviled man, the white south he he had, at a minimum, the grudging respect of his and some an admiration. well, you talked a little bit about president and his knowledge of the isaac woodard story. your talks about how that incident actually motivated the president to make some changes. can you tell us about them? yes you know, it's it's that session in september of 1946 where walter white shares with him the, blinding of isaac woodard. it captured imagination in a way that no, these other incidents and there were other incidents in in the south during this period some racially inspired

murders that didn't quite but this hit him in a way and he would repeatedly tell the story of the blinding of isaac woodard almost anyone who would listen to him. and he decided that same letter he writes, the attorney and says, basically, prosecute the guy who blinded isaac woodard. he also says, we've got to do more than. and he says, i'm going to appoint the first presidential commission on civil rights. that commission, which was a landmark event in and of itself, issued report within 11 months of their appointment called to secure these rights and offered about four or five dozen suggest of how to undo jim crow. many of these are the basically blueprint for the johnson administration. but there was and congress was not going to go along with any of it at time. but harry truman had one thing he could do. he could issue executive order desegregating armed forces of

the united states. and in july of 1948, he did just that in the middle of his presidential campaign. and what is a remark double letter i found the truman library. a friend of his from missouri wrote him and said, harry get off this civil rights thing. you're going to lose the election. you're going to lose the south. truman wrote him back and he said to his ernest roberts, ernie, you don't know what i know. and he tells him the story of the blinding of isaac woodard. and he says, i lose this election over, this issue. it will have been for a good cause. and truman's second term, he fully desegregated the military over the very strong resistance of the army brass. and when he left office in early 1952, he 95% of american troops were in desegregated units

creating the first multiracial institution in american life. so here's the sort of the irony. here's this story. a blinded veteran that no one remembered who influence maybe the two seminal events of the early civil rights movement, the desegregation of the armed forces, and brown versus board. you tell me how you came this story. how did you do the research where you mentioned in the truman library? yeah. well, first of all, as you remember this when you become a district judge kind of lands on you, right? you you're like, oh, my god, if it's the real thing. and and and, you know, you're you're sort of sobered with the responsibility. and i wanted to know because, i have this love of history. i want to know the history of our court. and particularly i want to know about the most fascinating member of our way, just wearing and through all those discussions in the end there

have been articles at the time. they've never been really good work. nobody really answered this question. what change? wait, is where? what motivated this dramatic from being basically a mainstream democratic political to being a civil visionary. how did this happen? and as i looked into it, i found a letter he had written in 1945 in which he described himself as a gradualist, which meant that he didn't want the courts or or civil groups to be altering in southern life. but he thought it was necessary for a gradual evolution of southern life, which meant ten years from never okay. by 1947, he is threatening to jail white politicians for interfering with the rights of african-american to vote. so something happened in that two year period and did in the middle of it is the trial of one

which all for the blanding of isaac woodard. and so i started with the hypothesis that that was it and i'm sort of midway through my research someone offered me a oral history of tape of an oral history of a woman named ruby who was the matriarch, the charleston civil rights community. and she was close with the warrens and and and so she was being interviewed and she was talking about judge waring. and then in the middle of it, i'm just sitting here listening to it with headphones on. and she says, now, you what changed him, don't you? whoa. here it comes, she says. it was blinded -- sergeant. he called. he told me it was his baptism of fire. so there i had it. so. so, you know. so once i. so now i had that part that this story that, i believe, contributed mightily to the brown decision. here it was, was this story of

of this of of this blinded african american soldier. and then i asked, how did this case get prosecuted in 1946. they weren't justice department was not prosecuting white cops for black men. that just was not happening. and i dug into the story. i came across this letter from harry truman to tom clark. and i realized harry truman had ordered it. that's how it. and so, you know, now i had this that the two major events and the early civil rights came from this from this event. nobody remembered inspired these men to act in a courageous way. we're going to turn to the audience. but i want to ask you one more question about finding unusual historical facts. yes. how did you find out about the conversation between thurgood marshall and judge waring while

i wasn't there? i'll start with that. there was a gentleman by the name of alex rivera, who was a reporter, the pittsburgh courier. he was. his dad was the president of the north carolina acp. he was a he was he was viewed as someone who always had a camera around his neck. was he prided himself on on being a photographer, a photojournalist. but he covered the civil rights cases. he was a fraternity brother of and a very close friend. they actually sort of traveled together when. they would cover the trials and when marshall was was to waring's office. rivera was with him and he walked to the door and, stayed out. and when he came out, marshall told him what happened late in life after justice marshall and the judge, a passed rivera said, i need to tell a secret, because i know story and he told it.

he told it actually twice oral histories for the historian history sections at duke department at duke and at north carolina. and you know here, i have this rather startling story of ex parte communication. the most important case in history. and i was nervous about it. and i was, you know and i only had one source. right? i had this one guy and. i was at a meeting of judges. there was nathaniel who had a carter appointee. he'd been on the sixth circuit and he'd been the general counsel of the naacp a little bit later era. but was around and. our mutual friend michel charles said to me, go talk to nate. he might know something about judge waring. so i pulled him aside and i said, you know, i'm working this book. and i was wondering whether he

said. well, are you writing a biography of waring. i said, no, i'm writing about a story. i'm very him a little bit about it. and he said i said, but i'm curious, have you ever heard about a conversation between white house waring. and thurgood marshall in his chambers? he said, yes, i that story. i who told you? he said, walter white, thurgood marshall's boss told him the story. and he says, you know, in my autobiography, i mentioned it, but i didn't want to describe it because for the same reason you're asking me about. so, you know, i'm not writers. i went and read it and and he says it has this line. he says that it is long overlooked that is wearing inspired thurgood marshall to attack segregation root and branch. i called him i said nate is that what you're talking about? he says, you need to publish. you need to tell the whole

story. so there i thought i had two sources in the wonderful two pretty good ones. so saw anyone from the audience who would like to ask a question. yes, ma'am. thank you very much both for your remarks. i'm curious, know, judge, if you perceive a difference in how your book plays a role in the concept of justice, especially with regard to race? how thought about it before 2020 and the national conversation about race and today? you know, i am i've got to say that i was sort of already there for i was black by 20 the book was out but it out in 2019. so you know i get more frequently asked did the dylann roof case influence me? and actually it didn't. i mostly written the book by that point. you know, one of the things that we've got to do this is the

supreme court historical society is so important. we've got to remember our history. there's a lot of efforts to muddle story. and i think telling the story in a candid way. you know, in the opening of my book, the first 40 or 50 pages are pretty tough. read. it describes the blanding of isaac woodard. it's not a pretty sight, but i thought it was important for people to appreciate the brutal of jim crow segregation that was not a benign thing. everybody was happy to go along with because underlying it was the threat and use of were necessary. and isaac woodard that day was viewed as a threat to the social order. black veterans were viewed as a threat who would not who came back. and they wanted a they wanted a better deal than they had had before. so so i got to say that i think telling this history is really an important to do. and the george floyd episode

brought maybe a younger generation knowledge of some of this history. but you police violence has been an issue for many before night, 1220. yes. how did woodard live out the rest his life? yeah. well, you during these events arose isaac woodard became a very well-known figure. he gave talks around the country. there a benefit concert in new york which 23,000 people attended? count basie, cab calloway, others. joe louis was chairman of the committee. he was then the reigning heavyweight champion of the world. but there was a very interesting memo i found in the acp papers. a staff member wrote walter white and said, you know, in ten

years no one will remember his name. she's worried about him. what going to happen to him was blinded. 26 year old guy who was blinded, you know, black man had enough problems in 1946. being blinded was tough and he he he initially really struggled. the military took the view that set though he was still wearing his which was required until he got home. they said he was discharged hours before he was blinded. he did not qualify for disabled disability. and i got to give credit to the acp. they persisted for years, urging to change that in 1961. they changed it and he got disability benefits for benefits and back pay that tremendously changed his life in the he was working as as a blind man newspapers in lower manhattan we see blind do those things.

at one time he had a social worker at the veterans wrote, you know he wrote in, says, i am so poor, i cannot afford a winter coat. well, after 1961, he's he he becomes far more economically stable. he he begins buying real estate. you kind of like that, mr. klein, one of the country's leading real estate lawyers, even he he he begins becomes a landlord. i got to know nephew very well who was his caregiver who said he was the guy who collected rent. he was the he was he was his. he says uncle could make a nickel screen. i and he supported two sons. his elderly parents. he felt very fulfilled, i think. and in but in 1956, jet magazine

ran, a story called america's most forgotten man, which was i'm so down and then up. and he and but he hears the tragedy. he never knew his impact on harry truman and judge waring. he never knew that story. and his family, which is proud of all of this. i mean, they knew obviously they knew about joe louis and all that that part they were very aware of. they remember joe louis sending a limousine to, his house to pick him up for the concert and all. but, you know it really his courage of sort of standing up for himself had a transformative effect. american civil rights history. and he just jumped in and asked one thing. yes. and in your book about your traveling, bates burg and meeting with local leaders, this is the town where all of this happened and people had no idea they didn't remember. and so what what would you say

explains their lack of recall? and have they done anything to correct for that? well, there is an interesting problem, amnesia relating civil rights, violence. there just is and bates burge was no exception. so go to bates berg. to do i wanted to make sure that i knew certain events took place and and i had thought i knew but like the bus stop wasn't really they didn't have a building it was a place i wanted make sure i knew where that was and i knew where the police car. it was sort of a detailed of that tragic night when he's at it. so i called the town and i said, would you meet me there on a saturday morning? walk me through grown up there. help me with the logistics of all this. and and and he he meets me.

and with him is the mayor of blacksburg, whose last name was charlotte and, you know, i had sort of the same response and, and so, you know, i'm we and we go to where he got off the bus. we go around corner where he was beaten and store front and blinded. we go up the street to till the place the jail was where he was thrown in night and where the town court was where he was prosecuted the next day for drunk, disorderly conduct unjustly and. the mayor i'm kind of keeping my home a man and he's becoming like increasingly upset. i can tell this and he pulls me by my elbow and pulls me aside and said, oh, i wanted you to know i'm not related to the police chief from missouri. then he says what can we do?

and he says, i'm a harry truman fan. so he says to me, what can we do to, make this right? and we we had a series of he and i and the town attorney about they could do and they did a couple of things. first, they went into court and for the the unjust conviction to be overturned of the blind of the day after they erected a historic marker, candidly telling truth of, the blinding of isaac woodard by their police. they held a sarah mony in which the city council, town council and several hundred people from burg walked the path from the bus stop around corner to where he was blinded and to the side

of. the jail, which is now a cleared area, and they had erected the historic marker and they have now announced that they are turning that space into a park and they're going to title it the isaac woodard community park and new york times wrote an article about this was a who got it right who acknowledged their history. so it's a kind of wonderful story. tragic in the inception, but redemptive in terms of the way the town dealt with it. i think we have time for one more question. sure. you said, um, it just happened right after world war two and i believe that it's now. jim crow. they were inspired by jim crow laws. that's correct. and i'm wondering to what extent judge waring was aware of that.

did what was happening in europe influence him at all? he you know, the answer is he did know about the he did know about the nazis and the death camps and actually, when he retired, he became a active member of the board of the conference of christians and -- in new york. he was also on the board of the aclu, which is kind of interesting. so he was he was aware that that there had an had fought for liberty and had fought for for the police and the whole sort of nazi regime. and, yes, i think it influenced him and in his own views on race and justice. can you all please join me in thinking, judge gergel, for a wonderful presentation

presentation. so. so if you haven't done it already, i suggest you go right out and order book on amazon. it is a it is an easy read. it is fascinating. publisher would like that but and that's just in return for the favor did earlier by the very very nice compliment you paid to the historical society appreciate that very much. please keep that mind as we enjoy the rest the evening. obviously. i want to thank justice jackson and judge gergel for being tonight. as i say, this book is is a fascinating read. and i thought i knew a fair amount about brown versus board of education and. i can tell you, i learned a lot about the details that are extreme really interesting. so i do commended to you. i also want to thank the sponsor our co-sponsors again the white house historical the u.s. capitol society point out

specifically. we're joined tonight with by matthew costello and jane campbell. and we look forward to the next program that we can put together with you. and we look forward to that. and now we have a reception. it'll be right out in the great hall, right outside these doors, and we will enjoy the rest of the evening together. and hopefully, if you have specific questions, you can raise them with the good judge. and on that note are adjourned. thank you.