Page 2
University Daily Kansan
Tuesday. Nov. 19, 1963
Time Marches On
It has been a little more than 100 years since President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, legally freeing all slaves in the rebellious Confederate states. Although Lincoln's acknowledged purpose always was to preserve the union, with or without slavery, the Proclamation meant the Negro's dream of freedom was near.
Today the Negro's dream of complete freedom is still near, but as yet, still a dream.
THE AMERICAN NEGRO'S dream was expressed this summer when the 20th century "emancipator" of the Negro, Martin Luther King Jr., stepped up to the podium in front of the Lincoln Memorial in the March on Washington.
Under the brooding, marble face of his predecessor, King told 210,000 people and a TV audience of his dream:
"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.
"Even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream.
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
THE PURPOSE for the march, to petition for the passage of the bill, seems to have been in vain. The March on Washington probably will make a great impression on history, but nothing else. History has become the burial ground for many of the Negro's hopes, especially since the Civil War era.
Possibly part of this ironic failure of the Emancipation Proclamation can be traced back to the half-hearted support it was given by President Lincoln and his associates. He needed the support of the Northern abolitionists to win the Civil War, and the only way he could win their support was to free the slaves legally.
He had always said, as he did in a letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, "If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I would do it; if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."
EVEN WHEN the Proclamation was written, Lincoln gave the states in rebellion a chance to rejoin the union, and preserve their "peculiar institution." The official clause gave them "100
days." But as history shows, the Confederate States of America turned down Lincoln's appeasement offer, confident that they would win the war.
TO MAKE SURE emancipation was assured in the years following the Civil War, Congress approved the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, assuring the abolition of slavery, defining citizenship and due process and assuring the Negros the right to vote. The future seemed to be bright for the Negro in "the land of the free," but it was to grow dark once more.
The hopes of the Negro for equal rights were again pushed aside by the Supreme Court in 1896, when in Plessy v. Ferguson, the court concurred with the state of Louisiana in its practice of "separate but equal" treatment of the Negro on railroads. This was to remain law until 1954.
In the 14th amendment, Congress was given the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the amendment. When it did so, however, it was halted by the Supreme Court. The Civil Rights act of 1875, giving equal rights to the Negro in a similar way to the 1963 bill, was found to go beyond the provisions of the 14th amendment. The court said Congress was given the power only to correct abuses by the states. The act was declared completely void in 1913.
The Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, finally broke the "separate but equal" doctrine in 1954 and launched one of the most significant movements for human rights in the 20th century.
THE 1954 SUPREME COURT decision has been another push forward for the American Negro, just as the Emancipation Proclamation was in 1863. The Proclamation ended the physical slavery of the Negro race. Perhaps the Supreme Court decision will be the impetus to end the slavery of bigotry.
The slavery of the type depicted in Mr. Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin" has ended, but full freedom for the American Negro is still a dream. It is a dream that may partially come true through legislation and laws, but it ultimately will also have to come from a revolution in the American conscience, a return to the ideas of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Although full equality is nearer today for the Negro than it was in 1863, it still is a dream, a dream that should have come true 100 years ago.
Phil Magers
The People Say...
Politics an Asset
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on what I believe to be one of the greatest assets we students have here at KU: campus politics and student government. As a participant in the recent campaign, I believe that I am in a somewhat favorable position to compare my impression of campus politics with that of those who have recently expressed either apathy or dissatisfaction with our present campus political system.
As a candidate for office on the All Student Council, I had many experiences and gained many benefits which, without campus politics, would have been impossible to accrue. Although I was not elected, I feel the time spent was not at all lost effort; indeed, the friends that one makes, the knowledge gained from participation in such activities as the recent campaign are, and should be, an integral part of a college education. For this reason I cannot understand that attitude taken by some otherwise well-informed individuals toward our campus political system.
Certainly, there are undoubtedly several valid complaints which can be raised about the present system; I do not maintain that it is above improvement. On the other hand, speaking from my recent experiences, I can say with all sincerity that my familiarity with campus politics will prove to be beneficial; student government is indeed an asset which we students should support, and benefit from, to the fullest extent possible.
John A. Traylor Great Bend freshman
Our Little Model Editor
Editor:
Yesterday, as I was strolling through the Student Union, I stumbled over the latest addition to its facilities. After studying our new toy for some time, I began to wonder, do we have $4,500 worth of accuracy? With mounting surprise, concern, and finally indignation, I noted serious, and no doubt unauthorized, alterations to certain buildings. For instance, how unfortunate that one of our most important research facilities, the Entomology Laboratory, situated on the south side of Hoch, has apparently been walled in ("For the love of God, Montressor!") Here vital researches in the new science of Numerical Taxonomy are being carried on. Is the world never to know? Then there is the matter of the Giant Redwooos also back of Hoch. And do earnest students, in their haste to get from Jayhawk Boulevard to malot, shinn down these same trees or jump?
How clever of the designers to use those esthetic little bits of minced foam rubber (in three different shades yet) for the Campus greenery. But what are those pink things at the side of Potter's Lake? Dead?
No doubt more awful examples of unsolicited reorganization of their favorite haunts can be found by observant students. Therefore, in the interest of accuracy, may I suggest a yearly exhumation of the model to correct such errors and to incorporate such additions as bird baths, stone benches, statues, granite bulletin boards, and even new models of the Campus.
Lawrence Graduate Student
Dailij Hansan
111 Flint Hall
111 Flint Hall
University of Kansas student newspaper
UNiversity 4-3646, newsroom
UNiversity 4-3198, business office
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16. 1912. Member Inland Daily Press Association, Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East 50 St., New York 22, N.Y. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence; Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays, University holidays, and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
U.S. Foreign Aid Today: World War II Aftermath
By Joanne Shade
Foreign aid encompasses everything from jet planes to combat boots; from dried milk to tractors; and from life-saving drugs to movies that show how to spray against mosquitoes.
The fulfillment of the American foreign aid program means millions of dollars, hours of headaches, and gallons of sweat.
The job is not easy.
"To be a policeman, banker, and baby-sitter to a restless world, when the coalescing force of fear has been largely removed, is a tough assignment," says James Reston, head of the Washington bureau of the New York Times.
The constitutional right of the federal government to use tax money for the benefit of foreign nations was debated and decided in 1794, when Congress voted $15,000 for the relief of Haitian refugees.
Since then, Congress has assumed the power to give relief to disaster victims abroad, with no more tangible benefit to the general welfare of America than to satisfy a feeling of compassion.
Our present foreign aid program is based on the premise that the strength, independence,
and economic well-being of the countries of the free world are vital to our own security and progress.
Our goal is two-fold: first, to prevent any more of the material or human resources of the world from falling under Soviet domination, and second, to build the foundation for a just and durable peace.
Two world wars had finally shattered American illusions of detachment from the quarrels of other nations. The largest and most powerful nation of the world had to admit that its security and welfare were greatly affected by international patterns of power.
Modern foreign aid came about as a response to economic and political threats to world peace in the years following World War II.
The conclusion of the "war to end war" did not give hoped-for indications of a lasting peace. Soviet Russia, although weak from conflict, embarked upon a wild expansion program.
If we did not help other nations achieve stability and resist Communist penetration, we ourselves would suffer disaster.
In 1947, the United States began a series of major foreign
aid programs—the Greek-Turkish Aid Program, the Marshall Plan, the Mutual Defense Assistance Program, and the Point Four Program.
The first emphasis was on European recovery through economic aid. But by 1951, the emphasis in our total foreign aid effort had shifted from primarily economic aid to defense objectives.
This change followed the defeat of Nationalist China in 1949, the Soviet explosion of an atom bomb in September of that year, the worsening situation in Indochina in 1950, and aggression in Korea in the same year.
In recent years, renewed emphasis has been placed on economic and technical assistance, mainly to counter a communist economic interest in under-developed countries of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.
At the same time, we have programs to equip our allies with new weapons of advanced design.
Thus, the foreign aid program shows constant adaptation and growth. The concept has evolved from various foreign aid funds administered on a stopgap basis to a comprehensive global program of economic and military aid that has become a dominant feature of U.S. foreign policy.
Despite constant adaptation, the U.S. aid program is still subject to criticism. According to a University of Chicago political scientist, the U.S. has never managed to "develop an intelligible theory of foreign aid that could provide standards of judgment for both the supporters and opponents of a particular measure."
Critics practically never want to eliminate foreign aid, but they would like to reduce the amount and they would like to see it spent more wisely.
1. The U.S. will not pick up the tab for new United Nations ventures.
3. Latin America will grow in importance in aid projects.
2. Africa will be seen mainly as Europe's problem. The new African nations will gradually need to look elsewhere for aid and guidance.
Long-term, low-interest loans, subject to firm conditions, provide the pattern for the future. The U.S. can't afford another Cuba. Aid will reduce the chance of that.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, the annual fight over foreign aid appropriations rages as it always has raged. The $3.5 billion voted by the house is an authorization. Actual appropriations are yet to be voted.
About $6.7 billion in aid funds, voted by Congress in past years but not spent, was on hand and available at the beginning of this fiscal year. President Kennedy has requested additional authorization of $4.5 billion for the current year. That amount in addition to funds carried over, would have made a total fund available of $11.2 billion.
Let's hope the ruckus over the appropriation is settled so that nobody is too upset over extravagance or frugality.
Foreign aid shouldn't be treated as an annual emergency, but as a proved tool of Western diplomacy—a long-term commitment like the Alliance for Progress.
What the foreign aid program needs, as does every human venture, is more foresight and less hindsight.