Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-4m4jm Total loading time: 0.515 Render date: 2021-10-26T02:53:51.223Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

“Clocks Must Always Be Turned Back”: Brown v. Board of Education and the Racial Origins of Constitutional Originalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2021

CALVIN TERBEEK*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
*
Calvin TerBeek, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago, cterbeek@uchicago.edu.

Abstract

The Republican Party has adopted constitutional “originalism” as its touchstone. Existing accounts of this development tell either a teleological story, with legal academics as the progenitors, or deracialized accounts of conservatives arguing first principles. Exploiting untapped archival data, this paper argues otherwise. Empirically, the paper shows that the realigning GOP’s originalism grew directly out of political resistance to Brown v. Board of Education by conservative governing elites, intellectuals, and activists in the 1950s and 1960s. Building on this updated empirical understanding, the theoretical claim is that ideologically charged elite legal academics and attorneys in Departments of Justice serve more of a legitimating rather than an originating role for American constitutional politics upon a long coalition’s electoral success. Finally, by showing the importance of race to constitutional conservatism’s development, this article posits that the received understanding of a “three-corner stool” of social, economic, and foreign policy conservatism needs revision.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Avins, Alfred. 1965a. “ Gray v. Sanders—A Constitutional Footnote.” Alabama Lawyer 26 (1): 82–8.Google Scholar
Avins, Alfred. 1965b. “Literacy Tests, the Fourteenth Amendment, and District of Columbia Voting: The Original Intent.” Washington University Law Quarterly 1965 (4): 429462.Google Scholar
Avins, Alfred. 1966. “The Fifteenth Amendment and Literacy Tests: The Original Intent.” Stanford Law Review 18: 808822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avins, Alfred, ed. 1967. The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debate. Richmond: The Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government.Google Scholar
Allitt, Patrick. 2009. The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities throughout American History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, Randy, and Bernick, Evan. 2018. “The Letter and the Spirit: A Unified Theory of Originalism.” Georgetown Law Journal 107: 155.Google Scholar
Berger, Raoul. 1977. Government by Judiciary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Black, Charles L. 1967. “Foreword: State Action, Equal Protection, and California’s Proposition 14.” Harvard Law Review 81: 69–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch Rubin, Ruth, and Elinson, Greg. 2018. “Anatomy of Judicial Backlash: Southern Leaders, Massive Resistance and the Supreme Court, 1954-1958.” Law & Social Inquiry 43 (3): 944–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bork, Robert. 1971. “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems.” Indiana Law Journal 47: 135.Google Scholar
Bork, Robert. 1984. “Tradition and Morality in Constitutional Law.” 1984 Francis Boyer Lecture. http://www.aei.org/publication/tradition-and-morality-in-constitutional-law/.Google Scholar
Bozell, L. Brent. 1958. “A Way Out for the Supreme Court?” National Review, September 13.Google Scholar
Bozell, L. Brent. 1963a. “Saving Our Children from God.” National Review, July 16.Google Scholar
Bozell, L. Brent. 1963b. “To Mend that Tragic Flaw.” National Review, March 1.Google Scholar
Bozell, L. Brent. 1963c. “Watch Out for the Subverters!” National Review, May 21.Google Scholar
Bozell, L. Brent. 1966. The Warren Revolution. Arlington House.Google Scholar
Buckley, William F. 1963. Rumbles: Left and Right. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
Buckley, William F. 1963. “Birmingham and After.” National Review, May 21.Google Scholar
Buckley, William F. 1977. “Berger’s Big Book.” National Review, November 11.Google Scholar
Burnham, James. 1956. “Notes from the Gulf Coast.” National Review, June 6.Google Scholar
Cameron, Charles, Kastellec, Jonathan, and Kwang-Park, Jee. 2013. “Voting for Justices: Change and Continuity in Confirmation Voting 1937-2010.” Journal of Politics 75 (2): 283–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, John. 1959. “The Enchantress: Majority Rule.” National Review, December 20.Google Scholar
Child, Richard. 1929. “Doctrine of Legal Obligation.” Constitutional Review 13 (1929): 8596.Google Scholar
Clark, Tom L. 2019. The Supreme Court: An Analytic History of Constitutional Decision Making. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleary, J. L. 1931. “Why a Bar Association?Nebraska Legal Bulletin 10 (1931): 8596.Google Scholar
Constitutional Review. 1923. “Wadsworth-Garrett Amendment.” Constitutional Review 7 (1923): 252–55.Google Scholar
Constitutional Review. 1926. “Constitution and the Courts.” Constitutional Review 10 (1926): 251–56.Google Scholar
Continetti, Matthew. 2018. “The Forgotten Father of American Conservatism.” Atlantic, October 19.Google Scholar
Craig, Douglas. 1992. After Wilson: The Struggle for the Democratic Party, 1920-1934. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Warren Jefferson. 1962. Law of the Land. New York: Carlton Press.Google Scholar
Dierenfield, Bruce. 2007. The Battle over School Prayer: How Engel v. Vitale Changed America . Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Ervin, Sam. 1967. “How the ‘Warren Revolution’ Has Changed America.” Human Events, January 21.Google Scholar
Felton, Jule. 1960. “An Appeal to Save Our Written Constitutional Form of Government.” Alabama Lawyer, 21 (October): 390–98.Google Scholar
Line, Firing. 1977. “Government by Judiciary.” October 28.Google Scholar
Frymer, Paul. 2008. “Law and American Political Development.” Law & Social Inquiry 33: 779803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Designs in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gienapp, Jonathan. 2018. The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gienapp, Jonathan. Forthcoming. Our Historicist Constitution: A Historical Critique of Constitutional Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 1994. “Preferred Freedoms: The Progressive Expansion of State Power and the Rise of Modern Civil Liberties Jurisprudence.” Political Research Quarterly 47: 623–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 1997. “The Collapse of Constitutional Originalism and the Rise of the Notion of the ‘Living Constitution’ in the Course of American State-Building.” Studies in American Political Development 11: 191247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldwater, Barry. 1960. The Conscience of a Conservative. Mansfield Centre, CT: Victor.Google Scholar
Gordon, Rosalie. 1958. Nine Men against America. New York: Devin-Adair.Google Scholar
Grossman, Matt, and Hopkins, David. 2016. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. New York: Oxford University Politics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendershot, Heather. 2011. What’s Fair on the Air? Cold War Right-Wing Broadcasting and the Public Interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, Karl. 1967. In a Cause That Will Triumph: The Goldwater Campaign and the Future of Conservatism. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Hill, David. 1917. “Representative Government.” Constitutional Review 1 (1917): 39.Google Scholar
Hills, Charles. 1959. “Affairs of State.” Clarion-Ledger (Jackson, MS), November 4.Google Scholar
Hollis-Brusky, Amanda. 2015. Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hustwit, William. 2013. James J. Kilpatrick: Salesman for Segregation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augusta Courier. 1956. “‘Interposition’ is Password among People of the South Today.” Augusta (GA) Courier, January 22.Google Scholar
Karol, David. 2009. Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaczorowski, Robert. 1972. “Searching for the Intent of the Framers of Fourteenth Amendment.” Connecticut Law Review, 5: 368–98.Google Scholar
Kent, Frank. 1936. “The Great Game of Politics.” Wall Street Journal, February 18.Google Scholar
Kersch, Ken. 2011. “Ecumenicalism Through Constitutionalism: The Discursive Development of Constitutional Conservatism in National Review, 1955–1980.” Studies in American Political Development 25 (1): 86116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kersch, Ken. 2019. Conservatives and the Constitution: Imagining Constitutional Restoration in the Heyday of American Liberalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilpatrick, James J. 1957. The Sovereign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia. Washington, DC: Henry Regnery.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, James J. 1958. “School Integration—Four Years Later.” Human Events, May 12.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, James J. 1962. The Southern Caser for School Segregation. Springfield, OH: Crowell-Collier.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, James J. 1977. “Supreme Court: Government’s Most Dangerous Branch.” Human Events, December 24.Google Scholar
King, Desmond, and Smith, Rogers. 2011. Still a House Divided: Race and Politics in Obama’s America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kirk, Russell. 1953. The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot. Chicago: Regnery.Google Scholar
Lawrence, David. 1957. “There is No ‘Fourteenth Amendment.’” US News & World Report, September 27.Google Scholar
Lienesch, Michael. 2016. “Creating Constitutional Conservatism.” Polity 48 (3): 387413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, Hamilton A. 1959. “The Doctrine of Stare Decisis: Misapplied to Constitutional Law.” ABA Journal (September): 921–24.Google Scholar
Lowndes, Joseph. 2008. From the New Deal to the New Right: Race the Southern Origins of Modern Conservatism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, Kevin. 2004. Reconsidering Roosevelt on Race. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, Frank. 1957. “In the Great Tradition.” National Review, June 1.Google Scholar
Meyer, Frank. 1964. “The Court Challenges the Congress.” National Review, March 24.Google Scholar
Morley, Felix. 1959. Freedom and Federalism. Chicago: Henry Regnery.Google Scholar
Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944. An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York: Harper & Bros.Google Scholar
Nash, George. [1976] 2008. The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books.Google Scholar
National Review. 1956. “Segregation and Democracy.” National Review, January 25.Google Scholar
National Review. 1957a. “Why the South Must Prevail.” National Review, August 24.Google Scholar
National Review. 1957b. “Has Congress Abdicated?” National Review, June 29.Google Scholar
National Review. 1957c. “For the Record.” National Review, January 5.Google Scholar
National Review. 1958a. “The Week.” National Review, May 10.Google Scholar
National Review. 1958b. “Virginia: Strategic Retreat.” National Review, November 29.Google Scholar
National Review. 1959. “Solution for the South?” National Review, January 17.Google Scholar
National Review. 1960. “Distingamus.” National Review, March 26.Google Scholar
National Review. 1962. “The Week.” National Review, July 10.Google Scholar
Nelson, Frederic. 1957. “The Supreme Court Marches On—To the Left.” Human Events, May 18.Google Scholar
New York Times. 1986. “Reagan Aims Fire at Liberal Judges.” New York Times, October 9.Google Scholar
Noel, Hans. 2013. Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novak, Robert. 1965. The Agony of the GOP, 1964. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Jonathan. 2005. Originalism in American Law and Politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Postell, Joseph, and O’Neill, Jospeh, eds. 2013. Toward an American Conservatism: Constitutional Conservatism in the Progressive Era. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, James A. 1931. “The Growing Evils of Paternalism.” Nebraska Law Bulletin 10 (1931): 110–24.Google Scholar
Sherriff, Andrew. 1923. “The Annual Address Delivered before the Convention.” Commercial Law League Journal September: 315–25.Google Scholar
Schickler, Eric. 2016. Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932-1965. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 2002. Visions of Politics: Volume 1, Regarding Method. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skowronek, Stephen. 1982. Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, F. Dumont. 1927. “Amending the Constitution.” Constitutional Review 11 (1927): 1827.Google Scholar
Smoot, Dan. 1963. “The Fourteenth Amendment.” The Dan Smoot Report, January 7.Google Scholar
Smoot, Dan. 1964. “The Supreme Court’s Reapportionment Decisions.” The Dan Smoot Report, August 31.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence. 2013. “Originalism and Constitutional Construction.” Fordham Law Review 82: 453537.Google Scholar
Sutherland, George. 1918. “Law and the People.” Constitutional Review 2 (1918): 90–6.Google Scholar
Synon, John J. 1958. “A Southern President?” Human Events, August 11.Google Scholar
Teles, Steven. 2009. “Transformative Bureaucracy: Reagan’s Lawyers and Dynamic of Political Investment.” Studies in American Political Development 23: 6183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teles, Steven. 2008. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurmond, Strom. 1970. “Court Tests Challenge Voting Rights Act.” Human Events, July 11.Google Scholar
Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government. 1967. A Question of Intent: The States, Their Schools and the 14th Amendment [pamphlet]. Richmond: Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government.Google Scholar
Wall Street Journal. 1923. “A Majority of the Court.” Wall Street Journal, February 7, 1.Google Scholar
Wall Street Journal. 1925. “A Vital Decision.” Wall Street Journal, October 16, 1.Google Scholar
Wall Street Journal. 1928. “A Corporation’s Rights.” Wall Street Journal, October 26, 1.Google Scholar
Wall Street Journal. 1931. “What is Liberty?” Wall Street Journal, October 5, 8.Google Scholar
Wall Street Journal. 1932. “Constitutional Right.” Wall Street Journal, April 15, 8.Google Scholar
Wall Street Journal. “1934. How Far May Government Go.” June 13, 8.Google Scholar
Wall Street Journal. 1935a. “An Issue Slowly Takes Form.” Wall Street Journal, August 6, 4.Google Scholar
Wall Street Journal. 1935b. “Cheap Labels for Judges.” Wall Street Journal, January 22, 4.Google Scholar
Wall Street Journal. 1935c. “Realists on the Bench.” Wall Street Journal, May 29, 4.Google Scholar
Wall Street Journal. 1935d. “Altering the Constitution.” Wall Street Journal, January 26, 4.Google Scholar
Wall Street Journal. 1957. “The Bookshelf: Ringing Approval of States’ Rights.” Wall Street Journal, April 29, 14.Google Scholar
Wall Street Journal. 1964. “The Case against the Court.” Wall Street Journal, June 22, 8.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith. 2001. Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Weaver, Richard. 1948. Ideas Have Consequences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wolfskill, George. 1962. The Revolt of the Conservatives: A History of the American Liberty League, 1934-1940. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Woodlock, Thomas. 1932. “‘Liberal’ Victory.” Wall Street Journal, November 28, 1.Google Scholar
Woodlock, Thomas. 1936. “Thinking It Over.” Wall Street Journal, January 7, 4.Google Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

“Clocks Must Always Be Turned Back”: Brown v. Board of Education and the Racial Origins of Constitutional Originalism
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

“Clocks Must Always Be Turned Back”: Brown v. Board of Education and the Racial Origins of Constitutional Originalism
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

“Clocks Must Always Be Turned Back”: Brown v. Board of Education and the Racial Origins of Constitutional Originalism
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *