Edwin Washington Project

Documents in this set were collected by Superintendent Emerick and other LCPS leaders during segregation in roughly the order provided here.  They show the progression of efforts to gain a new, fully-accredited and safe high school for the Black community, especially given that the Training Center on Union Street (which handled both elementary and high school classes (Leesburg HS) was considered a fire trap.  and more generally equal education by Blacks and women.  Other important civil rights related documents are also found throughout the collection, e.g. in Petitions, Construction, Transportation, etc.  If what you are interested in isn’t in the following linked pages, look elsewhere in the overall collection.

1.1.1 Equal Education

• 1.1.1 Equal Education: 2/13/40 and 3/16/40.  Documents between State Board of Education and NAACP Houston with  Emerick re loans for libraries and transportation.  Files by Emerick under “negro education.”  Also digitally cross-referenced under category 10, Libraries and Transportation.
• 1.1.1 Equal Education: 3/8/40  NAACP Lawyer Houston letter to William Smith, Chair of School Board in Loudoun supporting County-Wide League and other parents re equalization.
• 1.1.1 Equal Education: 3/8/40.  NAACP Lawyer Houston letter to Emerick, supporting County-Wide League and other parents re equalization.
• 1.1.1 Equal Education: 3/16/40.  NAACP Lawyer Houston letter to Emerick. Appreciates that Emerick tried to obtain loan from Literary Fund; but upset that fund is not sufficiently funded, which cause delay on established what would become Douglass HS.  Houston felt this was unacceptable, noting that the Training Center is a Death Trap.
• 1.1.1 Equal Education re Transportation:  3/18/40 Petition by a parent for equal transport for child can go to Manassas and then college.
• 1.1.1 Equal Education: 3/20/40.  NAACP Lawyer Houston asks to inspect proceedings of School Board.  Done on behalf of PTA, and Elizabeth Quizenberry, Mrs. Marie Corum, Mrs. Irene Roberts and Mrs. Marie Medley of Leesburg.
• 1.1.1 Equal Education:  3/21/40.  NAACP Lawyer Houston asked by John Wanzer, Mrs. Daisy Allen and Mrs. Amanda Does to cease action Board of  Education (meaning school board) have chance to work out a program of improving Negro education.
• 1.1.1 Equal Education re Transportation: 3/27/40.  Petitions by Daisy Allen wanting financial support for transportation.
• 1.1.1 Equal Education re Transportation:  3/31/40.  Letter to Emerick from parent Annie Wyatt requesting reimbursement for Transportation costs.
• 1.1.1 Equal Education.  4/11/40.  Emerick to NAACP Lawyer Houston re proposed appropriations by School Board and Board of Supervisors.  Focus is on improved high school and transportation requests by Houston.
• 1.1.1 Equal Education.  4/22/40.  Letter from Archie Richardson to Emerick saying he plans to arrive April 24, 1940.
• 1.1.1 Equal Education: 5/4/40.  Letter to Emerick from Assistant Supervisor for Negro Education, Dr. Archie Richardson on visit he held on April 24 re the need for better school facilities that  he held with fifteen or twenty leading “Negro citizens.”  A number of questions were posed to move the project forward.  Richardson also recommended that Emerick consult with Gertrude Alexander, the Jeanes Instructor in Loudoun.
• 1.1.1 Equal Education: 5/5/40.  Letter from NAACP lawyer Houston to Emerick notify the Loudoun Board of Supervisors that he was impressed that Board was interested in a progressive program for Black education, then expressed shock “when the Board of Supervisors eliminated entirely the proposed supplementary appropriation for the improvement of Negro education 1040/41 recommend by the School Board.” He pointed that that the action did not relieve the county for equalizing education so that that  Blacks could exercise their rights.
• 1.1.1 Equal Education:  5/11/40.  Letter from Emerick Acknowledging Visit by Assistant Supervisor for Negro Education, Dr. Archie Richardson.
• 1.1.1 Equal Education: 2/14/1956.   Black community complains that a Bond Issue which would improve schools but retain segregation did not reflect the sentiment of that community

1.2 Equal Salaries \ Equality of Pay

A regular complaint of the African-American community during the years of segregation was the unequal level of pay between white and “colored” teachers. One way they approached this issue was to use the courts when the school system or county government resisted fairness. Another approach was to use the petition, a direct, hand signed request for change sent directly to either the School Board or the Superintendent. The petitions didn’t always work; but teachers were determined to try any legal approach possible — for fairness. As an example, consider March 6 1926 petition to the Superintendent of the public schools and the School Board asking for equity of pay, and the memo denying the request. 1926 Petition for Equal Pay Source (EWP Archives, 2A Colored Petitions) White Instructor petition over pay.

White teachers had their own problems over salaries as well, and also used the petition process. An undated petition, probably in the 1930’s by five white teachers threatened resignations if an inequity in pay between grade school instructors at Aldie and high school instructors was not properly addressed. Source (LCPS Archives, Petition Files) The following documents were collected by Superintendent Emerick and other LCPS managers to focus on salary equality between African-Americans and Whites.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 3/12/34. Memo from W.D. Gresham, Supervisor for Negro Education, State Board of Education, to Emerick. Filed under salaries; but the true topic of visit isn’t know. We might re-catalog this memo.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 11/28/39. News clipping showing results of Mills vs Arundel County Case on Teacher Salaries. The Daily Record, Baltimore, November 28, 1939, pg. 3.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 1/6/40. Letter from Emerick to the clerk of the US District Court in Baltimore requesting copy of final decree in the Mills vs Arundel County Case on Teacher Salaries, Walter Mills, vs Board of Education of Anne Arundel County.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 6/18/40. Decision in Alston vs Norfolk salary dispute, filed by Thurgood Marshall and others. Decision was that separate schools was lawful based on race, but teachers of equal qualifications and duties had to paid equally. Case was remanded for study; but if salaries were found to be discriminatory, then they were unlawful.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 8/13/40. Letter from NAACP attorney Charles Houston indicating he would be in Leesburg on August 15 to inspect the minutes of the Board of Education on behalf of his clients, citizens of Loudoun. The purpose of examining the question of salary equality was clear in that Houston cited Alston v School Board of the City of Norfolk.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 11/29/40: Opinion of the Attorney General of Virginia on Alston v Norfolk decision. Form is a letter to Dr. Sidney Hall, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Board of Education, Richmond. Agreed that the Alston matter forbad “discrimination on the grounds of race or colors in fixing salaries.” The Attorney General however left room for interpretation for the grounds of discrimination, other than race. A copy of the decision was enclosed. (See also letter of 12/12/40 from Department of Law, City of Norfolk, to Emerick.)

1.2 Equal Salaries: 12/6/40. Petition for equal salaries from Loudoun County Teachers Association. Contains the material in the NAACP petition below.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 1/11/43. Final judgement and decree, District Court of US for District of Baltimore, Walter Mills vs Board of Education, Anne Arundel County. Declared that to the extent the disparity in salaries was based on race, it was illegal under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

1.2 Equal Salaries: Unknown Date, but probably 1940. (See petition of 12/6/1940 by Loudoun County Teachers Association). Special memo on Colored Teacher salaries. Discusses a meeting of the School Board on November 12th (year not given) the adjustment of salaries to the “basis of a state salary schedule for white and colored teachers. With the approval of the school board, the superintendent discussed the problem with the colored teachers at a recent meeting.” At a meeting of December 10th, identical petitions were presented signed by “colored teachers, the County Wide League, the Leesburg PTA and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The School Board also had before it a decision by US Circuit Court of Appeals, 4th District growing out of a suit in City of Norfolk praying for equality of salaries. The board then said it could not “make a binding agreement for any year until the appropriation for that year shall have been made and its resolution merely outlines a proposed plan of action because it can go no further now.” This was likely referring to case on this matter led by Thurgood Marshall in 1940. 1.2 Equal Salaries: Unknown date, but probably 1940. Request to School Board, Loudoun County for a single standard salary schedule for African-American and white teachers. Made by NAACP. Provides details on the disparity of salaries and cites cases the Norfork case.

1.2 Equal Salaries: Unknown date, but probably 1940. Request by the County Wide League to the School Board, Loudoun County and the Superintendent for a single salary schedule. Provides the information contained in the NAACP petition.

1.2 Equal Salaries: Unknown date, but probably 1940. Request by the Leesburg PTA to the School Board, Loudoun County and the Superintendent for a single salary schedule. Provides the information contained in the NAACP petition.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 12/11/40. Letter from Emerick to Will Randall, President of the Loudoun County Teacher’s Association, Purcellville, stating the school board’s acceptance of the principal of equal salaries but no action without an appropriation.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 12/12/40. Letter from Department of Law, City of Norfolk, Virginia to Emerick, describing Alston vs Norfolk issues and follow on negotiations. Note that “the effect of the Appellate Court ruling was that different salaries can be paid white teachers from those paid negro teachers, provided it is not based ‘solely on race or color.'”

1.2 Equal Salaries: 12/14/40. Letter from Emerick to city attorney for Norfolk thanking him for his “very clear statement in relation to the adjustment of the differences between the salaries of white and colored teachers.”

1.2 Equal Salaries: 12/16/40. Letter to Emerick from Mrs. Hannah Daniel, Secretary, Loudoun County Teachers Association, reporting unanimous vote against Emerick’s proposal for equal salaries; but Daniel also felt that an amicable agreement could be reached. To that end the Association had formed special committee to meet Emerick and the school board in order to present its own proposal. Members were Mr. Isaac J. Daniel, Mrs. Janie Redwood, Miss Helen Lee and Mr. William Randall. See 1.1.2 Equal Salaries: 1/10/41. Memo to Emerick from Loudoun County School Board with counter proposal.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 12/18/40. Letter from Emerick to Mrs. Daniel noting the rejection in her letter of Dec 16th and agreeing to hear the committee’s counter proposal. See 1.1.2 Equal Salaries: 1/10/41. Memo to Emerick from Loudoun County School Board with counter proposal.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 12/20/40. Letter from Emerick to Superintendent George Fox, Annapolis, MD. Regarding the Mills v Board of Education of Ann Arundel County matter asked, “I am particularly interested to know whether the court in rendering an opinion favorable to the colored teachers set any time limit within which the salaries of white and colored teachers had to be equalized.”

1.2 Equal Salaries: 12/26/40. Details of the Mills vs Ardunel Co Case provided and Emerick’s reply. George Fox felt that “on the whole, I believe that the white teachers in this county are far superior to the colored teachers but there are a few exceptional colored teachers.. and a few of the white teachers who are below the average and who teaching is exceptionally poor. I suppose the same thing exists in most of the other counties.” He also said that the Federal judge felt he was discriminatory.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 12/30/40. Emerick requested of the Daily Record in Baltimore, Md a copy of the judgment in Mills vs Arundel Co Case. See 1.1.2 Equal Salaries: 11/28/39.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 12/30/40. Letter from Emerick to Sidney Hall, Department of Education, Richmond, requesting details about requirement for equal salaries. Emerick suggested leadership from Richmond in the implementation of equalization, especially given costs, over a three year period, in cooperation with African-American leaders.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 1/3/41. List of Court Orders related to Mills vs Arundel Case. Provided by the Daily Record of Baltimore.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 1/10/41. Cover letter to Emerick for Final Judgment in the Mills vs Arundel matter.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 1/10/41. Memo to Emerick from Loudoun County School Board offering a schedule to equalize salaries. Handwritten note indicates the school board took no action. See 1.1.2 memos of 12/16/40 and 12/18/40.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 2/13/41. Negotiations for Equal Salaries. Memo from Emerick to members of the Loudoun County School Board to meet at 0930 on Saturday, February 15 to further discuss.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 3/6/41. Letter to Emerick and School Board from the Loudoun County Teachers Association agreeing to proposal to equalize salaries over a three year period.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 1941 (no month provided). “Study of comparative qualification of white and colored teachers and their salaries based on results of tests.: The school board use so-called IQ tests to determine qualification.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 3/14/41. Letter from Emerick showing comparisons with Mecklenburg and Greensville counties for Academic year 1938/39.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 4/13/46. Cover letter of report and certificate of salaries to State Department of Education.

1.2 Equal Salaries: 1/13/55. Fearing the financial burden of equalization to localities, a letter from Emerick to Richmond Times Dispatch regarding increase in State funds, complaining that the State “should not arbitrarily require the payment by localities of the entire amount required for salary increases in teacher salaries.”

1.1.3 Colored High School Struggle

1.3 Colored High School: 3/19/38. Manassas industrial, started by Jennie Dean in Prince William County was a private school and “willing to convey same jointly to the school boards of Prince William, Fauquir, Fairfax and Rappahannock counties” on condition that the property shall at all times in the future be used for education of “negro youth.” The Attorney General indicated that joint ownership of a Black high school was lawful. He also felt that the racial restriction was also lawful.

1.3 Colored High School: 12/15/39. Letter to Emerick from Archie Richardson, Assistant Supervisor of Negro Education, State Board of Education on need for colored high school. Likes site suggested by Emerick. Suggested sufficient transport will be needed and that design should be coordinated with Raymond Long, Supervisor of School Buildings, State Department of Education, Richmond. Interestingly, also suggested the new building house both elementary and high school students, probably because the Training Center was considered a fire trap.

1.3 Colored High School: 4/8/40. Letter renewing offer to host a colored high school in Purcellville. Letter to Mt Gilead District School Board and Emerick, reminding them of offers “proffered by a group of taxable Colored Citizens from Purcellville” to locate a high school in their town. This group of Africa-American citizens was opposed to County-Wide League

1.3 Colored High School: 12/4/40. Letter from John Wanzer of the County Wide League to the “colored citizens of Loudoun County, Virginia.” Notice was given of a meeting to be held at 10am on December 11, 1940 to authorize transfer of title to the school board of the Gibbons lost. See Loudoun County Deed Book 11 F’s, Folio 227.

1.3 Colored High School: 12/11/40. Gibbons Lot. Resolution of School Board to Judge of the Circuit court to appoint Charles Harrison as attorney to examine and approve in writing title to land for use as colored high school in Leesburg.

1.3 Colored High School: 12/11/40. Gibbons Lot. Letter from Wanzer of the County Wide League to school board to transfer title of the Gibbons lot.

1.3 Colored High School: 12/17/40. Gibbons Lot. Letter from Wanzer of the County Wide League documenting possession of a warranty deed to Gibbons Lot for a new high school to be built in 1941.

1.3 Colored High School: 12/17/40. Acknowledgment by Emerick to John Wanzer of the County Wide League of transfer of deed for the Gibbons lot.

1.3 Colored High School: 12/19/40. Circuit Court order to inspect the title and record certificate for the Gibbons lot. Noted John Wanzer and trustees of the County Wide League.

1.3 Colored High School: 4/27/42. Invitation by NAACP’s Loudoun chapter to Emerick to attend Douglass dedication.

1.3 Colored High School: 4/30/42. Emerick declined invitation to attend dedication, due to duties with a visiting pastor.

1.3 Colored High School: 5/19/42. President of Southern Education Foundation declines invitation to attend dedication. Mr. Wright had in the past been for twenty years State Supervisor of Negro Schools in Virginia.

1.3 Colored High School: 5/8/42. State Superintendent for Public Instruction declined to attend dedication.

1.3 Religion in the Schools

Note: On March 8, 1948, the Supreme court of U.S. rendered a decision in the case of McCollum vs Board of Education of School District No 71, Champaign, Illinois. A parent didn’t want her child instructed in any faith and felt that non-attendance would single out her child, making her unlawfully uncomfortable. By a vote of 8 to 1, the court held that the program of religious instruction conducted on public-school time and within the physical structure of the public schools was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

See also 5.3 Values and Religion.

1.3 Religion in Public Schools: 5/5/48. A conference of Division Superintendents was held in Roanoke April 28-30. The State Attorney General felt that religious education as done in Virginia was still lawful. As a result, State Superintendent for Public Instruction Minor Miller asked for a fresh plan of action. The School Board of Loudoun County had already adopted a resolution on September 14, 1937 permitting religious instruction, but given recent events, Emerick planned to put the question again before the board at its meeting of May 11, 1948; but “are not in a position to ignore the Supreme Court’s decision.”

1.3 Religion in Public Schools: 5/18/48. Letter from State Board of Education on certain aspects of educational practice, subject to Supreme Court decision. The Assistant Attorney General, Walter Rogers, did not feel “that the question of references made to the effects of religion on history and general living referred to in the elementary courses of study of the syllabi used in the teaching of biblical literature and history were effected by the Supreme Court Decision….”

1.3 Religion in Public Schools: 5/25/48. NEA (National Education Association) newsletter on Supreme Court Decision.

1.3 Religion in Public Schools: 5/31/48. Emerick letter to state Board of Education reporting on current religious educational practice in Loudoun County Public Schools.

1.3 Religion in Public Schools: 7/9/48. Comment on McCollum case by Virginia Council of Churches.

1.3 Religion in Public Schools: 7/13/48. Memo to Division Superintendents from Superintendent of Public Instruction on Weekday Religious Instruction.

 1.3 Religion in Public Schools: 8/10/48. School Board resolution on separating religious education from public schools. Releases students from non-compulsory religious instruction. Comment, would seem to ignore the thrust of McCullum.

1.3 Religion in Public Schools: 9/10/48. Letter from State Board giving local school boards responsibility for deciding implementation of religious education. Reference is made to guidance by the Council of Churches.

1.3 Religion in Public Schools: 2/11/49. Statement of Policy on Religious Education written by the International Council of Religious Education.

1.3 Religion in Public Schools: 2/3/50. Letter rom Emerick concerning typical school practices regarding bible reading. Emerick noted that only in Lincoln were formal bible courses provided, the rest of religious instruction done at the discretion of teachers.

1.3 Religion in Public Schools: 6/73. Report on religious education in Loudoun County. Done by Robert Butt, Division Superintendent. “submitted by a committee appointed to study the possibility of including religious studies in the Loudoun County School System’s curriculum.” Members were Fred Drummond (Douglass elementary), Weldon Reeves and Alvin Sowards.

1.3 Religion in Public Schools 2017.  Statistical study by Kathy, a volunteer with the Edwin Washington Project. Looked at the religious orientation of teachers during the early years of the Emerick Administration.

1.4.1 Brown vs Board of Education

4.1  Brown vs Board of Education 5/28/54.  Virginia Attorney General Opinion of the Brown Decision.

4.1 Brown vs Board of Education 6/54.   Answers for Action: Schools in the South” Pamphlet by Southern Religion Council, Atlanta, Georgia.

4.1 Brown vs Board of Education 6/1/55.  Text of second Brown Decision.

4.1  Brown vs Board of Education 10/13/55.  Loudoun Times Mirror.  “School Building Program Proposed”  Emerick proposed a bond be passed on the basis of segregated schools to see if “improved schools for Negroes would keep pupils segregated.”

4.1 Brown vs Board of Education 3/12/56.  Declaration of Constitutional Principles –  Argument against Brown decision.  Offered by Senator Walter George of Georgia an Representative Howard Smith of Virginia.

4.1 Brown vs Board of Education 3/27/56.   Text of speech by Representative John Bell Williams of Mississippi.

4.1 Brown vs Board of Education 9/4/56.  Emerick guidance to principals on responding to attempts to integrate.  Emerick’s opinion was that “the courts do not administer the schools.  The school system of Loudoun County is still subject to the direction of the General Assembly and of the State Board of Education” “We have not authority in Loudoun to operate mixed schools.”

1.4.2 Gray Commission

1955, November 11:  The Gray Commission.  Virginia State Senator Garland Gray chaired the Commission on Public Education, which had been appointed by the Governor on Nov 11, 1954 to examine Brown and make recommendations.  Unfortunately, the commission saw Brown as bad law and attacked the Supreme Court for judicial activism, which itself was perceived as an attack on state’s rights. One of the conclusions was that the State could not compel any child to attend an integrated school.  The report would become the foundation document for a lot of resistance in Loudoun. Gray Commission 1955.

1.4.2 Gray Commission: 11/11/55.  Report of the Gray Commission to the Governor of Virginia, Senate Document No 1, 1955

1.4.2 Gray Commission: 12/11/55.  FAQ’s on the Gray Commission Report.

1.4.2 Gray Commission: 12/13/55.  PTA Meeting Notice to Discuss Gray Report.

1.4.2 Gray Commission: 12/19/55.  Meeting at Loudoun High School to Discuss Gray Report.

1.4.2 Gray Commission: Date Unk.   Legislative Changes proposed by Gray Commission.

1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment

1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment Date Unk. Notes on Constitutional section and voting requirements.

1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment Date Unk. Speech. Speaking notes on Amendment vote. Might be personal notes by Emerick.

1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment Date Unk. News article arguing for amendment. Written by Reverend G. MacLaren Brydon. Reprinted from Richmond Times-Dispatch.

 1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment Date Unk. Advocacy material supporting a yes vote on amendment.

1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment Date Unk. Informational statement on Amendment

1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment Date Unk. Statement by VEA Board of Directors supporting amendment.

1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment Date Unk. Meeting of Home Economics and Voc Ag Teachers from various counties to Discuss Amendment and related issues.

 1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment date Unk. Handwritten notes on three relevant section of the State Constitution.

 1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment 11/10/55. League of Virginia Counties resolution to support Constitutional Convention.

 1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment 11/11/55. letter from UVA researcher requesting Emerick’s opinion on Amendment.

 1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment 11/24/55. News Clip on Upcoming Vote on Amendment Bill.

 1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment 12/12/55. League of Women Voters Letter to Emerick on Impacts of Amendment.

1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment 12/13/55. Statement by State Board of Ed on Constitutional Convention.

 1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment 12/13/55. Mecklenburg County Board of Supervisors Statement in Support of Constitutional Convention.

1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment 12/14/55. Letter from Advisory Council, Region 1 to State Superintendent, Supporting Amendment.

 1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment 12/16/55. Letter to Voc-Ag Instructors on Meeting to Discuss Amendment.

 1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment 12/17/55. Emerick Response to League of Women Voters on Amendment Questions — Important Statistics on Cost of Education.

 1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment 12/19/55. Emerick Statement in Support of Amendment – insight into his opinion on integration.

 1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment 12/19/55. Loudoun County Bar Association Resolution on Supporting Amendment.

 1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment 12/22/55. News Article on Amendment. Former PTA President Sees Gray Plan as futile.

 1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment 12/55. Virginia Bulletin, Editorial by VTA, opposed to convention.

 1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment 12/29/55. News Report of Discussion of Amendment at Loudoun High School, involving Emerick and Several Lawmakers.

1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment 1/1/56. Letter from Emerick to Senator Byrd, includes Byrd’s Press release (12/18/55) describing the upcoming vote. Emerick describes Byrd’s explanation as “reasonable and highly commendable.”

1.4.3 Constitutional Amendment 2/56. Report of South West Virginia School Superintendents’ Study Group.

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration Unk Date. Special memo On Tax Contribution of Negro Citizens vs percent of Student Population.

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration Unk Date. Letter on Integration, Tax Contribution vs. Benefits Received and Role of Schools

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration Unk Date. Handwritten notes on issues related to Brown Decision, Constitutional Amendment and Gray Commission.

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration Unk Date. letter to Emerick Opposing Integration from “Friends of White Race.”

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration Unk Date. Article Opposing Integration.

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration Unk Date. Editorial from Farmville, Va. opposing Integration.

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration Unk Date. Editorial in Support of Integrated Schools. Blue Ridge Herald.

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration Unk Date. News Article on a Rally in South Boston, Virginia, Opposing Integration. Sponsored by segregationist organization known as Defenders of State Sovereignty and Individual Liberties.

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration. 6/26/54. Statement by Delegate Robert Whitehead of Nelson County Regarding Integration.

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration 8/55-11/55. Series of Newsletters Arguing Against Integration by “Defenders of State Sovereignty and Individual Liberties.

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration 12/16/55. Article on Virginia’s Plan to Resist Integration.

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration 1/28/56. Letter Opposing Bond for Improving Public Schools, County-Wide League, NAACP, Bull-Run PTA, and Banneker PTA. Opposed to segregation, which was aim of Bond.

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration 4/26/56. Fairfax County Resolution Paying For integrated Schools.

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration 6/4/56. Appomattox Teacher Firings.

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration 8/26/56. Speech on Integration by Superintendent of South Norfolk Schools. He was opposed to integration.

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration 5/57/ Virginia Journal of Education.

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration ” Placement.” 12/29/56. Telegram to Emerick to Relinquish Authority of Pupil Placement.

1.4.4 Segregation/Integration “Placement.” 1963 United States Court, Eastern District of Virginia. Samuel Eugene Corbin vs. Loudoun County Public Schools. This is also considered a petition in our catalog.

1.5 Black Civil Rights Bodies

1.5 Black Civil Rights Bodies:  County Wide League,  Nov, 1938.   First meeting.

1.5 Black Civil Rights Bodies:  County Wide League, May 26, 1943.  See reference to Rosenwald Libraries.

1.5 Black Civil Rights Bodies:  County-Wide League, Nov 25, 1946.  Announced meeting to be held in Purcellville Dec 3, 1946 and award given to league by Negro Organization Society.

1.7 Misc Civil Rights

1.7 Misc Civil Rights: AY 1938/39. Socio-Economic survey of Negro Life in Virginia dated 5/3/1939 dealing AY 1938/39. Charts shows distribution of pupils in various schools. High School children who were qualified for High School, but not enrolled were listed for Waterford (12), Bull Run (10), Rock Hill (6), Willisville (18), Middleburg (10), Powell’s Grove (7), Mountain Gap (9), Hillsboro (4), St. Louis (8), Purcellville (2), Ashburn (6). Lincoln (8), Conklin (1), Round Hill (12), Loudoun Country Training Center (149 – plus 60 enrolled).

1.7 Misc Civil Rights 3/10/40. Pamphlet “The Negro and the Social Graces.”

1.7 Misc Civil Rights 12/4/40. Note from Emerick to John Wanzer

1.7 Misc Civil Rights 4/1/46 Letter Announcing Visit by Assist Director of Negro Education, Dr. Archie Richardson.

Discussion on Jim Crow:   civil-rights-and-legal-briefs/1-7-misc-civil-rights/jim-crow/

Essay: Lack of Equality of Resource Allocation:  civil-rights-and-legal-briefs/equality-of-resource-allocation/