"The attorney general would call at 5 o'clock in the evening and say: 'Tomorrow morning we are going to try to integrate the University of Mississippi. Get us a memo on what we're likely to do, and what we can do if the governor sends the National Guard there.'"
About this Quote
Bureaucracy rarely sounds cinematic, but that is exactly why Greene's recollection lands: power here moves by phone call, deadline, and memo, not by soaring speeches. The sentence drops you into the administrative engine room of desegregation, where constitutional principle gets translated into contingency planning before breakfast.
The specific intent is practical and urgent. "Tomorrow morning" compresses history into a work order. The attorney general isn't debating integration as an abstract good; he's coordinating federal action while anticipating state resistance. Greene's phrasing, especially "what we're likely to do" versus "what we can do", exposes the gap between legal authority and political feasibility. The law may permit a range of responses, but the government must choose what it is willing to risk.
The subtext is conflict management under a veneer of procedural calm. The governor's potential use of the National Guard is mentioned almost casually, yet it signals an extraordinary escalation: a state prepared to deploy armed force against compliance with federal law. Greene's memory frames the moment as a chess match of institutions - Justice Department, governor, Guard - where the stakes are civil rights and the legitimacy of federal supremacy. The memo becomes a proxy for moral courage: a document that must quietly anticipate violence, optics, jurisdictional limits, and the possibility of federalizing the Guard or using marshals or troops.
Context matters: the University of Mississippi integration crisis of 1962, with James Meredith at its center, when Washington had to enforce court orders against open defiance. Greene, as a judge, underscores how fragile rule-of-law victories can be without executive muscle - and how close landmark progress sits to logistical panic.
The specific intent is practical and urgent. "Tomorrow morning" compresses history into a work order. The attorney general isn't debating integration as an abstract good; he's coordinating federal action while anticipating state resistance. Greene's phrasing, especially "what we're likely to do" versus "what we can do", exposes the gap between legal authority and political feasibility. The law may permit a range of responses, but the government must choose what it is willing to risk.
The subtext is conflict management under a veneer of procedural calm. The governor's potential use of the National Guard is mentioned almost casually, yet it signals an extraordinary escalation: a state prepared to deploy armed force against compliance with federal law. Greene's memory frames the moment as a chess match of institutions - Justice Department, governor, Guard - where the stakes are civil rights and the legitimacy of federal supremacy. The memo becomes a proxy for moral courage: a document that must quietly anticipate violence, optics, jurisdictional limits, and the possibility of federalizing the Guard or using marshals or troops.
Context matters: the University of Mississippi integration crisis of 1962, with James Meredith at its center, when Washington had to enforce court orders against open defiance. Greene, as a judge, underscores how fragile rule-of-law victories can be without executive muscle - and how close landmark progress sits to logistical panic.
Quote Details
| Topic | Equality |
|---|
More Quotes by Harold
Add to List
