Federal versus States' Rights
The issue of Federal Government intervention and States' rights has long occupied a place in American history. Ever since the foundation of the United States, the struggle over the issue of how far the separation of powers in the United States constitution stretched was a key issue, and an issue that saw much debate.
In the 1950's and 1960's, it was still a rallying cry for Southern politicians. Mississippi Governor in the 1950's, Ross Barnett, said that "We must give in to the unlawful dictate of the federal government or stand up like men and say never"1. In the context of Little Rock, Governor Faubus resented President Eisenhower's deployment of the 101st Airborne Division in what Faubus regarded as a State matter. In a message to President Eisenhower, Faubus claimed that Federal authorities were going to take Faubus into custody and had tapped his office phone lines. Eisenhower's reply of September 5, 1957 denied this categorically. The implied criticism of Federal "intervention" was part of the long-standing disagreement over what was considered Federal and what was considered State jurisdiction.
However, Eisenhower attempted to address these problems with a proclamation that 'such willful [sic] obstruction of justice hinders the execution of the laws of that State and of the United States'. This was the kind of heavy-handed response that the States had long been fighting against. Eisenhower's press release was a warning to the State government of Arkansas that resistance to Federal actions would not be tolerated.
The Federalizing of the Arkansas
National Guard and the sending in of Federal combat-ready, elite, Korean War
veteran troops into a high school provided a metaphorical contrast of Federal
power looking after the young and helpless against the nasty State
segregationists.