attitude which the U. S. Government took towards human rights sheds
considerable light on the internal conflict concerning race within
America itself. The U. S. led the fight at the U.N. for the approval of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet the American government
has been reluctant to support the inclusion of specific economic and
social rights in a draft treaty. The U.N. had endeavored to write a
draft treaty which its member nations would sign and which would be
binding on them. If the U. S. Senate had ratified such a document, its
terms presumably would then be binding on the entire nation. At that
time, senators from the Southern states were still staunchly defending
legal segregation and disfranchisement of Afro-Americans. The government
found itself supporting human rights ideologically while backing down on
them in practice.

As the Cold War deepened, the U. S. became increasingly sensitive about
its world image. While fighting for world leadership, Russia and America
each claimed that its way of life was based on the principles of
brotherhood and humanitarianism. Each, in turn, tried to prove to the
rest of the world that its ideology was genuinely humane and democratic,
while its opponent's ideology was, in reality, oppressive and
dehumanizing. The communist bloc attacked the West for being purveyors of
imperialism and racism. This forced the American government to face up
to the discriminatory policies within the nation and, especially, to
reexamine the legal discrimination existing within the Southern states.
It was particularly embarrassing to the American ambassador to the United
Nations to have to be berated by the Russian delegate concerning some
unpleasant racial events which had happened somewhere in the South. The
Federal Government had always followed a policy of "hands off," at least
since the days of Hayes and the end of Reconstruction. Party politicians
always opposed taking a strong federal stand against an established state
policy within the South for fear of what would happen to that party
within the South. Party unity had almost always been put above civil
rights or justice.

However, these same party politicians could not ignore world opinion.
Even from a narrow political point of view, a party could not permit the
nation's world image to become tarnished, lest the electorate become
dissatisfied. World leadership brought with it the need to be concerned
with world opinion. Rac