– Supported By The Government? Essay, Research Paper
Was
the struggle for African American civil rights won with or without the
help of the US federal government?The
Federal government of the United States has at different times taken different
attitudes towards the African-American community and the campaign for civil
rights.? Furthermore, different branches
of the Federal government have often reacted differently to demands for civil
rights.? At times, the Supreme Court has
taken a very reactionary stance, Plessy vs. Ferguson being just one
example.? At other times, it has been
very supportive of civil rights, as in the seminal decision in Brown vs.
Board of Education.? Likewise, the
executive has varied in its approach.?
Roosevelt appeared sympathetic but did little.? Eisenhower was essentially reactionary.? Kennedy and Johnson actively supported civil rights
campaigners.? In the legislature,
Congress was sometimes reactionary, and yet it was Congress which ultimately
passed civil rights legislation.? However,
despite this variation in Federal policy, it is my intention in this essay to
show that the civil rights movement was ultimately dependent on the Federal
government for success, and that without the Federal government there would
have been no abolition of segregation.?
I intend to show this by looking at the actions of the three branches of
the Federal government in turn, and then finally at the citizens movements in
order to show their inability to bring about reform without the aid of the
Federal government.The
Federal judiciary is generally considered to have been instrumental in the
struggle for civil rights, quite often at the expense of the other branches of
government.? For example, Charles
Hamilton in his essay Federal Law and the Courts? in the Civil Rights Movement states that ?because the other
branches of government were not responsive to often-perceived legitimate
demands of the civil rights advocates, the courts had thrust upon them the task
of preserving systemic legitimacy?.?
Hamilton argues that the courts were the only place where the civil
rights movement could make any progress, because of the dismissive attitude of
the executive and legislature to the civil rights movement.Although
it is certainly the case that the judiciary played a very important role in
ending de jure segregation, Hamilton does seem to have forgotten that
very often the Federal courts, and even the Supreme Court (which was after Brown
seen as the main ally of civil rights in the government), had often given decisions
which were in fact harmful to the advance of civil rights in the United
States.? One need not go back so far as Plessy
vs. Ferguson to discover these sorts of verdicts being delivered.? Walker vs. Birmingham in 1963 was
decided against the civil rights groups, albeit by a 5-4 decision with Chief
Justice Warren in dissent.? Furthermore,
many individual Federal judges were blatantly racist in the decisions they
made, as even Hamilton admits, citing the examples of Cox and Clayton.The
federal judiciary, then, showed a mixed reaction to the civil rights movement,
sometimes appearing to act in favour of it and sometimes appearing to support
the segregationist opponents of civil rights.?
However, seminal decisions like Brown show that the Supreme
Court, at least, was generally sympathetic.?
One further thing needs to be said regarding the role of the judiciary,
which is that it is impossible for the judiciary alone to change anything.? After the Supreme Court ruling in Brown,
some states, notably Alabama and Mississippi, refused to acknowledge the
decision, claiming that it was unconstitutional.? The Courts were entirely dependent on the legislature to enact
laws to support civil rights, and on the executive to take action to enforce
the laws, by force if necessary.The
situation in Congress was inevitably more complicated than that in the Supreme
Court.? Naturally, many Congressmen were
from the South and were in favour of segregation.? Congress was therefore much less likely to be supportive of the
civil rights movement, even if many of the Representatives and Senators were
sympathetic to its cause.? However, the
support of Congress was vital if decisions like Brown were to take
effect and be implemented in the South.?
As Woodward points out in The Strange Career of Jim Crow, by 1955
?there were as yet no ?teeth? in the Court?s decision against segregated
schools?.? This was because of a lack of
Federal legislation to enforce the Court?s decision.? In the absence of such legislation, individual States were keen
to pass legislation of their own to effectively void the decision in the Brown
case.? Although individual cases against
this State law could be brought before the Courts, Federal legislation was
essential if the attempts to ignore Brown were to be defeated.The
initial hostility of Congress to the civil rights movement can be clearly
seen.? The Senate considered the
possibility of nullifying several decisions made by the Supreme Court, and
eventually decided against doing so by only eight votes.? However, Congress did not maintain this
hostility.? By 1964, Congress was
prepared to pass the Civil Rights Act, and by 1965 the Voting Rights Act.? These two pieces of legislation put an end
to de jure segregation, and also to various pieces of legislation passed
by southern States with the intention of disenfranchising
African-Americans.? The reasons for
change of heart in Congress must be traced back to the citizen?s movements, and
so will be examined later in the essay.?
However, it is clear that, whatever the cause of it, this federal
legislation was a vital step forward in the battle for civil rights.The
Constitution dictates that ?the Executive Power shall be vested in a
President?, and so it is to the President that we must look to see the attitude
of the executive branch.? There has been
a significant variation in the approach of Presidents to the issue of civil
rights and racial politics.? Eisenhower
took a very conservative stance, declining to vigorously uphold the decision of
the Supreme Court in Brown.? ?You
cannot?, he said ?change people?s hearts merely by law?.? Furthermore, when the Brown ruling
was put to the test in February 1956, Eisenhower expressed his hope that ?we
(i.e. the Federal government) could avoid any interference?.? While this is hardly a sufficient basis to
call Eisenhower a racist, it is evident that he was not committed to the cause
of racial equality.Presidents
Kennedy and Johnson were much more supportive of the civil rights
movement.? Kennedy declared the decision
in Brown to be ?both morally and legally right?, and showed himself
willing to use all the power of the Federal government to enforce the
decision.? In 1962, a force of 320
Federal marshals was used to enrol one man in a university, and thousands of
Federal troops were deployed when this proved to be insufficient force.? Johnson showed a similar commitment,
pressurising Congress into passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and providing
military escorts for civil rights marchers.?
Without this sort of Presidential commitment, it is difficult to see how
the civil rights movement could have achieved its aims.Of
course, there is more to the Federal Executive than the President.? It is essential also to examine the Federal
bureaucracy and see how racism was dealt with at this level.? Segregation was a reality in the bureaucracy
from 1914 onwards, after a bill introduced in 1913 ?to effect certain reforms
in the civil service by segregating clerks and employees of the white race from
those of African blood and descent?.?
Furthermore, African-Americans were largely confined to the lower grades
within the bureaucracy.? Desmond King
claims that ?for over half a century the Federal government played a
significant role in shaping and reinforcing the system of race relations which
disadvantaged Black American citizens?.It is
arguable, however, that the civil service simply reflected the rest of American
society in its racist attitudes, and was less responsible for racism than
responsive to the racism that already existed.?
In support of this contention, it is clear that conditions within the
bureaucracy have improved for African Americans as they have improved in
society, with a 9.2 per cent increase in the total number of African Americans
in the civil service between 1961 and 1965, and a 171.7 per cent increase in
the numbers of African Americans in the highest grades (12-6) over the same
period.? Arguably, then, the bureaucracy
played little role in the advancement of civil rights, reacting rather than
acting.Having
seen the important role played by the three branches of the Federal government
in the civil rights movement, it is important to look at the mass movements of
the era to see whether they could in fact have achieved their aims alone and
without the support of the government.?
To begin, it will be necessary to ask what the goals of organisations
like the N.A.A.C.P. were.? Charles
Hamilton believes that ?the civil rights movement… was first and foremost a
movement to end de jure segregation in the country?.? This is certainly true, but it seems from
the actions of some of the organisations that the ending of de facto segregation
was also an aim.De
jure
segregation could be ended either by the Federal government or by the State
governments.? There was no way for the
civil rights campaigners to directly change the law in this way.? However, the State governments were, on the
whole, completely opposed to the civil rights movements, especially in the Deep
South.? The state governor in Alabama
proudly declared in 1962 that he stood for ?segregation now, segregation
tomorrow, segregation forever?.? It was
the State governor of Mississippi who personally obstructed African-American
students from registering at the State University.? In these conditions, the Federal government was necessary.? In Hamilton?s words, ?at all times the focus
was on getting the national government involved?.De
facto
segregation is a different matter altogether.?
Arguably, Eisenhower was correct.?
One cannot change people?s hearts by law alone.? It is here that the mass organisations came
into their own.? The March on
Washington, the boycotts of bus services, the sit-ins were all tools to end de
facto segregation, and to change people?s hearts.? As Dr King said, the intention was to ?wear you down by our
capacity to suffer?.? This process is
ongoing, but could not even have begun without the support of the Federal
government in ending the legalised segregation practised in the United States.Bibliography: Federal
Law and the Courts in the Civil Rights Movement, Charles Hamilton Race,
Reform and Rebellion, Manning Marable The
Strange Career of Jim Crow, Comer Vann Woodward Separate
and Unequal,
Desmond King