NEA Final Draft - Civil Rights Coursework on the impact of presidents on furthering the civil PDF

Preview

Summary

Civil Rights Coursework on the impact of presidents on furthering the civil rights movement compared to other factors ...

Description

Charlie Gibbs Word Count: 4097 How far was presidential support the key factor in helping advance African American civil rights between the years 1860-1970? The advancement of African American Civil Rights between 1860 and 1970 was a strenuous process, characterized by long periods of stagnation. Every major progression was because of presidential support as it proved essential in producing key legislation and in influencing wider acknowledgement of the need for improving conditions for African Americans. To assess whether presidential support was the key factor in advancing civil rights for African Americans, presidential action must be evaluated as to whether they caused purely de jure (legal) change or if this caused de facto (actual) change. In particular, the administrations of both Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) and Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969), primarily initiated de jure change, which undoubtedly resulted in de facto change. Their impact must be further evaluated against the actions of African American educators, such as Booker T. Washington; the development of groups such as the NAACP who specifically targeted progress via the courts, and civil rights leaders in the 1960’s, including Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr, who had two differing approaches to civil rights reform, but both forced the issue of civil rights into the national spotlight. All of which induced more societal change when compared to the presidents during their respective period. Ultimately despite being largely inconsistent between 1860 -1970, presidential support for legislative reform paved the way for lasting change. The first significant instance of presidential support being the essential factor in advancing civil rights was Lincoln issuing the Emancipation Proclamation (1863). This caused legislative change, which led to minimal societal change. However, the conditions prior to emancipation were so inadequate, not much change had to occur for African American lives to improve. Lincoln’s intention, by issuing it, was not for black Americans to have more civil rights, but rather to gain the support of politicians and citizens. He tried to gain the support of northern politicians by stating that their freedom was a military necessity and therefore demonstrating that this was not “sincerely believed to be an act of justice” (Source 1).1Furthermore, the extent that African Americans were “received into the armed service…to garrison forts, positions, stations…”.2 was limited. Black regiments existed that solely fought on the front lines where the mortality rate was the highest, proving that people still placed the value of their lives below those of white soldiers, which contradicts the demand for equality; a priority for the civil rights agenda. Moreover, only the slaves in the rebel states had been freed; white soldiers refused to fight alongside the black regiments and if captured, black soldiers were executed instead of imprisoned. This demonstrates how limited de facto change had taken place. However, legislation did allow some slaves freedom and admission to the army. Lincoln’s speech is valuable in showing the advancement of African American civil rights because it illustrates the limited extent of progression up until presidential intervention. The effects of the emancipation were a result of the strong racist attitudes that were prevalent at the time it was issued; such attitudes take far longer to change. As a speech, his intention was to enhance his support by appeasing southern politicians and citizens by not freeing slaves from all states, only “designated states…”.3 On the other hand, Lincoln was forced to act because he saw them as a military necessity to win the civil war, which would win the support of the northern politicians. Ultimately, he desired unity.

1 Lincoln A, 1863, Emancipation Proclamation. Abraham Lincoln Online. URL: http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/emancipate.htm 2 Ibid 3 Ibid

Nevertheless, Lincoln did instigate change. The proclamation had a by-product of advancing the civil rights movement; presidents only usually contribute when it suits their agenda. It can be said that if Lincoln had not issued the proclamation, the level to which civil rights was progressing would not have been possible had Lincoln not initiated it this early in 1863. He provided a foundation from which civil rights could advance. Lincoln’s contribution perhaps appears exaggerated because of the societal conditions of African Americans prior to Emancipation, but regardless, it was a significant contribution. Therefore, in the instance of Lincoln, presidential support was a key factor in advancing civil rights. Arguably, the presidency most responsible for advancing civil rights for African Americans was the Johnson administration, a century after the Emancipation Proclamation. Johnson’s actions, like Lincoln’s, were the product of a complex socio-political situation, which ultimately advanced civil rights beyond any previous presidency. In this instance, Johnson was able to deliver legislative reform which clearly translated into social impact. Given the importance of the Vietnam War (1955-1975), civil rights advancement was not Johnson’s biggest priority. Johnson wanted to maintain popularity with voters, hence avoiding the mobilization of soldiers to help the South Vietnamese army until after he had won the election, and by avoiding a civil rights conflict, which could affect the voting intention of African Americans. This is a reason why he said in a letter to Martin Luther King (December 2nd, 1963) that he did “wish to extend… personally every assurance…[to] continue the great struggle for civil rights” (Source 2). 4 68% of all citizens now supported a proposed Civil Rights Act in 1964, therefore making the issue unavoidable for Johnson. With increasing clarity, by passing the Civil Rights Act, Johnson did “continue the great struggle for civil rights”5: ending most forms of public segregation through the threat of cutting funding. Also, establishing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was a way that African Americans could file lawsuits if discrimination did occur, providing a safety net which had not been noticeably effective before – ultimately showing change. African American unemployment had been reduced from 55% in 1955, to 41% in 1966 as result. It authorised the Office of Education to assist with school segregation. The Act also was as a catalyst for the Voting Rights Act 1965, which stopped qualification tests that legally prevented African Americans from voting, and the Fair Housing Act, which banned discrimination in selling, renting and financing property. Therefore, the source clearly demonstrates Johnson’s ability to cause social change from the legislation he passed; something which is not common. But the Act had its limitations. Housing was still worse for African Americans than whites and unemployment was above average (7% by 1968, double that of white Americans). African Americans were dissatisfied with the amount of progress it made; for them it had not gone far enough, resulting in social unrest (e.g. Watts riots, 1965). Even by this point, the support of the president still was not enough, and was therefore not a critical factor in advancing civil rights to a level that satisfied all African Americans. Although Johnson’s presidency was arguably the most significant in advancing civil rights through legislative action, his ability to “continue the great struggle for civil rights” was considered limited by many African Americans who desired faster progress, they viewed it as ‘too little, too late’.6 Despite these reservations over the pace of change, the extent to which the civil rights movement had 4 Johnson L B,1963, Letter to Martin Luther King, The King Centre. URL: http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive/document/letter-president-johnson-mlk-assuming-presidency

5 Ibid 6 Ibid

progressed with Johnson’s assistance was monumental in legislative terms. Had he not shown to be supportive of the Civil Rights Act 1964 that Kennedy proposed, it may not have been passed, supported by a majority in Congress. Johnson’s influence and use of Kennedy’s death to coerce Congress to pass the Act shows how Johnson’s support was crucial. The effect that presidential support had on civil rights advancement cannot be considered in isolation because their actions were due to pressure applied from civil rights organisations and leaders. The extent that civil rights had advanced because of the actions of such organisations prior to the 1930’s was relatively limited because of a lack of activists applying political pressure to the presidency. African American campaigners had restricted their ambitions towards educational and economic self-improvement, choosing to work within existing institutional or political frameworks. This was evidentially flawed because attitudes had not progressed to a point for the system to be lenient enough to accommodate change within. After the Second World War, America saw a multilayered approach from Martin Luther King, the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) and other grass roots organisations. They challenged civil rights issues in the Supreme Court and through methods of civil disobedience. In contrast, Malcolm X’s separationist approach focused on actively opposing white authority. By the turn of the 20th century, African Americans were still unable to improve themselves socially. Civil rights progress therefore tended to focus on equipping African Americans with the attributes for social mobility. Moreover, Booker T. Washington cannot be judged on the same parameters as the likes of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X because such progress was not possible at the time. Therefore, he should be assessed as to whether he caused more change than a president at the time. Booker T. Washington was focused on African Americans benefitting from vocational training rather than a college education. He believed this would promote social mobility without the need for systematic changes. By allowing African Americans to become more skilled through the Tuskegee institute change did occur socially (e.g. by 1900, one in four black farmers were now land owners) because social mobility was now possible in theory. Although, the extent that this came to fruition was limited. By 1915, the time of Washington’s death, over 90% of the 11 million African Americans were still living below the poverty line in the USA. African Americans only accounted for 14% of farm owners. Washington’s policy with white capitalists to open the industrial job market failed with their refusal to incorporate black workers. This is an example of Washington’s failure to bring about social mobility. Washington’s approach of trying to work within these existing social conditions rather than trying to change it was fundamentally flawed. Washington lacked consensus support from within the African American community. Crucially, presidential influence was required for progressive civil rights legislation to be passed. Yet even at the height of Washington’s efforts, he failed to secure effective presidential support. Whilst McKinley (1897-1901) was vocal in his support, he was not able to achieve change due to political pressures. Gerald Bahles judged McKinley to be “unwilling to alienate the whites in the south”7. For example, McKinley neglected the opportunity to federally enforce the 15th amendment which would have protected African Americans from discriminatory voting practices. Therefore, McKinley was more regressive than previous presidents such as Ulysses Grant (1869-1877) who had overseen the ratification of the 15th Amendment. Furthermore, McKinley failed to take steps to reduce the regressive impact of the Plessy vs Ferguson Supreme Court ruling: that segregation was constitutional and therefore did not equal inferior

7 Bahles G, ‘Presidential History Geeks’ Journal. URL: https://potusgeeks.livejournal.com/123515.html

treatment. As things stood, all three branches of the government were unwilling to make civil rights legislation their priority. Here, the lack of presidential support was a key factor in preventing the advancement of civil rights. After the Second World War, civil rights organisations began campaigning for change through a more complex, multi-layered approach. The lack of legislative reform through political channels such as the presidency and congress created frustration. The frustration of decades of legislative stagnation led to newly formed organizations, such as the NAACP (1909) pressuring for reform through an alternative legislative channel; specifically, through the courts. In 1944, the NAACP published a poster comparing Jim Crow Laws to Nazism (Source 3). 8 It illustrates how they supported the “Double V” (victory at home and victory abroad). The NAACP were central to promoting the argument that fascism and anti-democratic legislation, namely the Jim Crow laws, should be fought as part of the war effort and in America itself. Essentially, the purpose of the poster was to recruit support through aiding a wider perception that fascism, as illustrated by the Nazi symbol, was not just a foreign phenomenon. When the poster was published (1944), civil rights progress had stagnated. Franklin D. Roosevelt never specifically helped African Americans with the New Deal legislation. Indeed, the Wagner Act (1935) had the adverse effect of allowing dominant labour unions to discriminate against African Americans because the American Federation of Labour lobbied against the provision that prevented discrimination. Additionally, there was a lack of wider public support for civil rights progress at the time primarily because of the war. The necessity for an attempt to encourage support, is clearly stated through the slogan: “Come, let us counsel together”. 9 This shows how their campaign had broadened to seek popular support for civil rights reform, strongly suggesting that the source is valuable in showing that presidential support alone was insufficient. The imagery within the poster unapologetically suggests that Jim Crow Laws are comparable to Nazism. The hand grasping the crow was not that of a victim; the NAACP wanted to appear as a respectable organisation pursuing civil rights advancement. The hand also embodies the multilayered approach that they took. The suit represents how they tackled civil rights issues through the courts; the grasp illustrates how they successfully challenged such issues, and the war-time imagery on the crow’s legs highlights how they want to appeal to those patriotic about the war effort. Source 310 not only highlights the intention to create popular support for civil right reform, it also suggests they are a credible organisation capable of pressing for change within the legal system. After the NAACP created the Legal Defence Fund (1939), lawyers within the organisation could achieve change in several landmark court cases. In one notable example, Smith v Allwright (1944), it was ruled that it was unconstitutional to prohibit African Americans from voting using the qualification test. As Roosevelt was president during this case, it demonstrates that presidential support is again not fundamental because Roosevelt’s priorities were elsewhere. This shows that civil rights were still able to progress within the Supreme Court, and through applying pressure to branches of government other than the Presidency. In this instance, it was not presidential support, but the actions of African American lawyers and judges in the Supreme Court that played a major role.

8 NAACP’s Wartime Poster, 1944, Library of Congress. URL: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/naacp/world-war-ii-and-the-post-war-years.html#obj5 9 Ibid 10 Ibid

During Eisenhower’s presidency, a further NAACP victory came in Brown v Board of Education (1954): it ruled that state-sanctioned segregation of public schools was unconstitutional. Eisenhower as president appointed Chief Justice Warren. However, because Eisenhower was quoted as saying the appointment of Warren was a mistake, it shows how Eisenhower’s support was not essential, as the Supreme Court ruled against segregation due to Warren’s active support for civil rights advancement. Rulings such as Brown v Board of Education and Smith v Allwright reflect the trend that the NAACP achieved legislative change through the Supreme Court, but were not as successful in achieving de facto change. Evidence of this can be seen in Morgan v Virginia (1946). This case ruled that segregation on interstate bus travel was illegal, but the extent this was implemented was limited because companies in the south still segregated during the 1960’s. These three court cases highlight the NAACP’s ability to achieve legislative change through the courts, whilst being unable to cause de facto change. For this, the support of all three branches and specifically the president, was key. A prime example of when the president was essential to enforce legislative change was the Little Rock Nine Incident (1957). The fact that Eisenhower was forced to send in 1200 troops to protect the students shows how his power was required for past legislation, specifically in Brown v Board of Education, to be enforced. Even then, Governor Faubus closed the school for the following year. This is an example of an inability to cause lasting societal change. Martin Luther King Jr’s involvement within the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) (1929-1968) provided him with a prominent platform to become the figurehead that the movement had lacked previously. He recognised that presidential support was crucial. To achieve this, he built on the NAACP’s work and challenged anti-civil rights legislation. An example being through the MIA, eventually leading to a ruling in 1956 that stated segregation laws breached the 14th Amendment. He also utilised the media to generate awareness for civil rights in key southern states as well as nationwide - the most significant example being Birmingham (1963). Kennedy admitted this was essential to help persuade the government to address the need for civil rights legislation. Furthermore, despite initially opposing the March on Washington (1963), Kennedy called a meeting of 1500 religious, labour and business groups. Both instances demonstrate King’s requirement for presidential action. Whereas King presumed civil rights advancement would only occur through applying pressure to legislative and political bodies dominated by White Americans, Malcolm X believed that encouraging the cultural advancement of African-Americanism was far more essential. As William W. Sales describes, Malcolm X stated that there were “limits of reform”. 11 (Source 4). The two major limitations from his perspective was the continuing power of White Americans and the lack of African American class consciousness. He encouraged consciousness by educating them about the hypocrisy of Northern White Liberals and stated that “they make you forget you’re in a snake pit”. By doing so, he wished to create the grievances that were required for change, thus eradicating this limit of reform. To achieve change, he recognised that it must be done “by any means necessary”, Malcolm X wished to “advance…a cultural revolution” and attempted to do so in various ways.12 He wanted to change the historical attitude of African Americans towards the ‘American Dream’, specifically rejecting the idea that their aspirations should be a mere addition to White America. After the Emancipation, American capitalism continued to be founded upon the cheap labour of African Americans, prior to

11 Sales W W, 1994, ‘From Civil Rights to Black Liberation: Malcolm X and the organisation of Afro American Unity’. Boston: South End Press, P 211. 12 Ibid

which it had been built on slavery; a prime example being the decentralized authority of the Civilian Conservation Corps (1933), which often failed to administer support for southern African Americans. Malcolm X named this the ‘American Nightmare’. Malcolm X also wanted to change their behaviour by teaching them about the “necessity of self-defence”.13 His ‘The Ballot or the...