Specimen Paper

Yes No
 The importance of the  Slavery was not restored and
Supreme Court ruling on civil there was considerable
rights in 1883, opening the way freedom of movement.
for the proliferation of Jim  The freedom to marry without
Crow Laws. a 3rd party’s consent remained.
 Mississippi introduced  There was a continuing
segregated rail travel in 1888 improvement in literacy and
followed by Louisiana in 1890. educational opportunities.
Their right to do so was  There was a slow but
confirmed by Plessy v Ferguson increasing living standard with
in 1896. increases in the amount of
 Segregation in hotels, land farmed by black
restaurants, hospitals, sports Americans.
etc. spread in the 1890s  Black Americans in the North
throughout the southern continued to be able to vote.
states.
 Lynching of black Americans to
intimidate was high with 82%
of all US lynchings in the 1890s
being in the southern states.
 The right to vote was steadily
whittled away throughout the
south such as Louisiana having
130,000 black voters in 1896
but only 5,320 in 1900.
 Black representatives
disappeared from the South
Carolina state legislature by
1900 and most other southern
states and in the US Congress.
There is much debate surrounding whether or not the gains made by black
Americans in the years 1865-1877 were lost in the years 1883-1900. Having
experienced significant advancements in civil rights post-Civil War through the
leadership of Abraham Lincoln, and despite active retaliatory attempts made by
President Andrew Johnson towards Civil Rights improvements, the
Reconstruction era seriously aided black Americans in their plight for equality
amongst their white counterparts, especially because of the proliferation of the
Radical Republicans in the era, as well as President Grant’s notable legislation
such as the Civil Rights Act of 1875 contributing to said improvements.
However, despite there being a decent chunk of continued prosperity and
there remaining a good portion of civil rights for black Americans, the years
1883-1900 were riddled with harmful Supreme Court decision-making, the
growing influence of the southern Democrats in federal and state legislative
affairs, as well as the peak of lynching from white terror groups in the first half
of the Jim Crow era by groups such as the KKK which really proved detrimental
in cutting back heavily on the gains made by black Americans in the
Reconstruction era.
To begin, let’s consider the importance of the Supreme Court rulings on civil
rights in 1883 which opened the way for the proliferation of Jim Crow in the
era, mainly including Stanley v USA, USA v Ryan, USA v Nicholas, USA v
Singleton, and Robison et ex. V Memphis and Charleston Railroad. For some
context, the Supreme Court ruled a majority 8-1 vote on these cases,
emphasising the extreme levels to which the USA was attempting to return to
federal social inequity between the superior whites and inferior blacks. 2 of the
cases involved racial discrimination in hotels in Missouri, 2 concerned racial
discrimination in theatres in San Francisco, California and New York City, and a
5th involved racial discrimination on a railway. The key fact to point out in these
cases is that several of these cases occurred outside the south (former
Confederacy), providing powerful evidence that racial discrimination took place
across the country. Collectively, the 5 cases asserted that the complainants, all
black Americans, were denied their civil rights which had been guaranteed by
the Civil Rights Act, passed by Congress in 1875 under President Grant’s second
term. They also claimed that such discrimination were contrary to the promises
of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which guaranteed all Americans
equal protection of the law. The actions were also contrary to the 13th
Amendment, which had abolished slavery. Importantly, much of the cases were
a form of de facto discrimination, where individual and private instances of
discrimination occurred, which due to the cases, were promoted to de jure
discrimination, both recognized by the governmental body of the USA, as well
as the Supreme Court, effectively resulting in the Supreme Court decision of 15
October 1883, where the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was declared unconstitutional
and the racial discrimination in all 5 cases were not deemed illegal, effectively
kickstarting the era of Jim Crow as most of the gains made by black Americans
during Reconstruction were removed. This opened up black Americans to racial
discrimination by individuals and businesses.
To prove evidence for the effects of these cases, it is a notable fact that
segregation in hotels, restaurants, hospitals, sports, etc spread in the 1890s
throughout the southern states, often being attributed towards the 1883 cases.
These segregation achievements were the separation of whites and blacks in
different, split groups, where hospitals (typically with lower service quality),
restaurants, hotels, and sports were built separately to serve and house blacks
apart from the whites, as there returned the social norm of black Americans
being socially inferior to whites across the USA. There were even black sports
teams created separate to the whites, which highlights the extent to which the
country involved itself in to discriminate against its black citizens. These de
facto segregation examples were further strengthened by the Plessy v Ferguson
case, where the idea of ‘separate but equal’ services were promoted and began
to be widely accepted nationwide, especially in the south.
The introduction of segregated rail travel by Mississippi and Florida in 1888 and
1890 respectively were effectively confirmed to be constitutional by the Plessy
v Ferguson case of 1896. The case mainly revolved around the challenge of the
Louisiana Law of 1890 which demanded ‘separate but equal’ accommodation
on railroads for black and non-white people, initiated by Homer Plessy, who
was interestingly only 1/8 black, looking like a white man, yet still faced racial
discrimination in the face of railroad transport. The Supreme Court ignored the
argument of Plessy’s lawyer who pointed to Plessy’s mixed background, and
how absurd it was to segregate facilities by colour. The Court went on to argue
that segregating facilities posed no problem, as long as the facilities were
equal. Plessy v Ferguson effectively gave US Supreme Court support for legal
segregation and state laws establishing separate facilities for black and white
people across the South quickly followed, as well as strengthened the positions
of the state governments of Mississippi and Florida, as mentioned above,
which both initiated much of the segregationally inclined separation of blacks
and whites in railroads. This removed much of the freedom of movement
without humiliation for blacks, as they quickly got reminded of their social
status within American society.
To not mention the spread of white terror groups such as the KKK and the
White League, as well as the southern state tolerance of such groups, and the
states’ effective removal of the qualities of the 15th Amendment for black
enfranchisement (1870), would be inaccurate in the portrayal of how big of a
dip in quality-of-life black Americans experienced by the end of Reconstruction.
Lynching of black Americans to intimidate was high with 82% of all US lynchings
in the 1890s being in the southern states. What was initially a prankster-gang,
the KKK quickly became a cult of white supremacy, aiming to reverse much of
what the victorious north imposed on the South regarding the Military
Reconstruction Act of 1867 and the 15th Amendment which allowed blacks to
vote without the fear of being punished or attacked. In the 1890s, an average
of 187 lynchings of black Americans took place every year, which was at an
average of over 3 per week. The levels of which these lynchings were taken (to
extremes) were disgusting, as black people were murdered through methods
of torture and hangings, where hundreds, or even thousands, would gather to
watch. All due to evidence-less accusations of the black American victims of
the lynchings. The White League also contributed to the terror, as it was seen
as the military arm of the Democrat Party while Louisiana was under military
occupation during Reconstruction. Once Louisiana’s Democrat Party retained
its strength and influence over the state, the White League, along with several
other white terror groups, spread chaos all across the South, as it did in the
1870s, such as the Battle of Liberty Place. Regarding, the state interference of
these groups, they did not nearly do enough, but rather encouraged much of
the terror, having become riddled with southern Democrat influence. When it
comes to the right to vote, this became apparent to be steadily decreasing, and
effectively whittled away throughout the south such as Louisiana having
130,000 black voters in 1896, but only 5,320 in 1900. This huge dip in black
voters were in fear of several key aspects of American life in the Jim Crow era.
The fear of lynching. The fear of murder. And especially the hopelessness of the
right to vote after the Louisiana Grandfather Clause of 1898 which stated that
not man who had been eligible to vote on 1 January 1867 would be required to
meet the newfound literacy or poverty-ownership requirements where now
blacks had to meet to conform to the new standards, as black men were unable
to vote until 1870. This exploitation of the voters rights of white men pre 15 th
Amendment essentially excluded black voters from the vote in 1898, signifying
the reason which the voting number stooped so low. With the proliferation of
Jim Crow, it is apparent that almost every positive improvement made for the
lives of black Americans were effectively deleted, but this doesn’t necessarily
mean that every single positive legislation or aspect of life was damaged.
To the contrary of everything mentioned above, it’s worth nothing that slavery
was not officially restored and there was a considerable amount of freedom of
movement generally. Despite there being newfound segregationist legislation
that separated black and whites in areas of transport such as railway systems,
it’s worth nothing that due to the 13th Amendment, proposed and signed into
effect by President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, black men were no longer slaves.
And despite much of the reintroduction of de facto racial discrimination
(especially in the south) in the era 1883-1900, no black man could be
considered a slave, and could not be owned or bought, as this was
unchallenged significantly by any person or political power in the court of law.
Furthermore, the ability to roam freely without interrogation by state or
federal police was a luxury that remained mostly in effect, including the south,
as such interrogation would be deemed illegal and unconstitutional, as black
men were now, legally, citizens of the United States with their own freedom of
movement and life. This is one of the main, if not the most important,
maintained advancement of civil rights still in effect in the Jim Crow era from
the Reconstruction era, and was one of the main Union goals and
achievements that remained in place throughout the rest of US history.
Also, the freedom to marry without a 3rd party’s consent remained, as this was
yet another slave ordeal that required slaveowner/slave master permission
that was effectively removed as the Civil War ended with Union victory. During
Reconstruction, amongst many other things, freed black men (and women)
were now capable of marrying one another as normal citizens of the United
States; and this remained the view of the government and law throughout the
years 1883-1900. Having not robbed black Americans of this right, such a gain
made by black Americans in the Reconstruction years being continued into the
Jim Crow era is a substantial note to point out, as it showed that there was at
least some continued respect for the ordeal of marriage towards black
Americans in lawful equality with white Americans, including the south.
There must be a mention of the continued improvements in literacy and
educational opportunities made by black Americans in this era too, which
continued throughout the Reconstruction era into the entirety of the Jim Crow
period. Having there be an 80% black and other illiteracy level in the year 1870
severely decreasing to 44.5% in the year 1900 indicated substantial literacy and
educational progress made by black Americans in areas of schooling which was
once only reserved for the wealthier, and more privileged black Americans pre
Civil War. Despite the lack of government funding in relative degrees to black
schools (elementary to high) compared to white schools, such as black schools
receiving fewer resources, outdated textbooks, and inadequate facilities,
especially due to the Jim Crow segregation of schools, black Americans were
still making significant individual progress as a disadvantages part of society,
since the USA thankfully did not completely eradicate schooling as part of black
American life.
If said black Americans were unwilling to live the life of such discrimination in
the south, they’d often migration to the north and west to seek better life. For
those that did, not only did they receive better schooling for them and their
families, but they were also allowed to vote, especially in the north. The 15 th
Amendment was still maintained in states such as New York and Illinois. The
north also offered employment opportunities in industries such as
manufacturing that were expanding by the early 20th century. Although black
migrants still faced racial discrimination and segregation in housing and
employment to certain degrees in the north, black Americans still experienced
a significant better quality of live in the north in comparison to the south,
which is an important aspect of history to note, as this is proof of much of
Reconstruction era legislation and state government laws in the north being
maintained despite the proliferation of Jim Crow.
Finally, although slow, there was an ever so continuation of increasing living
standards with increases in the amount of land farmed by black Americans
from 1865-1900. Despite
Specimen Paper
Yes
 The importance of the
Supreme Court ruling on civil
rights in 1883, opening up the
way for the proliferation of Jim
Crow Laws.
 The importance of Plessy v
Ferguson 1896 and other cases
in the late 1890s in legalising
segregation.
 The importance of the 1954
case, Brown v Board of
Education.
 The role of Earl Warren and his
rulings on desegregation in
1955.
 The role played by the federal
judiciary in facilitating civil
rights up to 1968, for example
the Browder v Gayle ruling in
1960, and the ruling on the
Selma march in 1965.
No
 The Supreme Court did not
instigate segregation and Jim
Crow Laws. It merely made
them possible.
 The initiatives for segregation
came from individual southern
states and reflected the
prejudices of the populist
white electorate.
 The initiative that led to the
court ruling of 1954 came from
a lengthy campaign by the
NAACP.
 The 1955 rulings used the
phrase ‘with all deliberate
speed’ and did not produce
instant or even extensive
desegregation by 1960.
 The passage of new legislation
in 1964, 1965, and 1968, which
owed much to the political
skills of President Johnson and
pressure from various civil
rights groups, might be
considered much more
significant than the role of the
Supreme Court in extending
civil rights.
There is much debate surrounding whether the role of Supreme Court was
highly significant in limiting the civil rights of black Americans in the years
1883-1900, and also extending them in the years 1954-68. With both eras
being both the dip and peak in black Americans civil rights post-Reconstruction
respectively, it’s a known fact that the Supreme Court heavily influenced the
establishment of new legislation involving civil rights. In the Jim Crow era, the
Supreme Court cut back on Reconstruction policies, notably in 1883 and late
1900s, while in the years 1954-68, the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl
Warren, effectively overturned much of what was the proliferation of Jim Crow
in the years 1883-c1900, and certainly extended civil rights for black
Americans. However, it’s also worth noting the legitimate influence and power
of the Supreme Court, which is often overstated in many historical debates, as
well as the roles of other organisations and factions of people, particularly the
southern Democrats, Lyndon B. Johnson, and many other Presidents and civil
rights groups (like the NAACP) who all played their own role in the changes
made to civil rights in the timeframe mentioned. In this essay, I will consider
both arguments and counterarguments to the quoted statement and will reach
a final conclusion.
To begin, let’s consider the importance of the Supreme Court ruling on civil
rights in 1883, which effectively opened up the way for the proliferation of Jim
Crow Laws. Accurately often stated as the kickstart to Jim Crow, the Supreme
Court cases of 1883 of United States v Stanley, United States v Ryan, United
States v Nicholas, United States v Singleton, and finally Robinson et ux. v
Memphis and Charleston Railroad, were all attempts at seeking legal action
against racial discrimination in hotels in Missouri (2 of them), 2 concerning
racial discrimination in theatres in San Francisco, California, and New York City,
and the final involving racial discrimination on a railway. collectively, the 5
cases asserted that the complainants, all black Americanas, were denied their
civil rights which had been guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act, passed by
Congress in 1875. In short, President Grant, in his second term, passed the Civil
Rights Act 1875, outlawing racial discrimination at the de facto level, levelling
up black Americans as equal citizens who were able to enjoy equal public
amenities as whites. Having also claimed that their civil rights were denied
because these acts of racial discrimination were contrary to the 14th
Amendment, which promised equal protection under the law for all races, as
well as a violation of the 13th Amendment, the complainants were speaking and
fighting for the attitudes of thousands, if not millions, of black Americans
across the United States. The Decision? The Supreme Court, on 15 October
1883, with a 8-1 majority, declared that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was
unconstitutional, and the cases involving individual acts of racial discrimination
did not contravene the 13th Amendment, and as far as breaking the 14th
Amendment, the Court declared that it outlawed specific actions by state
governments only, not individual acts of discrimination. As a result of this, most
of the gains made by black Americans during Reconstruction were removed, as
de facto racial discrimination was now nationally accepted, and black
Americans were now open to racial discrimination by individuals and
businesses across the country.
To continue on the harm made by the Supreme Court in 1883-1900, the
important cases of Plessy v Ferguson 1896, Williams v Mississippi 1898, and
Cumming v Richmond County Board of Education, 1899, effectively created
what became known as legal segregation. Also known as ‘separate but equal’
treatment and services amongst black Americans and white Americans, the
cases were all decided in favour of the white defendants and businesses.
Regarding Homer Plessy, his plight against the Louisiana Law of 1890 which
demanded ‘separate but equal’ accommodation on railroads for black and non-
white people was ignored, as the court went on to argue that segregating
facilities posed no problem, as long as the facilities were equal. Plessy v
Ferguson gave US Supreme Court support for legal segregation and state laws
establishing separate facilities for black and white people across the South
quickly followed. Having been a landmark decision that lasted so long, it
negatively impacted all black Americans until the 1954 case of Brown v Board
of Education in Topeka, Kansas. Regarding Williams v Mississippi, this was yet
another blow to black American civil rights in the Supreme Court, as the
challenge towards the Mississippi State Constitution change in 1890, which
disenfranchised large numbers of black voters because of the implementation
of a $2 poll tax to register to vote, as well as literacy tests, was also
unsuccessful in persuading the Supreme Court to take action in favour of black
Americans. And finally, regarding the Cumming v Richmond case, education
wear and tear reached a peak in 1899, where the Richmond County Board of
Education levied a tax of $45,000 for that year for the support of primary,
intermediate, grammar, and high schools in the county. Although still allowing
the existence of some black schools, the black Americans in the county
complained that the tax was allegedly being used for whites-only school
funding. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous 9-0 decision, upheld the decision
of the Board of Education, effectively closing a high school that contained 60
blacks to replace it with 4 elementary schools for 300 blacks was not
unconstitutional, despite the lack of funding towards them.
As we can see, the Supreme Court was directly involved in limiting civil rights of
black Americans between 1883-1900; however, what came in 1954-68 was the
complete opposite.
Under Chief Justice Earl Warren, being appointed by President Dwight
Eisenhower in 1953, the case of Brown v Board of Education of 1954 quickly
came to play as the beginning of the peak of the civil rights movement. The
case outlawed what was 58 years ago the start of ‘separate but equal’
segregation, effectively deeming the case of Plessy v Ferguson unconstitutional,
and reversing the decision made. Being a unanimous decision of 9-0 on 17 May
1954, the ‘separate but equal’ educational facilities in public schools being a
breach of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution was finalized, and the
unanimity of the decision was a clear indication of a step in the right direction
to advance the plight of black Americans in their civil rights movement. Earl
Warren’s role cannot be understated, as his ability to persuading the other
justices, such as a supporter of segregation, Stanley Reed, that a unanimous
decision was essential in order to ensure the significant of the change, in
particular to those southern states that were likely to resist the decision, was
extremely relevant as to why Brown I was such a success story. In the next
Brown II case, in 1955, the US Supreme Court demanded the speedy
integration of all public schools within the USA, which is such a strong point of
evidence that the US Supreme Court was committed in overturning the
negatives of Jim Crow.
Up until 1968, the Supreme Court continued to facilitate civil rights, such as the
Browder v Gayle case of 1956, where it declared legal segregation of black and
white passengers on public transport within cities unconstitutional, giving a
massive boost to MLK’s campaign to end segregation in Montgomery, Alabama.
Another instance was the case of Boynton v Virginia, 1960, where the Supreme
Court ruled that segregated bus depots were illegal, and the 1962 case, Bailey v
Patterson, where the Supreme Court declared legal segregation on interstate
public transportation also unconstitutional. And finally, the ruling on the deadly
Selma March of 7 March 1965, where the event became known as Bloody
Sunday, the Supreme Court officially contributed to the signing of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, deeming it naturally constitutional, bringing back the
nationwide right to vote, a proclamation of the essence of what the 15 th
Amendment tried to achieve in 1870. As we can see, the US Supreme Court
certainly contributed to the advancements made in civil rights in the later years
of the question statement and was a strongly positive force in making change
happen.
However, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court did not instigate
segregation and Jim Crow Laws, but rather merely made them possible. The US
body of legislative power is a complex one, where the Supreme Court acts as
merely an adviser and analyser of the US Constitution, rather than the actual
governmental, federal body, consisting of the House of Representatives,
President, and Senate. Without the influence and vote of Congress and
President, the US Supreme Court decisions would be mere Court decisions and
wouldn’t be implemented as federal law. To understand this, we must
recognize that the end of Reconstruction brought the proliferation of southern
Democrats in state governments in the south, which in turn led to much of the
Reconstruction era gains made by the Radical Republicans overturned. The
initiatives for segregation came from individual southern states in reality and
reflected the prejudices of the populist white electorate. Individual states such
as Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida, all contributed immensely, and
negatively, to the widespread plague of Jim Crow and disenfranchisement of
the black population within the states. For instance, the Mississippi State
Constitution update of 1890, as mentioned earlier in the essay, implemented
poll taxation and literacy examination to the voting population, effectively
removing much of the power and influence of the state black vote.
Furthermore, the Louisiana Grandfather Clause discriminated against all those
who did not own state property or couldn’t pass literacy tests of its own,
except for those who were able to vote in the Congressional elections of 1867.
This pretty much meant mostly whites were able to vote, and this was evident.
The Law was notably established in 1898. The black voter number dropped
from 130,000 in 1896 to 5,320 in 1900, providing evidence for the complete
and utter downfall of the 15th Amendment in the South. And without the state
legislative bodies and the influence of southern Democrats on federal decision-
making, the Supreme Court decisions would be mere Court decisions, as stated
earlier.
Considering what occurred in 1954, though, it is crucial to not understate the
importance of the role of the NAACP and its campaign for the Brown legislative
decision. The case was brought to the US Supreme Court in 1953 by the NAACP.
Its chief lawyer, black American Thurgood Marshall, argued himself the case,
and was able to persuade the Supreme Court into taking action against the
‘separate but equal’ ruling of Plessy v Ferguson. This was the culmination of
efforts by the NAACP to overturn Plessy v Ferguson, as in 1950, for instance, in
the case of Sweatt v Painter, the US Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Carl
Vinson, had demanded a $3 million upgrade of the facilities at the all-black
Prairie View University in Texas because its facilities were deemed inferior to
those of all-white colleges in the state. The success of the NAACP in promoting
the civil rights movement was a great success in the model for subsequent civil
rights cases, since the legal strategy employed by the NAACP was clearly seen
as effective. Thurgood Marshall's success before the Supreme Court
established him as a prominent figure in the movement and laid the
groundwork for his later appointment as the first African American Supreme
Court Justice.
To continue with the era of change, it would be impossible to not mention the
arguable national failure of the 1955 Brown II rulings, which notably used the
phrase ‘with all deliberate speed’, as it did not produce instant or even
extensive desegregation by 1960. Much of the South was still in favour of
segregating schools racially, as was seen in the Little Rock incident of 1957,
which as an attempt made to allow 9 black American students to attend an all-
white school, at Central High School, Little Rock, Arkansas. The state governor,
Orvil Faubus, and local white groups opposed the idea. A riot nearly occurred
on the day the 9 black students attempted to enrol at the school. Shown on
national television, the episode caused national outrage. President Eisenhower
had to dispatch 1,000 members of the 101st Airborne Division to protect the
students and allow them to attend classes. The troops stayed at Central High
School all year to protect the black students. This displayed several things. For
one, as mentioned above, the Brown cases weren’t necessarily effective in
physical change, but were more-so the beginning of inspired and determinant
forces in the 1950s and 1960s making symbolic changes against Jim Crow, and
two, that there was still much work to be done, as President Eisenhower
himself was reluctant to send the troops out to Little Rock if it weren’t for the
negative media image portrayed of the nation’s racially discriminatory attitudes
towards non-whites. This, however, was changed in the 1960s.
The passage of new legislation in 1964 (Civil Rights Act), 1965 (Voting Rights
Act), and 1968 (Fair Housing Act), which owed much to the political skills of
President Lyndon B. Johnson and culminating pressure from various civil rights
groups such as the SCLC, SNCC, CORE, the Black Panther Party, and more, could
be considered much more significant than the role of the Supreme Court itself.
Remember, the Supreme Court was merely a body of advice, but it was up to
the US Government itself to instigate change. After the assassination of JFK and
the presidential takeover of President Johnson, it was evident that there would
be change coming soon in civil rights. President Johnson himself admitted that
he was committed to passing the early legislation, even if it meant his electoral
demise in the next election. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a promise made by
JFK prior to his assassination, and was honorarily passed under President
Johnson’s first year as president, which was passed on 2 July 1964, bringing an
end to legal segregation in the USA, outlawing all racial segregation for public
facilities and accommodation, as well as in federal government facilities, and tt
forbade all discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, colour,
religion, national origin, and sex. This was seen as a major triumph for those
campaigning for gender equality in the USA. Finally, the Act set up the Equal
Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) to ensure that the Civil Rights
Act was implemented. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed in August, which
outlawed all literacy tests and provided for federal examiners to replace state
government officials with the power to register votes. Being a revised version
of the 15th Amendment, it ensured that voters’ rights were maintained
nationwide, no matter what. By the end of 1965, 250,00 new black voters had
been added to the electorates of the southern states. And finally, the Fair
Housing Act of 1968 outlawed any and all discrimination on the basis of colour,
race, religion, or national origin in the rent or sale of housing, except in owner-
occupied or owner-managed units. The issue of de facto racial discrimination
affected black Americans across the USA and was a significant cause of rioting
in US cities from 1965. The Act also outlawed racial discrimination in jury
selection. Ultimately, the acts passed under President Johnson were a
culmination of both his administration’s efforts, as well as the successful
influence of civil rights groups in that period.
Overall, although the Supreme Court played a crucial role in limiting civil rights
in 1883-1900 and advancing them in 1954-68, their role in both periods were
limited if it weren’t for external influences, especially the roles of Presidents,
Congress, and civil rights groups themselves. Without the power of the
southern Democrats in 1883-1900, and the change in attitudes towards
segregation and racial discrimination in 1954-68, all of the Court cases
wouldn’t have been passed, be it the deeply negative Plessy v Ferguson, or the
Brown cases. Because of how the US Government is run, they are the body that
finalizes the legislation, only following the advice of the Supreme Court if
deemed reliable. Furthermore, the effects and prowess of civil rights groups in
the 1950s and 1960s were arguably more influential than that of the Supreme
Court, or at least were in tandem, in affecting the decisions made by President
Lyndon B. Johnson in passing the Acts of 1964-65-58. And so conclusively,
despite the Supreme Court harbouring a substantial role in the changes made
to civil rights in 1883-1900 and 1954-1968, it was mainly the power of US
Government and civil rights groups and the southern Democrats which
provided the legal means of change in the civil rights of black Americans.
Jan 2017

Yes
 Continuation of Jim Crow laws
in many of the southern states
and the lack of legislation to
address black grievances,
including the failure to achieve
anti-lynching legislation.
 Lynchings, which were
commonplace in the late 19th
century, actually increased in
FDR’s first year as President.
 The continued influence of
southern white Americans in
the Democratic Party.
 Differential treatment of black
Americans continued such as
many of the ND agencies
continuing to disadvantage
black Americans.
 Segregation in housing policy
continued such as the Federal
Housing Agency continuing to
refuse to give mortgages to
black families in traditionally
white neighbourhoods.
No
 Aid provided by ND agencies,
especially in the southern
states, was significant and a
radical departure from earlier
times.
 Legal rulings such as Grovey v
Townsend 1935 challenged
remaining Reconstruction
legislation.
 Switch in voting habits of black
Americans, with 71%
supporting FDR in 1936,
indicated gains by them.
 WPA had 1 million black
Americans working for it by
1939.
 Enough black Americans, like
Mary McLeod Bethune, found
themselves in leadership
positions that there was even
talk of a ‘black cabinet’ of FDR
advisers.

There is much debate surrounding whether or not President Roosevelt failed to

seriously address the political and economic problems which black Americans
had faced since the late 19th century. Having underwent the Great Depression,
the United States of American elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt to lead
them through it, and his plan came along with the New Deal. Despite this,
much of the New Deal and much of his terms’ national advancements during
the Great Depression lacked true civil rights progression, as the continuation of
Jim Crow Laws, instances of lynchings, the influence of southern Democrats in
federal and state affairs, as well as failures of the New Deal at implementing a
segregationist-free workforce, and the availability of equal black mortgages to
whites were all severe problems unaddressed by FDR. However, it’s also worth
noting that the New Deal agencies did contribute positively in some respects to
the lives of black Americans, in particular the WPA and the general southern
state aided given to the general populace at the time, whether black or white.
Furthermore, legal rulings were made during his terms, and black cabinet
members began appearing out of thin air; whilst black Americans began voting
Democrat more and more with every election, displaying a sense of acceptance
by the blacks towards the change that came with the New Deal. By the end of
this essay, a conclusive judgment will be made regarding the validity of the
statement.
To begin, let’s consider the general scope of black American standards of living
and civil rights up until FDR’s election in 1932. Due to the proliferation of Jim
Crow in 1883-c1900 through the Plessy v Ferguson case, the 1883 cases, and
the strengthening of southern Democrat dominance, power, and influence in
the south, much of the national, especially at the southern state level,
advancements made by black Americans during the Reconstruction era was
deleted. This continued throughout the 20th century, and unfortunately no true
changes were made by FDR’s administration towards the ‘separate but equal’
de facto segregation that was popularized so widely across the south. Coming
from New York, a northern state, FDR understood better a larger sense of
equality between black and white Americans, but despite this, he proceeded to
nominate a Texan vice-presidential candidate, whom he won with. This allowed
the continuation of the southern white Americans in the Democratic Party to
be the main driving force in not only Congress levels through filibusters, but
also at the Presidential level, as FDR was now forced to appease the south by a
lack of implementation of federal legislation towards black grievances, such as
anti-lynching laws.
Lynchings were a commonplace practice in the late 19th century, with an
average of 182 lynching per year in the 1880s. Funnily enough, lynchings were
cut back on significantly as the KKK dwindled in power, yet they increased in
FDR’s first year as President. In 1932, lynching figures dropped below double
digits for the first time. Yet under FDR’s first year, they rose to 28. Several
attempts to declare lynching a criminal offence had been made before 1932,
such as the Dyer Bill, but had failed to pass. Several further attempts were
made in the 1930s, which culminated in the Gavagan Bill, which passed the
House of Representatives in 1937 miraculously but failed to become law as it
was defeat in the US Senate through filibusters led by southern Democrats.
Essentially, filibusters were the deliberate use of extensive speechmaking in
order to prevent a vote or proposal in the US Senate. The southern Democrats
often utilized filibusters to delay the passing of legislation, with many of them
often being given up on in time. In addition to this, FDR himself was reluctant
to deal with the subject of lynching, as he told the secretary of the NAACP,
Walter White, that he was unwilling to challenge the power of southern
Democrat congressmen and senators as he feared that an anti-lynching law
would alienate them, saying he needed their support for other New Deal
legislation that would provide work and social welfare for poor and
unemployed Americans, including black Americans. This essentially meant that
FDR claimed to have been focusing on the economic standpoint of the black
Americans, rather than the sociopolitical.
However, with much of the New Deal agencies, there was a significant
differential treatment of black Americans that continued to disadvantage black
Americans, such as in the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Agricultural
Advancement Administration. Starting with the latter, sharecropping
predominated among black farmers in the south, and small groups of rich
white farmers dominated agriculture. Having Congress put aside $100 million
for the AAA, the rich white farmers dominated the country committees set up
to administer AAA funds. Although 700,000 farms existed in the cotton growing
area of the USA, the vast majority of the money received for farmer
subsistence went to the large farms owned by white Americans, effectively
displaying a monopoly of corruption within the Administration. Between 1933-
34, 100,000 black tenant farmers and sharecroppers were forced off their land,
as white landlords reduced their acreage in order to qualify for AAA financial
payments. By 1940, approximately 200,000 black farmers had been driven off
their land. Regarding the CCC, the early years were racially integrated, and it
was even stated in the act of Congress that established the CCC that there
should be no racial discrimination in the CCC. However, these integrated camps
were disbanded in July 1935, when CCC director, Robert Fechner, issued a
directive ordering the complete segregation of black and white enrolees. Racial
discrimination towards blacks in the CCC and segregation wasn’t limited to the
south, as instances of this also existed in Pennsylvania, a northern state.
Finally, its important to also state that segregation in housing policy continued
such as the Federal Housing Agency continuing to refuse to give mortgages to
black families in traditionally white neighbourhoods. This, predictably, was a
result of the lack of willingness of white neighbourhoods in integrating black
culture and society within their own societies, as they deemed them socially
inferior, as thugs, crooks, criminals, and many more negative comparisons
made towards them.
As we can realize, much of FDR’s presidency wasn’t dedicated towards the
advancements of black American civil rights, both politically and economically,
as much of the New Deal benefitted white Americans, rather than their black
counterparts.
However, there were rare, although notable instances where the New Deal did
seriously benefit black Americans. Before we get into that, it’s important to
consider the fact that the New Deal itself and its agencies and the aid provided
by said agencies, especially in the south, were significant and landmark
administrations that radically departed from earlier times, especially towards
the minor instances where the New Deal did help black Americans. Prior to
this, the quality of life of black Americans would have been irrelevant in
maintaining the state of the nation and its people, but the Great Depression
sincerely did turn the tides ever so slightly, as in some instances, black and
white Americans were treated as who they truly were: citizens of a starving
nation. A great example of this is the impact of the Works Progress
Administration, which had 1 million black Americans working for it by 1939.
Under Harry Hopkins, the relief agency had provided 350,000 black Americans
work every year between 1936-40. Its educational programmes employed over
5,000 black American teachers, and taught 250,000 black Americans how to
read and write, improving upon literacy levels. In the National Youth
Administration, the head of the Negro Affairs Department, black American
Mary McLeod Bethune, provided skills training for 500,000 young black
Americans. These examples of employment and educational prowess under the
New Deal are noteworthy, as they represented a significant detour from FDR’s
policies which often only benefited white Americans. It is a miracle that such
policies underwent reality despite the influence of the southern Democrats
federally.
To continue, it is noteworthy that there was a switch in voting habits of black
Americans during FDR’s era, with 71% supporting FDR in the 1936 presidential
election, indicating that the majority of black Americans did gain at least one
way or another under FDR’s first term. Many black Americans even revered FDR
as their saviour; somewhat of a depressing state many of them lived in. Many
black Americans voted for FDR rather than the Democrats, as his New Deal
programmes offered jobs and hope to many poor and unemployed black
Americans in the trenches of the Great Depression. In Chicago, the Democrat
vote rose from 27% in 1928 to 49% in 1932. Such examples of increased
support for the Democrat Party by black Americans can be looked back upon as
a bizarre phenomenon, as in factual bases, the New Deal provided them with a
fraction of the help given to white Americans, yet they cherished their
livelihood improvements, and the statistics show it.
Finally, it is noteworthy that there was a major increase in black Americans,
such as Mary McLeod Bethune, who found themselves in leadership positions
federally that there was even talk of a ‘black cabinet’ of FDR advisers. FDR
appointed several black advisors and civil rights advocates to advisory roles
within his administration. On the insistence of Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of FDR,
Mary was made his special adviser on minority affairs in 1935, the year she
founded her own civil rights organisation, the National Council of Negro
Women. The following year, she became the chairperson of an informal ‘black
cabinet’, who were a group of federally appointed black American officials to
help plan priorities for the black American community. Examples of important
members to the black cabinet were Mary, Robert Vann, assistant to the US
Attorney General, and Robert Weaver, adviser on Negro Affairs in the PWA.
Such contradiction to the removal of most, if not all, black legislatives and
political figures in the late 19th century, FDR did the unthinkable. Not only did
he have his own black cabinet, but he also, again under the insistence of his
wife, in early 1939, the prominent black American opera singer, Marion
Anderson, was invited to sing in Washington DC on Easter Sunday as part of a
national celebration. She was scheduled to sing at Constitution Hall, near the
White House. However, Constitution Hall was owned by an all-white
organisation, the Daughters of the American Revolution. They refused to allow
a black American to sing in their hall. As a result, on 27 February 1939, Eleanor
Roosevelt made a public display of resigning from the Daughters of the
American Revolution. Instead, she arranged for Marion Anderson to sing on the
steps of the Lincoln Memorial in central Washington DC. She got President FDR
to give public support and, on Easter Sunday, 75,000 people turned up to see
Marion Anderson sing. Even though they were invited, Vice President John
Nance Garner of Texas and all but one of the US Supreme Court failed to
appear. The event attracted the biggest crowd to hear a black American all the
way up until MLK’s ‘I have a dream’ speech in August 1963, signifying the
event’s radical existence during its time. This can be seen as incredibly
important, as although FDR was practically an appeasement toy for the
southern Democrats, he still did listen to his wife regarding black American
affairs and contributed to their political and social prowess through these.

In conclusion, though, President Roosevelt failed to seriously address the

political and economic problems which black Americans faced since the late
19th century. Jim Crow was still running rampant, he was a puppet to the
continuous southern Democrat influence nationwide, lynchings continued and
even rose during his first year in office, and barely any legislation, be it court
cases to implement anti-lynching laws, or the alphabet agencies, were seriously
passed with the benefit of black Americans in mind. Sure, the New Deal
agencies were a step in the right direction towards helping the nation
(arguable), especially the south, including black Americans, they still were only
a fraction of the help needed to sustain their recovery at the same rate as their
white counterparts. Sure, the WPA had 1 million black Americans working for it
by 1939. Sure, there were way more votes for FDR in the 1936 election by black
Americans. And sure, there was the informal creation of a black cabinet in his
administration, but FDR ultimately failed at what could have been an earlier fix
in the nation’s racist policies of ‘separate but equal’, the entirety of Jim Crow,
and the prevention of murders nationwide through the rise of lynching in his
terms. Therefore, FDR was a notable failure of a President when it comes to
civil rights, as much of which prevailed was the continuation of political and
economic inferiority of America’s black Americans.
Jan 2017
Yes
 President Andrew Johnson
used his veto to obstruct
significant numbers of bills
which could have helped black
Americans, such as the
extension to the Freedmen’s
Bureau and the first Civil Rights
Act of 1866.
 Andrew fought vigorously to
introduce literacy tests for
black Americans before they
could be granted the vote.
 President FDR had a very
mixed record on helping the
cause of black Americans.
 President Eisenhower refused
to intervene in the Emmett Till
case and only sent federal
troops to Little Rock (1957)
reluctantly.
 President Obama’s
administration’s limited record
of opposing individual states
changes to voter registration
that could potentially
disenfranchise many black
Americans.
No
 President Lincoln ‘approved’
the 13th Amendment to the US
Constitution thereby abolishing
slavery.
 FDR issued an Executive Order
creating a Fair Employment
Practices Commission, which
ended discrimination in the
military and defence industries
and WPA hired 1 million blacks
by 1939.
 JFK put pressure on his
administration to employ more
black Americans such as
appointing 40 black Americans
to top posts and appointing 5
black federal judges.
 Lyndon Johnson often publicly
demonstrated his commitment
to ending racism in the USA
such as commenting on being
prepared to lose the 1964
presidential election campaign
for the sake of the Civil Rights
Act.
 Symbolic importance of the
election of Barack Obama as
president.
 The work of Obama’s
administration to maintain the
Voting Rights Act in the face of
growing state restrictions.
There is much debate surrounding whether or not the influence of American
Presidents hindered more than helped the cause of civil rights from the 13 th
Amendment to the election of former President Obama. Although there were
several key turning points and eras in the civil rights movement where
Presidents of the USA seemed to have shifted the tides in supporting the
movement, for much of American history the White-dominated heads of office
contributed negatively to the movement. President Andrew Johnson’s single
term was a congressional war between President and the Radical Republicans
as he attempted to blockade much of the Reconstruction legislation passed in
support of black Americans after the Civil War, and Presidents FDR and
Eisenhower had reluctant, mixed records in their support for the Civil Rights
Movement. Finally, Obama himself too hadn’t enforced his administration to
work towards reaching agreements with individual states and their voting
rights laws. However, for the instances that American presidents did positively
contribute to the socioeconomic and political advancements of the black
society, they were quite significant. From the abolishment of slavery by
Abraham Lincoln to the work of Obama’s administration to maintain the Voting
Rights Act in the face of growing state restrictions, various presidents in this
period had their fair share of positives. By the end of this essay, a conclusive
judgment will be made.
To begin, let’s consider the Reconstruction era of 1865-1877. Post-Civil War
America had its first presidential term under Andrew Johnson after the
immediate Assassination of President Lincoln in April. President Johnson came
from the south, and despite his declaration of loyalty to the Union, he often
used his presidential veto to obstruct significant numbers of bills which could
have helped black Americans, such as the extension of the Freedmen’s Bureau
and the first Civil Rights Act of 1866. Having a tussle with the growing Radical
Republican-dominated Congress, President Johnson was unpopular in his much
more moderate attitude towards black American civil rights. The Freedmen’s
Bureau, established in 1865, provided immediate relief to freed slaves,
including food, shelter, and medical care, as well as legal assistance to the
slaves in the form of helping with issues regarding labour contracts, unfair
treatment, and dispute with landowners. Having established 1000 schools by
1870, providing education to approximately 247,000 freed people, President
Johnson’s reluctance to expand the Bureau’s influence was clearly a desire to
minimize black American civil rights expansion when they needed it most.
Furthermore, President Johnson’s attempt to veto the 1866 Civil Rights Act,
which declared all persons born in the USA to be citizens, ‘without distinction
of race or colour, or previous conditions of slavery of involuntary servitude’,
certainly holds significant bases of evidence that President Johnson attempted
to keep life miserable for black Americans post-civil war. Although Congress
passed the law, it is evident that the President during 1865-69 was the main
driving factor against civil rights.
Fast-forwarding to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, his administration had a
very mixed record on helping the cause of black Americans. From 1933-37, he
needed very much most of the southern Democrat support to further expand
his New Deal legislation after the Great Depression, and thus appeased them
(due to them holding such power in Congress) by refusing to implement many
much-needed legislation in order to address several black grievances that have
been commonplace in American society since the proliferation of Jim Crow in
1883-c1900. One particular standout was the lack of anti-lynching legislation,
as any and all attempts of such were subject to southern Democrat filibusters
in Congress hearings. President FDR himself announced to supervisor of the
NAACP, Mr. Walter White, that any chance of anti-lynching legislation in his
terms would be impossible, as he simply refused to take any notice towards it.
Funnily enough, lynchings were cut back on significantly as the KKK dwindled in
power in the late 19th century, yet they increased in FDR’s first year as
President. In 1932, lynching figures dropped below double digits for the first
time. Yet under FDR’s first year, they rose to 28. Several attempts to declare
lynching a criminal offence had been made before 1932, such as the Dyer Bill,
but had failed to pass. Several further attempts were made in the 1930s, which
culminated in the Gavagan Bill, which passed the House of Representatives in
1937 miraculously but failed to become law as it was defeat in the US Senate
through filibusters led by southern Democrats. It’s nearly certain too that if the
legislation was passed in both houses of Congress, then President FDR himself
would have likely vetoed the legislation, claiming to have been rather focusing
on the economic restoration of the United States, including the economic
restoration of the black community, which in of itself is a strong claim for the
lack of direct support provided to the black communities of the United States.
Furthermore, President Eisenhower in the 1950s himself was too reluctant in
intervening directly in the Emmett Till case and only sent federal troops to Little
Rock in 1957 reluctantly. Many historians often remark the appointment of Earl
Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower in 1953
as a significant positive in his presidency, yet much of what came later by the
Supreme Court in the advancement of civil rights had little to do with him.
When it came to it, President Eisenhower’s direct action towards the civil rights
movement was extremely neutral; though for argument’s sake, let’s
acknowledge that a lack of support for the oppressed is equivalent to
supporting the oppressors. Therefore, President Eisenhower’s reluctance in the
Emmett Till case, which was photographed by the media, resulting in the
photograph of young Emmett Till, brutally murdered in Mississippi in 1955
spreading across mainstream news reporting agencies, as well as only sending
1000 state troopers to Little Rock, Arkansas, to safely transport 9 black
American students to Central High, Little Rock, showed indecisiveness, or
maybe even a distasteful attitude towards the civil rights movement. A truly
weak aspect in a well-respected presidency indeed.
Finally, let us consider President Obama’s administration’s limited record of
opposing individual state changes to voter registration that could have
potentially disenfranchised many black Americans. At the turn of the century,
President Barack Obama’s victory was a symbolic election of the culminated
efforts of the civil rights movement and plight of the black American since the
day of the abolishment of slavery. However, his initial reaction to the individual
state changes to voter registration was noteworthy, as it demonstrated yet
another form of reluctance and powerlessness in the Presidential office, where
Congress clearly outweighed the power of American President, hereby
continuing a long trend of voting problems amongst non-whites.
However, it would be foolish not to consider certain positives in 1865-2009’s
presidential terms, as a certain few stood out.
For instance, take the abolishment of slavery itself, which was certainly the
greatest achievement made towards the advancement of civil rights, arguably
even greater than the Civil Rights Act of 1964. President Abraham Lincoln’s
historic ‘approval’ of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution abolished
slavery across the entire United States. Not a single state, including the south,
could practice legal slavery without violating a federal crime, which is to
practice a crime that is banned in the Constitution itself. The 13th Amendment
strongly rose the sociopolitical status of black Americans, especially in the
south, where they predominantly resided, too. With the end of slavery, the
Southern economy underwent a profound transformation. Plantation-based
agriculture, which had relied heavily on enslaved labour, had to adapt. This
shift led to the emergence of new labour systems, including sharecropping, as
freed people sought economic independence. The 4 million new freedmen in
the US population signified the start of a true plight for equal rights regardless
of colour and race within the USA, which fuelled the fire for what came in later
fights, especially through the acts of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.
Although heavily opposed, the act still prevailed in January 31, 1865 by 2 votes,
and remained constitutional to this day.
Fast-forward to President FDR, who caught a lot of slack earlier in the essay.
However, it’s worth noting a certain few instances of a rise in black
socioeconomic status, as well as political power within his administration.
Firstly, FDR issued an Executive Order 8802 which creation a Fair Employment
Practices Commission within the New Deal, which ended discrimination in the
military and defence industries, especially needed in the midst of the second
World War. The Order was issued in June 1941. The establishment of the FEPC
marked a significant step in the federal government's acknowledgment of the
need to address racial inequality in employment. It provided black Americans
with a platform to file complaints and seek justice in cases of discrimination.
The FEPC's efforts contributed to an increase in the hiring of African Americans
in defence industries, opening up economic opportunities and promoting a
sense of inclusion. Furthermore, the Works Progress Administration employed
1 million black Americans by 1939, signifying a rise in employment within the
black American society, where wages for the WPA workers were almost always
equivalent to their white counterparts. These show that in FDR’s second and
third term, there came an increased leniency and acceptance and need to
support the black American society. Regarding political prevails, President FDR
interestingly appointed an informal ‘black cabinet’ in his administration with
the likes of Mary McLeod Bethune in charge of the advice given to the
administration by leaders of the American black community. Through this, it’s
interesting to note that President FDR’s 1936 black cabinet employment
contradicted much of his southern Democrat appeasement, arguably giving
FDR a bit of cutback of distaste by historians who criticize his lack of black
American help.
To continue, it’s crucial to point out the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson
presidencies and administrations in their pivotal work in the advancement of
civil rights. President JFK was known for putting pressure on his administration
to employ more black Americans such as appointing 40 black Americans to top
posts and appointing 5 black federal judges. Despite his presidency not
reaching 1000 days due to unfortunate assassination, President JFK laid the
foundation of what became the climax of the civil rights era in the 1960s.
Having promised a Civil Rights Act a few months prior to his assassination, his
vice-presidential successor, Lyndon Johnson, utilized his former running-mate’s
untimely death, as well as his political prowess (being a Democrat Senate
speaker in the 1950s) to honorarily fight for and pass the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Lyndon Johnson famously often publicly demonstrated his commitment
to ending racism in the USA such as commenting on being prepared to lose the
1964 presidential campaign for the sake of the Act. Persuasively convincing
enough Congressmen and Congresswomen to vote in favour of the liberal Act,
the 1964 Civil Rights Act finally declared the end of Jim Crow and thus brought
an end to legal segregation in the USA, both de jure and de facto. In the second
section of the Act, known as Title II, the Act outlawed racial segregation for all
public facilities and accommodation. Title III also outlawed racial segregation in
all federal government facilities. To aid the desegregation of public schools,
federal financial assistance was to be given to schools to encourage racial
integration. Following on from Kennedy’s Executive Order of 1961, the Act
forbade racial discrimination in any federal-funded programme. This aspect of
the Act had a major impact on state governments who attempted to preserve
segregation in some form. If they did so, they could and would lose federal
funding. Title VII of the Act went beyond ending racial segregation. It forbade
all discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, colour, religion,
national origin, and sex. This was seen as a major triumph for those
campaigning for gender equality in the USA. Finally, the Act set up the Equal
Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) to ensure that the Civil Rights
Act was implemented. Therefore, essentially, the Act proved to be the most
groundbreaking advancement in civil rights history since the 13 th Amendment,
nearly 100 years of work in the making.
Now, let us conclude with the symbolic importance of the election of Barack
Obama as president in 2008. Although not a direct positive of Obama’s
campaign, his election as the first black American President, fuelled with his
smooth, slick, and greatly successful campaign from being a nobody politically
just a decade prior to his election was symbolically a dream many black
Americans and social rights activists could only dream of. From beating a much
more experienced opponent in Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democrat
Primaries to beating Republican candidate John McCain in the general election,
it remains a fascinating triumph in the face of racism and racial prejudice within
the United States to this day. Not only did his administration too maintain the
Voting Rights Act in the face of growing state restrictions, but it also
symbolically and literally maintained the right of the people from the 15 th
Amendment of 1870, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 itself which was
significant in reintroducing the power of the Amendment. This was the right to
vote. And if one thing black Americans such as Obama knew of, it was the
history of the disenfranchisement of the black American society within the
United States for so incredibly long. Therefore, a continued positive stance on
voting rights was yet another positive in Obama’s early administration,
although a little bit mixed.
In conclusion, however, although there were several key instances of Presidents
from 1865-2009 pushing for positive civil rights expansions, these were only
few in the face of dozens of presidents. Sure, Abraham Lincoln signing and
passing the 13th Amendment was significant, but due to Andrew Johnson and
proliferation of Jim Crow, much of the experiences of the days of slavery for
black Americans remained. Furthermore, FDR’s reluctance to impose and
enforce a law against plain and simple murder of black Americans in the form
of lynching leads any historian to recognize how successes such as the WPA in
employing a large portion of black Americans to pale in comparison if we were
to weigh them out in a humanitarian sense. And sure the 1950s and 1960s had
their fair share of legislation passed, effectively ending sociopolitical
powerlessness of black Americans federally, but these 2 mere decades were a
fraction of the negative days that black Americans had to endure for nearly 100
years prior to it, with generations being killed and discriminated against on the
bases of colour and race alone. A few presidents may stand mighty in their
contributions to civil rights amongst dozens of lackies, but the lackies dominate
the general timeframe of such evils. And the election of Obama was certainly
symbolic in the prowess of black America’s rise to the top of its politics, but his
presidential success story wasn’t a direct attempt at positively benefiting the
civil rights movement, but rather an indirect entry to a list of successes; for his
administration’s mixed responsiveness to the issue of voters’ rights in his first
term as president were sometimes redundant to say the least.
Ultimately, I do agree generally with the statement, as both acts of presidents doing nothing
at all or contributing to the evils of racial prejudice are equally wrong in my eyes, and
despite there being key presidents who positively benefited the civil rights movement, be it
directly or indirectly, the overall viewpoint of mine is that the influence of American
Presidents hindered more than helped the cause of civil rights in the years 1865-2009.
June 2017
Yes
 Sweeping gains were made by
the Democrats in the 1874
congressional elections and
they continued their
opposition to reconstruction in
the south thereby helping to
bring it to an end in 1877.
 Democrats supported white
terror group activity helped to
undermine Republican Party
organisation in the south and
threaten civil rights gains. By
1875 only Louisiana, Florida,
and South Carolina of the
former confederate states
remained in Republican hands.
 Southern Democrats’ influence
ensured that ND programmes
benefited white Americans.
 Southern Democrats’ influence
ensured that no attempt was
made by the federal
government to interfere with
the Jim Crow Laws.
 FDR’s need for southern
Democrat support in the years
1933-37 and their control of
congressional committees,
ensured that the ND didn’t
lead to any major extension of
civil rights.
 Block anti-lynching legislation
No
 Major advances in civil rights,
such as the 1875 Civil Rights
Act, were made despite
opposition from southern
Democrats.
 Despite opposition from
southern Democrats Congress
passed the Reconstruction Acts
of 1867. These acts led to black
voting majorities in 5 southern
states.
 Despite opposition of southern
Democrats, the ratification of
both the 14th and 15th
Amendments to the
Constitution by 1870, gave
freed slaves full rights of
citizenship.
 The growth in support for the
Democratic Party amongst
black voters, especially in the
1936, presidential and
congressional elections
indicated that they felt that
their cause was being helped
by the New Deal.
 FDR’s elevation of blacks into
senior positions in government
suggests that any obstruction
by southern Democrats was
unsuccessful.
There is much debate surrounding whether the influence of the southern
Democrats was successful in preventing the advancement of civil rights in the
years 1865-77 and 1933-45. Considering different eras, we must recognize that
between 1865-77, influences by the southern Democrats were mainly in the
south, while during Roosevelt’s period as president, southern Democrats
dominated much of Congress and influenced American law and legislation and
politics heavily. Southern Democrats mainly made sweeping gains in 1874 and
contributed to the end of the Reconstruction era, while in FDR’s time, the
southern Democrats ensured that the New Deal mainly benefited whites and
that they ran the nation’s legislative power, often using filibusters and were
often appeased by FDR not to implement anti-Jim Crow and anti-lynching
legislation. However, there were some aspects and events which the southern
Democrats were limited in their influence towards, such as the major advances
in civil rights under the Radical Republicans prior to the end of Reconstruction,
as well as some key advancements made by FDR regarding the sociopolitical
status of black Americans within American society. By the end of this essay, a
conclusive judgment will be made.
To begin, let’s consider the sweeping gains made by the Democrats in the 1874
congressional elections and their continued opposition to Reconstruction in the
south, thereby helping to bring it to an end in 1877.
June 2017
Yes
 Booker T Washington founded
the Tuskegee Institution which
operated to advance the
education of black men.
 In Washington’s 1895 ‘Atlanta
Compromise’ speech he
campaigned to accept social
segregation in return for white
people accepting that black
Americans could advance
economically within society.
 Impact of MLK in promoting
the message of nonviolent,
peaceful protest helped to turn
civil rights protest into a moral
crusade.
 King’s oratorical skills and
effective media presence
helped raise the national
profile of the civil rights
movement.
 Rosa Parks etc promoted
protest and change through
sparking events such as the
Montgomery Bus boycotts.
 The work of Malcolm X, the
NOI, and the Black Power
movement in promoting an
alternative to King’s style of
protest.
No
 Despite the influence of
individual campaigners, the
years 1883-c1900 witnessed
many setbacks rather than
advances in the cause such as
segregated rail travel
introduced by Mississippi in
1888 and Louisiana in 1890.
 Despite the work of individual
campaigners, the proliferation
of the Jim Crow Laws, in the
years 1883-c1900, was a major
setback for the civil rights of
black Americans.
 Key decisions of the Supreme
Court such as Brown v Board of
Education case 1954 were
more important than the role
of individual campaigners.
 The influence of presidents
such as JFK and Johnson in
securing civil rights legislation
were more important than the
role of individual campaigners.
 Tension between civil rights
campaigners hindered rather
than helped advance the
cause.
 The role of the media in
highlighting the intransigence
of some opponents of civil
rights, such as ‘Bull’ Connor.
There is much debate surrounding whether the influence of individual
campaigners explains the advances made in civil rights by black Americans in
the years 1883-c1900 and 1954-68. Although notably civil rights activist leaders
such as Martin Luther King and Malcolm X played significant roles in shifting
the tides in favour of civil rights in the middle of the 20th century, the overall
lack of advancement in black American civil rights in 1883-c1900 saw the roles
of the time’s activists, in particular Booker T. Washington, lacking true influence
over how the nation, particularly the south, adapted in the Jim Crow era.
Certainly, without the proliferation of the civil rights movement in the 1950s
being partly a result of key leaders, there would have been minimal change,
but in the late 19th century, much of the proliferation of Jim Crow rendered
campaigns for the extension of civil rights useless. Furthermore, it is
worthwhile to mention the roles of the Supreme Court, individual Presidents,
and the media in highlighting and progressing civil rights along with the
campaigners in the 1950s and 60s. By the end of this essay, a conclusive
judgment will be made.
To begin, let’s consider the historical positives of the most prominent civil
rights activist of the late 19th century, succeeding Frederick Douglass, Booker T.
Washington. Having founded the Tuskegee Institution in 1881, and remaining
its president up until 1915, Mr. Washington played a significant role in the
advancement of educational opportunities for the black populace of the south,
particularly in Alabama, where the Institution’s located. Being committed to
improving the lives of black Americans after the Civil War, Washington
advocated economic independence through self-help, hard work, and a
practical education, which all transpired into the formation of the Tuskegee
Institution, which became a major presence of black American education and
intellect. He believed that by acquiring skills and starting businesses, Black
Americans could demonstrate their worth to society and, over time, overcome
racial prejudices. At Tuskegee, Washington used his training from the Hampton
Normal and Agricultural Institute to implement a program of industrial and
vocational education to teach former slaves how “to live on the farm, off the
farm”. He believed that by teaching students practical jobs and training those
who worked on farms to master their crafts, they would gradually
socioeconomically liberate themselves from the commonplace sharecropping
that occurred throughout much of the south. Eventually, Tuskegee’s campus
grew from the small church shanty to 2,300 acres of farmland filled with
buildings the students constructed. By teaching his students carpentry,
bricklaying, printing, agriculture, and other trades, Booker T. Washington
believed that Tuskegee’s students would build their campus and learn the
dignity of hard work. This is one of two crucial roles that Washington played in
advancing black American civil rights in the 19th century.
Another important thing to point out is Washington’s 1895 ‘Atlanta
Compromise’ speech, where he campaigned to accept social segregation in
return for white people accepting that black Americans could advance
economically within society. Although several historians, and timely critics such
as the NAACP’s W.E.B Du Bois, felt strongly against this speech, there are
arguable positives within it. Being the most prominent civil rights activist at the
time (generally accepted), he recognized that the black populace had wills of
iron, having generationally suffered under slavery prior to the 13th Amendment,
and continued to face racial discrimination despite the 14th and 15th
Amendment, which were recognizably severely weakened in the south through
the Slaughterhouse decision of 1873 and the United States v Reese case of
1876. He understood that for the black populace to integrate within society,
they had to first achieve an economic foundation equal or close to that of their
white counterparts. This philosophically radical departure from much of what
the activists’ norm was at the time (to seek social justice ASAP) was something
for many black Americans to consider and implement within their own lives at
the time, essentially offering a new mindset towards the civil rights movement.
Let’s now fast forward to the peak of the civil rights movement, where the
famous Martin Luther King stood tallest amongst dozens of fantastically
influential civil rights activists. MLK, along with Rosa Parks, oversaw the widely
successful Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955-56. Rosa and MLK promoted
protest and change through this sparking event. MLK’s role cannot be
understated, as this event was the reason for his skyrocketing into national
heights. Having promoted the message of nonviolent, peaceful protest, helped
to turn civil rights protest into a moral crusade. Establishing the Montgomery
Improvement Association, King, along with Rosa’s primary role in being the
convict/victim of the racial prejudice within the buses in Montgomery and
inspired by the nonviolent methods of Mahatma Ghandi within India not too
long ago in the 20th century, allowed for the incredible success of the boycott.
The first major success story established a blueprint for the increasingly
popular nonviolent social justice methods, which most definitely propelled the
idea of racial equality across the nation, especially the white Americans, who
began viewing the black populace not so much as rotten thugs, but as people
who campaigned for their deserved humanitarian rights within the ‘free’
nation.
It is also worthwhile to mention King’s oratorical skills and effective media
presence which helped the national profile of the civil rights movement, for
King quickly became the informal leader of the movement. Therefore, with his
convincing skills at public speaking, especially at the famous ‘I have a dream’
speech on 28 August, 1963, in front of 250,000 people, at the steps of the
Lincoln Memoria, in central Washington DC, put him in the history books. His
speech became one of the most famous in 20th century history. He called for
racial integration and the end of segregation, exclaiming ‘I have a dream’ that
one day soon racial discrimination would come to an end. This, along with
several other incursions of events in the same year, prompted President John F.
Kennedy to go on nationwide television to announce that he would introduce a
civil rights bill to Congress to outlaw racial discrimination. In 1964, MLK went to
Oslo, Norway, to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in gaining greater
equality for black Americans through non-violent campaigning. These few
instances of success within MLK’s career are indicative points that only
exemplify his significance in the civil rights plight of black Americans.
On a final key note, it would be a shame to not mention the work of Malcolm X,
the Nation of Islam (under Elijah Muhammad), and the Black Power movement
in promoting an alternative to King’s style of protest. Make no mistake in
believing that the civil rights movement was all peaceful and nonviolent, for
the proliferation of Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael were a polar contrast to
MLK. With Malcolm promoting the issue of violence for self-defence against no
matter who, and with Carmichael heading the SNCC in the 1960s, radicalizing
the youth organisation into one that preached what was known as Black Power,
the nation saw an increasingly large populace of black Americans resonating
with their philosophies, creating a new, more aggressive style of civil rights.
Malcolm X believed that the best way to make white Americans respect black
people was if the latter were able to organise themselves effectively, be it with
or against the white populace. Regarding Elijah Muhammad, his Nation of Islam
Islamist pan-Africanist organisation was significantly different to MLK’s
Christian SCLC. His promotion of a designated land for the black American
community within the USA, or a collective return to Africa, was seen as yet
another philosophical mindset that thousands of black Americans across the
nation began possessing, posing an even greater threat to the racial injustices
and their leaders.
Now, let’s consider the notable failures of Booker T. Washington and other civil
rights activists in 1883-1900c. Despite the influence of these individual
campaigners, these years witnessed many setbacks rather than advances in the
cause such as segregated rail travel introduced by Mississippi in 1888 and
Louisiana in 1890. But even more notable were the harm made to the voting
rights of black Americans within these two individual states. With the
Mississippi State Convention in 1890 updating its state constitution in order to
require a $2 poll tax, literacy tests, and some property tests only yielded the
results that they wanted. To disenfranchise the black populace. With much of
the black Americans within Mississippi being severely economically
disadvantaged, and with literacy rates spanning over half the black American
population federally, as well as many black Americans not owning state
property, this damage to the 15th Amendment was significant in weakening the
power of the black vote. Following this, Louisiana was inspired by such
prerequisites, and therefore created the Louisiana Grandfather Clause, which
disallowed all men within the state from 1898 to vote unless they had
ancestors that voted prior to January 1870 or owned property. This was made
for the sole purpose of disenfranchising black Americans, as their right to vote
only came after the 1870 15th Amendment. The numbers show the impact of
this, as the estimated number of black Americans registered to vote in
Louisiana was 130,000 in 1896, which dropped to 1,342 in 1904. Not only did
this effect the state’s black voting rates, but this clause was quickly
implemented in 6 other states shortly after.
Despite the work of individual campaigners, the proliferation of the Jim Crow
Laws was a major setback for the civil rights of black Americans. Key Supreme
Court decisions such as the Plessy v Ferguson case of 1896 and Williams v
Mississippi case of 1898 ruled in favour of ‘separate but equal’ de facto
segregation and racial discrimination and the approval of the changes made to
the Mississippi State Constitution mentioned above respectively. Such Supreme
Court cases were essentially the finalization of federal acceptance of the racial
inferiority of black Americans, in both de jure and de facto forms. Interestingly,
some historians may argue that Booker T. Washington may have contributed to
this through his Atlanta Compromise speech, where he, reminiscently,
advocated for economic empowerment of the black populace through the
proposed sacrifice of social segregation of whites and blacks.
Looking into the positives now, in the 1950s and 1960s, we can tell that the
campaigns proved incredibly successful. After deliberate efforts by the NAACP
for many years, lawyer Thurgood Marshall successfully argued against the
Plessy v Ferguson case of 1896, and through the Brown v Board of Education
case of 1954, the case was overruled by a unanimous 9-0 vote, and thus began
the immediate removal of Jim Crow from de facto law. It can be argued too
that the role of Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1954 case, appointed by
President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953, in both succeeding in garnering a
unanimous Court vote which included Court advocates of segregation, and
passing such key legislation, was more significant than the role of any singular
civil rights campaigner prior to him. His determination could be seen in the
Brown II case, which used the phrase ‘with haste’ in 1955, to reinforce the
Brown case.
To continue, the influence of John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson as
presidents were essential in securing civil rights legislation. Arguably more
important in actually finalizing the legislation, especially President Johnson,
whose political prowess and persuasive skills and Congress status/respect
(being the Democrat Senate speaker in the 1950s) earned him the opportunity
to initiate the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, as well as the Voting Rights
Act of 1965. Through these Acts, Johnson did not only pledge to work his
hardest to instigate them (especially when he publicly announced that he
would work for the first Civil Rights Act even if it meant costing him the
presidential election of 1964), but also displayed a great deal of cooperation
with the movement as a whole. The Acts effectively ended Jim Crow and
reintroduced the power of the 15th Amendment. This can be seen as more
important than the campaigners, as without the power and influence of
Johnson, this would have never been legislatively possible. Positively
advocating for black American civil rights in the media, with the media growth
being so rampant in those years, his national outlook on black American civil
rights became an increasingly accepted sociopolitical norm.
Finally, let’s consider the tension between civil rights campaigners, which
notably hindered rather than helped advance the cause. In particular, with the
growth of Black Power in CORE and SNCC, the SCLC, under MLK, began
distancing itself from such organisations. Furthermore, the radicalism of the
Black Panther Party, Malcolm X, and the Nation of Islam all too suffered
sociopolitical isolation rather than cooperation amongst one another, generally.
This can be argued against the work of the individual civil rights campaigners,
as all these individual leaders, mainly MLK, Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael,
Elijah Muhammad, and Huey Newton/Bobby Seale, to name some, were all
philosophically nearly incapable of accepting a middle ground between
amongst all of them. This in turn can attribute to the time taken for true civil
rights change to occur, as seen with Booker T. Washington’s failures and his
own criticisms. And so therefore, it can be widely accepted that if these
organisations and leaders worked in unison, perhaps a middle ground with a
stronger force behind it could have been launched at the federal government
earlier and more successfully.
In conclusion, I have mixed feelings and thoughts about the statement.
Although the plight of civil rights was successfully met with positive legislation
in the 1950s and 60s, what happened in the late 19th century cannot be
ignored, with massive failure punching the movement repeatedly to near death
from various locations. Sure, Booker T Washington was influential amongst his
people, but federally, not so much. However, the roles of MLK and many others
within the peak of the movement cannot be understated, as these leaders
capitalized on the increasingly liberal Supreme Court and heads of offices. But,
speaking of the Supreme Court and Presidents, I do believe that it can be
concluded that their roles in overturning Jim Crow legislation were more
important than civil rights campaigners in a legal sense. Without their approval
and initiation of change federally, there could have been no real success to
come. And tension between campaigners, as well as the role of the media in
highlighting such injustices nationally, were two further examples of
counterarguments against the statement. Ultimately, the influence of aspects
outside individual campaigners are overstated, as a collective effort within
government and organisations were effectively more important in advancing
civil rights advancements in much of the timeframe given.

Jan 2018
 Yes
 Johnson persuaded Congress
to pass the Civil Rights Act
(1964), which brought an end
to legal segregation.
 Johnson’s administration
signed the Voting Rights Act
into law which, amongst other
things, outlawed literacy tests.
FDR had failed to address this.
 The Fair Housing Act (1968)
outlawed discrimination on the
basis of colour or race in the
rent or sale of houses.
 Johnson made the symbolically
important appointment of the
first black American US
Supreme Court judge in
Thurgood Marshall.
 Johnson’s education reforms
such as the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act
(1965) aimed to, and did,
improve black access to
education.
 FDR did little to tackle the Jim
Crow Laws or take effective
action against lynching.
 FDR struggled to restrain the
influence of southern white
Americans in the Democratic
Party. Johnson’s political skill/
power of persuasion overcame
No
 FDR’s ND agencies provided
significant economic assistance
in a way not seen before such
as the Works Progress
Administration having 1 million
blacks working for it by 1939.
 Significant progress was made
by FDR in dismantling
reconstruction legislation.
Success of this was indicated
by the high level of black voter
support in the 1936 election.
 Roosevelt was ground-breaking
in his willingness to appoint
black cabinet advisers such as
Mary McLeod Bethune. The
phrase ‘a black cabinet’ was in
common usage.
 The impact of Johnson’s
legislation did not prevent the
239 outbreaks of racial
violence in over 200 US cities,
which broke out in the years
1964-68.
Jan 2018
Yes
 ND racial quotas, introduced
by federal government after
1933, helped speed up the
Great Migration from South to
North, changing black
American lives economically
and geographically.
 The political lives of black
Americans were changed as
migration north and west
removed many from the racial
and obstructive influence of
southern white Democrats.
 The lives of black Americans
were transformed by new
economic opportunities
opening up in war-related
industries based on the west
coast, such as aircraft
production and shipbuilding.
 Rapid migration to cities in the
1950s and 1960s often resulted
in urban segregation, black
poverty, and racial tensions
such as the Watts riot in 1965.
 Changing black settlements
highlighted the political
importance of appealing to
and mobilising the black vote
such as Obama winning 95% of
the black American vote.
No
 The extension of civil rights
brought about the Civil Rights
Acts of 1964 and 1968 had a
bigger influence on the
political rights of black
Americans.
 Legal rulings such as Brown v
Board of Education
undermined the concept of
legal segregation and,
consequently, reinforced the
notion of equality for black
Americans under the law.
 The campaigning of civil rights
activists and pressure groups
made a material difference to
the legal and economic status
of black Americans.
 The development of the USA
into the world’s largest
economy both diversified and
enhanced job opportunities for
black Americans.
 The election of Barack Obama
as the first black president was
of great symbolic importance
to black Americans.
June 2018
Yes
 Johnson allowed former senior
confederates to take up high
political office in southern
states such as Mississippi and
didn’t prevent them from not
ratifying the 13th Amendment.
 Johnson supported special
presidential pardons for
wealthy former confederates.
 Johnson failed to prevent the
introduction of ‘Black Codes’ in
many southern states which
was likened to a reintroduction
to slavery.
 Johnson used his veto to
obstruct bills which could have
helped black Americans such
as the extension to the
Freedmen’s Bureau and the
first Civil Rights Act 1866.
 Johnson’s strong commitment
to obstructing civil rights was
also partly responsible for
emboldening southern
Democrats to continue their
opposition in the period after
1883.
No
 The passing of acts by
Congress, such as the Military
Reconstruction Act of 1867,
required former confederate
states to recognize the rights of
black Americans to vote.
 Congress’s impeachment of the
President largely neutralised
his decision-making powers
and was a recognition that his
lukewarm support for
individual rights needed to
change.
 Increasing support for white
organisations such as the KKK
and the White League
hindered the advancements of
civil rights for black Americans.
 The spread of Jim Crow laws
throughout the south was a
severe obstacle to black
Americans.
 Supreme Court rulings, such as
Plessy v Ferguson 1896, was a
major setback for black
Americans.
There is much debate surrounding whether the impact of decisions made by
President Andrew Johnson was the most significant obstacle to the
advancement of civil rights in the years 1865-77 and 1883-1900. Although
President Johnson was arguably the most prolific and significant denier of civil
rights politically in his single term, such as through his consistent vetoes against
Radical Republican civil rights legislation, as well as his leniency towards the
south in various ways, essentially providing them with a blueprint to base their
future Jim Crow Laws on, I believe that there were a few other more important
obstacles. President Johnson was unpopular and held little true political power
in front of a Congress filled with Radical Republicans, and the rise of the
southern Democrats in federal and state power was certainly more influential
than his presidency in barring civil rights progress. Through white terror groups
and the Supreme Court decisions in the final couple decades of the 19 th
century, these factions contributed more negatively to the civil rights
movement than President Johnson could ever dream of. By the end of this
essay, a conclusive judgment will be made.
To begin with Johnson, we must consider his position politically. Becoming
President after President Lincoln’s assassination in 1865, President Johnson’s
southern heritage was not kept silent, for Johnson, despite his proclaimed
loyalty to the Union, and the Union winning the Civil War against the
Confederacy, he still allowed former senior confederates to take up high
political office in southern states such as Mississippi and didn’t prevent them
from not ratifying the 13th Amendment, against the wishes of the last-Lincoln
and much of Congress. On 29 May 1865, President Johnson extended a general
pardon to former Confederates who were willing to take the oath of allegiance
to the USA, where special persons, such as former leaders of the Confederacy,
were able to ask for special pardons if they applied directly to him.
Interestingly, this was different to Johnson’s statement that he wanted to
punish the traitors of the Confederacy and believed that treasons is a crime
that must be punished. However, as we can see, with the beginning of his
programme for Reconstruction, it was vastly different to what he had
previously promised. The newly elected governor of Mississippi had been a
brigadier general in the Confederate army. Georgia went even further. They
chose as a US senator Alexander Stephens, who had been vice president of the
Confederate states of America. Some state governments even questioned the
legality of the 13th Amendment. Mississippi rejected it entirely, while other
state governments (such as Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee)
ratified the 13th Amendment with the understanding that the US Congress
lacked the power to determine the future of ex-slaves. Far from admonishing
these former Confederate states, Johnson did nothing.
Furthermore, Johnson failed to prevent the introduction of ‘Black Codes’ in
many southern states which was likened to a reintroduction to slavery. These
did more to undermine Johnson’s programme for Reconstruction than anything
else. These Codes attempted to define the ex-slaves’ new rights and
responsibilities. They dealt with issues such as black rights to own property, to
marry, to make contracts and to appear as witnesses in courts. However, the
main issue at the heart of the Black Codes was an attempt to regulate the
labour markets. Ex-slaves who refused to engage in work on the white man’s
terms would be punished, as Black Codes often compelled African Americans
to sign annual labour contracts, tying them to work on specific plantations for
fixed wages. However, in many cases, these contracts were exploitative, and
blacks had little negotiating power, effectively perpetuating a system of
economic dependency. A Radical Republican in the US Congress, Benjamin
Flanders, observed that the Black Codes were designed to return the situation
as near to slavery as possible. Although the Black Codes varied from state to
state, they were essentially guided by the same racially discriminatory basis of
black inferiority. Returning to the labour issue, in particular, the Alabama Black
Code of 1865 required black Americans to have written evidence of
employment for the coming years each January. Those without such proof
could be arrested and hired out to employers. The key thing to note from these
is that President Johnson did absolutely nothing to reprehend the senior state
officials (who again, he allowed to be ran by former Confederates) who
instigated such Codes; a common trope where some politicians believed that
federal and state affairs should not be intertwined.
Now, let’s take a look at President Johnson’s direct action and attitude towards
Reconstruction legislation. Its worthwhile to recognize that Johnson often used
his presidential veto to obstruct bills which could have helped black Americans
such as the extension to the Freedmen’s Bureau and the first Civil Rights Act of
1866. However, despite Johnson’s common vetoes, Congress was typically
successful in overriding his vetoes, such as in the 39th session of Congress with
the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which was later used as the foundation for the 14 th
Amendment. Johnson’s dedicated efforts in obstructing this legislation only
showed him determination to negatively impact the quickly advancing civil
rights of black Americans, for the Freedmen’s Bureau assisted much of the 4
million freedmen with education, employment, and landownership, working
alongside the military to facilitate the political engagement of black Americans
when they got the vote later. By 1870 the Bureau helped provide education to
247,000 black Americans, and despite Johnson seeing this, he still attempted to
discombobulate its successes.
Ultimately, Johnson’s strong commitment to obstructing civil rights was partly
responsible for emboldening southern Democrats to continue their opposition
to Reconstruction and radical civil rights, as seen by congressional gains made
by the Democrats in the 1876 election, as well as in the Jim Crow Era of 1883-
1900, where they dominated much of federal politics, including the south. He
engaged in indirectly providing them the power they needed to reconstruct
themselves in their own eyes which included a symbolic return to pre-Civil War
black-white sociopolitical dynamics.
However, Johnson’s term did not exclude notable positives in suppressing the
south in some ways; plus, his general unpopularity limited his negatives. The
passing of Acts by Congress, such as the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867,
required former Confederate states to recognize the rights of black Americans
to vote. This Act divided the south into 5 military districts run by the victorious
Union. The Union generals appointed oversaw these districts and their power
included the authority to register voters, supervise, elections, and ensure the
enforcement of civil rights for black Americans. President Andrew Johnson,
who had been lenient toward the Southern states in his earlier Reconstruction
policies, opposed the Military Reconstruction Act. He vetoed the bill, but
Congress overrode his veto, signalling a significant conflict between the
executive and legislative branches over the direction of Reconstruction.
Although the effects of this Act were significant initially, such as granting
703,000 black Americans the right to vote, and being a base for the 15 th
Amendment 3 years later, it’s important to recognize that with the proliferation
of Jim Crow post 1883, with states kickstarting anti-voter legislation in the
south, its effects were short-lived.
However, with more legislation to mention, and Congress’s impeachment of
Johnson in 1868 (despite him surviving in office by 1 vote) largely neutralising
his decision making powers and was a recognition that his lukewarm support
for individual rights needing to be changed, President Johnson’s genuine
influence over federal politics in his term were slim. Through the Tenure of
Office Act 1867, Johnson’s power to remove certain officeholders in
government was negated, now requiring Senate approval to do so. This
restricted Johnson’s power over key Cabinet members, and since the Radical
Republicans made sweeping gains in the 1866 Congressional elections, this
ensured their stay during the rest of his term. Furthermore, the Command of
the Army Act 1867 too restricted his power, as it sought to prevent Johnson
from issuing military orders without the approval of the Secretary of War,
Ulysses Grant. This provision aimed to ensure that military decisions were
made in consultation with military leadership and were in line with the
objectives of Congress, who again, was dominated by Radical Republicans. And
so ultimately, with all of these Acts being unable to be vetoed by Andrew, with
a total of 15 of his vetoes being overridden by Congress in his single term, his
true role in limiting civil rights wasn’t as significant in comparison to what came
later.
Consider the rise of white terror groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan on Christmas
Eve 1865. What started as a prankster group to inflict fear in black Americans, it
quickly began its terror attacks. And despite the three KKK Acts under President
Grant’s term that deemed affiliates of the KKK terrorists, with the rise of the
southern Democrats in the late 1870s and 80s, the KKK had peaked in its
murderous actions. The KKK contributed significantly to the lynching’s numbers
in the 1880s, as on average, there were 182 lynchings per year in the decade.
With most of them being black, just over 3 per week in murders were a
disgusting example of the extremes that white supremacists would go to. By
simple accusation, a black man could lose his life, despite no evidence existing
against his accused crimes, such as the rape of a white woman. With the de
jure legalisation of the KKK, it was no wonder that many black Americans
feared for their lives in the Jim Crow Era. The White League and the Knights of
the White Camelia were two other groups heavily linked with white supremacy
at the time. The White League actively engaged in voter suppression, using
violence and intimidation to prevent African Americans and white Republicans
from voting. This included attacks on polling places and individuals attempting
to participate in the political process. This came because of the departure of
military control in the South as Reconstruction ended. The White League often
used threats and coercion to achieve its objectives. Many African Americans
and sympathetic whites lived in constant fear of reprisals if they resisted or
supported Reconstruction policies. And with the Knights of the White Camelia
being a faction of the KKK, trouble entailed. The Colfax Massacre of 13 April,
1873, being often associated with both the White League and the Knights, was
single handily the most deadly assault on black Americans by white
supremacists in the Reconstruction era. Due to the narrow win of the
Republican Party in the 1872 state election of Louisiana, a white mob of over
300 attacked the Colfax Courthouse, killing between 62-153 black militia men
despite them surrendering, offering no sign of mercy. These murders and
terrorist antics were certainly a significant example of how the south allowed
for the murder of black Americans, both in the Reconstruction Era and what
came next.
And what came next was the Jim Crow Era, where the spread of Jim Crow Laws
throughout the south quickly became a severe obstacle to black Americans.
Such Jim Crow Laws can be exemplified by the Mississippi State Convention
where in 1890 the State Constitution was updated, introducing a poll tax of $2,
literacy tests, and residency requirements for anybody wanting to vote. These
measures were intentionally crafted to disproportionately affect African
Americans and prevent them from exercising their right to vote. As a result,
much of the power of the 15th Amendment was killed as well as much of the
black populace of Mississippi becoming disenfranchised along with it. In
addition to this, the Louisiana Grandfather Clause of 1896 was yet another step
up in black disenfranchisement, as Louisiana introduced legislation which
stated that a person could only vote if they met new literacy and property
requirements unless their grandfather had been eligible to vote before January
1, 1867. This was clearly instated in order to limit black voters from voting, as it
was carefully based on a time where the black vote didn’t exist (prior to the
15th Amendment). As a result, the black vote in Louisiana dropped from
130,000 in 1896 to a mere 1,342 in 1904. The de facto acceptance of these
laws resulted in the most significant drop in black Americans political influence
and power since the abolishment of slavery in 1865 and was further
established as true law by the Supreme Court cases that succeeded them.
Before that, though, the Supreme Court cases of the Slaughterhouse Decision
in 1873 and cases of 1876 and 1883 must be mentioned. The first case had the
Court rule that the 14th Amendment protected the rights of national
citizenship, such as the right to interstate travel, but it did not protect the civil
rights that individual Americans received from state citizenship. This meant
that the federal government could not safeguard the rights of black citizens
against any violation by the states. This negated much of the impact of the 14 th
Amendment on the rights of black citizens. In 1876, the US Supreme Court, in
the United States v Reese case, threw out an indictment against a Kentucky
official who had prevented black Americans from voting. The Court judgment
states that the 15th Amendment did not give the right to vote to anyone. Both
of these cases, despite happening under the Reconstruction era, posed a
significant aspect of federal politics during the era. Much of Radical Republican
policy fell apart shortly after they were established, pointing towards the end
of Reconstruction sooner or later. Now, the 1883 cases of United States v
Stanley, Ryan, Nicholas, Singleton, respectively, and the case of Robinson et ux.
v Memphis and Charleston Railroad, culminated in the Supreme Court Decision
of 15 October 1883, which declared the Civil Rights Act of 1875 under
President Grant to be unconstitutional. This meant the start of Jim Crow, where
separate amenities began to spawn as a result of this newfound de facto
acceptance that white American and black Americans services were to be
separate, not shared. These cases can be later seen as a result of the changes
to the voting rights of black Americans in the south, and the cases of the late
1890s affirmed them. The Supreme Court cases of Plessy v Ferguson 1896, and
Williams v Mississippi 1898, both contributed incredibly negatively to the civil
rights movement. The latter had affirmed the updates made to the Mississippi
State Constitution in 1890, essentially not addressing the disenfranchisement
of black Americans in the state, and the case of Plessy v Ferguson is what
introduced the idea of ‘separate but equal’ de jure and de facto federal
separational treatment of whites and non-whites. The Court argued that
separating facilities between races was no problem as long as they were equal.
Plessy v Ferguson gave US Supreme Court support for legal segregation and
state laws establishing separate facilities for black and white people across the
South quickly followed. Such instances of Court rulings were few of many that
certainly impacted the lives of black Americans and civil rights way more than
Johnson could ever, along with the proliferation of the southern Democrats in
national politics simultaneously.
Ultimately, although Andrew Johnson was personally committed to obstructing
civil rights, both directly and indirectly, his influence was limited in comparison
to what came much later. Sure, he established the blueprint for southern
Democrat Jim Crow Laws and rulership, as well as carving out the south into a
zone of former-Civil-War like racial hell for black Americans, but his role was
minimal in his 4 short years due to his lack of true federal power in throughout
much of his Presidency. With 15 of his vetoes being overridden, it was obvious
that President Johnson was unpopular and Congress much more powerful.
Also, the radicalism of white supremacy into terrorist militancy resulting in
mass lynchings efforts and massacres such as in Colfax proved that the
influence of southern Democrats grew to be something beyond southern
control, but rather federal and legislative. This can be viewed in the Supreme
Court cases and proliferation of southern state Jim Crow Laws in the 1880s and
1890s, where much of the gains made by black Americans in Reconstruction
were almost entirely negated.
June 2018
Yes
 The ‘Slaughterhouse’ ruling
(1873) hindered advancement
by ruling that the 14th
Amendment did not protect
the civil rights that black
individuals received from state
citizenship.
 Multiple Supreme Court rulings
in 1883 including the US v
Stanley declared the Civil
Rights Act of 1873 to be
unconstitutional.
 Plessy v Ferguson ruling in
1896 enshrined the idea of
‘separate but equal’ and
therefore further entrenched
the idea of legal separation.
 In 1936 the Agricultural
Adjustment Administration
was ruled to be
unconstitutional and so that
40% of blacks working as
farmers were financially hit
hard.
 The 1955 rulings on Brown II
used the phrase ‘with all
deliberate speed’ and did not
produce instant or even
extensive desegregation.
No
 Brown v. Board of Education
(1954) unanimously held that
the racial segregation of
children in schools violated the
14th Amendment and put the
Constitution on the side of
racial equality.
 Browder v Gayle (1956)
declared legal segregation of
black and white passengers on
public transport to be
unconstitutional thereby giving
a boost to protests such as the
Montgomery bus boycott.
 Actions of individual states in
introducing Jim Crow Laws
were a more important factor
in limiting civil rights.
 Fervent opposition to anti-
lynching legislation during
FDR’s administration severely
limited the rights of black
Americans.
 The disparate nature of civil
rights protest groups such as
the NAACP and CORE worked
against the advancement of
civil rights.
There is much debating surrounding whether the rulings of the Supreme Court
were the key factor limiting civil rights in the years 1865-56. Although the
Supreme Court held significant power over legislative decision-making, they
were unable to enforce many of the laws they had decided upon. For instance,
the decisions made during the end of Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era
could never have become law without Congress and Head of Office approval
and instigation into law, which was particularly important in the Plessy v
Ferguson and 1883 rulings, and more. Also, the Supreme Court towards the
end of the period stated had become a distinctly contrasting role-player in
advancing civil rights, rather than limiting it. These factors are the rationale as
to why other factors, such as the influence of the southern Democrats in
Congress, Office, and particularly the South, in introducing Jim Crow officially
and exploiting the administrative lack of influence of Presidents such as FDR.
This is not excluding too the roles of singular Presidents themselves, such as
Andrew Johnson, who indirectly influenced the blueprint of which Jim Crow
was based on; as well as disparities between civil rights groups in the 1950s,
which worked against the advancement of civil rights to an extent. By the end
of this essay, a conclusive judgment will be made.
To begin, though, let’s consider the Supreme Court Slaughterhouse decision of
1873 which opened the floodgates to state challenges to the rights of black
citizens, thus quickly negating much of the impact of the 14th Amendment,
established in the US Constitution only 5 years earlier. In 1873, the US Supreme
Court ruled that the 14th Amendment protected the rights of national
citizenship, such as the right to interstate travel, but it did not protect the civil
rights that individual Americans received from state citizenship. This proved to
be incredibly important in shifting the tides within the south, as by 1875,
Radical Reconstruction was on the wane, since Democrats made sweeping
gains in the 1874 congressional elections, granting them federal power on top
of southern state dominance. The negation of much of the power of the 14 th
Amendment meant that most of the 4 million freedmen (since black Americans
lived predominantly in the South) were subject to further escalation of
problems with white superiors, reminiscent to the days before the 13th
Amendment.
Furthermore, only 3 years later in 1876, the United States v Reese case ruled
that the 15th Amendment didn’t automatically grant the right to vote to
anyone. This was used to slowly reduce the number of black voters in southern
states. Yet another weakening of a new Amendment, this time from 1870,
where the Court’s judgment stated that the 15th Amendment did not give the
right to vote to anyone. Several years later, in the 1883 Supreme Court cases,
the Court confirmed the decision made in United States v Reese of 1876, which
essentially became one of the building blocks in the introduction of Jim Crow
and the disenfranchisement of black Americans in the South.
Speaking of the 1883 cases, namely the United States v Stanley, United States v
Ryan, United States v Nicholas, United States v Singleton, and Robinson et ux. v
Memphis and Charleston Railroad, were all cases against issues such as racial
discrimination in hotels in Missouri (2 of them), in theatres in San Francisco,
California and New York City (a further 2), and a 5th involving racial
discrimination on a railway. The complainants collectively preached that the
rights given to them by President Grant’s Civil Rights Act passed by Congress in
1875, which granted black Americans many public amenities equal to their
white counterparts were violated. Their complaints also included the 14 th and
13th Amendments. However, on October 1883, the 8-1 majority decision by the
Court initiated what became known as the Jim Crow Era, as the Court declared
the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to be unconstitutional, effectively deleting much of
the progress made by black Americans in the Reconstruction era. As far as
breaking the 14th Amendment, the Court declared that it outlawed specific
actions by state governments only, such as the right to vote or to sit on a jury,
not individual acts of discrimination, essentially appeasing de jure racial
discrimination and hate. As a result of the decision, most of the gains made by
black Americans during Reconstruction were removed. Black Americans were
now open to racial discrimination by individuals and businesses across the USA.
Fast-forwarding to the late 1890s, and Jim Crow is running rampant. However,
the landmark decision of Plessy Ferguson 1896 and Williams v Mississippi 1898
were 2 of the most radically oppressive legislation passed by the Supreme
Court since the abolishment of slavery. Take Plessy v Ferguson, which
embraced the concept of ‘separate but equal’ services for blacks and whites
respectively. The complainant, Homer Plessy, and his lawyer lost the case of
challenging the Louisiana Law of 1890 which demanded ‘separate but equal’
accommodation on railroads for black and non-white people. The Court went
on to argue that segregating facilities posed no problem, as long as the facilities
were equal. This kickstarted the de facto discrimination of black and whites,
now federally accepted, that became commonplace across the United States of
America until the Brown Decision of 1954. Regarding Williams v Mississippi, the
case complainant failed to overturn the changes made to the Mississippi State
Constitution of 1890, which enlisted a $2 poll tax and intense literacy tests for
all voters, which heavily disenfranchised the black state populace. The
Constitution also established stringent residency requirements, which further
targeted black voters who may have recently moved to the state or who lived
in more transient conditions. These measures collectively succeeded in
disenfranchising a significant portion of the black population in Mississippi. As
a result, the number of registered black voters dramatically decreased, and the
political representation of African Americans in the state significantly
diminished.
Let’s now consider a particular instance in the early 20th century, under Franklin
D. Roosevelt’s first term, where the Agricultural Adjustment Administration was
ruled to be unconstitutional and so the 40% of blacks working as farmers were
financially hit hard. It didn’t help too that throughout the AAA’s existence,
much of the $100 million funding organised by Congress was monopolized in
favour of the rich white farm and agriculture giants. In an attempt to gain some
AAA financial assistance and to stop evictions from farms, many black farmers
organised themselves into lobby groups, such as the Alabama Sharecroppers
Union and the Southern Tenant Farmers Union. Unfortunately, these groups
had only very limited success in trying to prevent evictions. Therefore, in
combination with the Court decision, the black American farmer efforts to
survive the Great Depression were futile and contributed severely to the high
unemployment and poverty and homelessness rates in the era.
As we can see, the Supreme Court negatively contributed to the civil rights
movement in this era, effectively acting as a wall that’s impossible to cross. Yet
there is one key point that needs to be made regarding the legitimate power of
the Court.
The Supreme Court was notably not responsible for instigating legislative
obstacles to civil rights; they were just the enabler of it. The Supreme Court
famously held and still holds no power towards actually enforcing Court
decisions. Without support from both Congress and President, Court decisions
remained Court decisions. This is incredibly important in rationalizing my
introductory point about the influence of southern Democrats in the passing of
such legislation and their role in playing the absolute strongest obstacle the
civil rights movement faced for several decades.
For instance, the decisions of individual states to deprive black Americans of
their political rights could be considered the most significant oppressive
obstacle to civil rights and voting rights for black Americans, such as the update
to the Mississippi State Constitution mentioned earlier. This wasn’t exclusive to
Mississippi, however, as Louisiana is yet another example of a state destroying
voting rights to non-whites.
The Louisiana Grandfather Clause of 1898 was disastrous in its effects. The
Clause was ostensibly designed to exempt individuals from new voting
requirements if they or their ancestors had been eligible to vote before the
Civil War. Specifically, it stated that a person could only vote if they met new
literacy and property requirements unless their grandfather had been eligible
to vote before January 1, 1867. This date was chosen because it was before the
Reconstruction Acts were enacted, which granted voting rights to African
American men in the South. With a similar aim to the Mississippi Constitutional
Convention of 1890, the law was passed with strong intention to severely
weaken the 15th Amendment’s impact. Like the constitutional changes in
Mississippi, the Grandfather Clause had a profound impact on the black vote in
Louisiana. In 1896, the estimated number of black Americans registered to vote
in Louisiana was 130,000; in 1904, the estimated number was 1,342. These
examples of southern Democrat influence were only a limited couple of their
damaging actions.
Next, let’s consider the increasing support for white terrorist, white
supremacist organisations, such as the KKK and the Knights of the White
Camelia in the period. The KKK, which began as a group of pranksters dressing
up and engaging in light-hearted intimidation of black Americans, quickly
changed into a major terror organisation. Klansmen violence was prominent,
especially at its height in 1869-71. In the autumn of 1870, after the ratification
of the 15th Amendment which gave black males the vote, nearly every black
church and black schoolhouse in Tuskegee, Alabama, was burned down. In
1871, 500 masked men laid siege to the Union County Gaol and lynched 8 black
prisoners. Lynching was too prominent in the 70s and 80s, with lynching rates
from 1868-76 standing at 50-100 per year, and in the 80s an average of 182 per
year. The role of the Knights of the White Camelia led to the single biggest loss
of life of black Americans during Reconstruction. This occurred in 1873, in
Colfax, Louisiana, where black people began drilling with weapons in fear of
attack by white terror groups. On Easter Sunday, armed with a small cannon
and rifles, white men slaughtered 50 black Americans. When the black
Americans offered to surrender under a flag of truce, the massacre continued.
In total, 280 black Americans were killed. The Colfax Massacre was one of
many examples of disgusting repression and racial hatred towards black society
for the sake of white supremacy. As it can be seen, the KKK and several other
white supremacist groups were unfortunately a continuous fear amongst the
black Americans of the United States, with much of the KKK’s actions being not
only ignored, but oftentimes endorsed by southern state governments, leading
to thousands of innocents losing their life at the hands of the white men.
The lynching numbers are particularly significant in pointing out the fervent
opposition to anti-lynching legislation during FDR’s administration which
severely limited the not only sociopolitical rights of black Americans, but also
human rights. Funnily enough, lynching hit a drought below 2 digits in 1932,
yet in FDR’s first year as President, they rose to 28. President FDR himself
announced to the NAACP secretary, Walter White, that he has no plans to
appease the black grievances and refused to suggest anti-lynching legislation,
stating that he severely needed southern Democrat support in Congress from
1933-37 to pass his New Deal legislation, promising that they would
economically support the black American society along with their white
counterparts, which obviously was later proven mostly false. Furthermore,
several attempts to declare lynching a criminal offence had been made before
1932. In 1922, a congressional bill, the Dyer bill, had been introduced into the
US Congress but failed to pass. In the 1930s, several further attempts were
made, culminating in the Gavagan bill, which passed the House of
Representatives in 1937 but failed to become law as it was defeated in the US
Senate. As with all attempts to pass anti-lynching laws through the US
Congress, filibusters led by southern Democrats ensured that they were
defeated. Therefore, throughout the years 1933-41, the President remained
silent in public on the issue of lynching and legislation was unable to be passed
as a result of filibusters initiated by powerful southern Democrats in Congress,
effectively delaying legislation voting until time ran out entirely.
As we can tell, southern Democrat influence ranged several decades, yet a
noteworthy exception to their influence, and rather infighting and the
disparate nature of civil rights groups such as the NAACP and CORE worked
against the advancement of civil rights, too. Especially in the NAACP, where
Walter White, the executive secretary of the NAACP, in a personal letter to a
colleague, explained the organisation’s limited support, saying there was a
growing feeling among NAACP members that a disproportionate amount of
time and money was being put into the anti-lynching fight, to the neglect of
their other work. CORE and NAACP were too different too in their methods of
civil rights activism, as the latter preferred legal action, such as under the
leadership of Thurgood Marshall, while CORE created much of the blueprint
that was later used by groups such as the SCLC and SNCC in the form of non-
violent campaigns such as sit-ins. The most important thing to take out of this
was that this disparity in activism resulted in a lack of significant cooperation
between the two groups in advancing civil rights, potentially and arguably
limiting each other’s impact relative to what may have transpired if they’d
worked together more.
Now, returning to the Supreme Court, it would be foolish to not mention the
positive legislation passed and successful cases against Jim Crow and
overturning the ‘separate but equal’ de facto legislation of Plessy v Ferguson
1896 in the cases of Brown I-II, as well as Browder v Gayle. Firstly, Brown I,
under new Chief Justice Earl Warren (appointed in 1953), concluded in a
unanimous Court decision in 1954 which decided that the racial segregation of
children in schools violated the 14th Amendment and put the Constitution on
the side of racial equality. This was an incredibly important event for two main
reasons. The unanimity of the decision showcased Earl Warren’s influential
persuasive ability to persuade supporters of segregation in the Court itself to
vote in favour of the case, as it would likely mean a less defensive southern
retaliation to the decision. Also, the decision inspired much of what came
shortly after, especially the rise of Martin Luther King and his role in the
Montgomery Bus Boycott, which was all possible due to this case. However, it’s
worth recognizing that even with the Brown II case shortly following (1955) in
ruling to apply the legislation nationally ‘with all deliberate speed’ did not
transpire significantly. Rather, it quite failed at its goal, with much of the south
still segregating its schools for the rest of the decade and much of the 1960s.
There was a lack of instant or even extensive desegregation. Either way, the
Court still shined a bright light on the movement once again in the Browder v
Gayle (1956) case which declared legal segregation of black and white
passengers on black transport to be unconstitutional, thereby giving a boost to
protests such as the Montgomery Bus Boycott even more than the Brown case
(symbolically) did. On 21 December 1956, the bus boycott came to an end after
381 days. When the Montgomery bus company ended legal segregation on the
buses, one of the first black Americans to ride at the front of a Montgomery
bus was MLK. So, ultimately, the Supreme Court contributed incredibly
positively to advancing civil rights in the 1950s in comparison to its previously
famous role at damaging the movement.
In conclusion, although the Supreme Court decided upon several repressive
legislation in the Jim Crow era, as well as deleting the AAA off the New Deal
programmes, and with Brown II arguably failing, it cannot be compared to the
influence of the southern Democrats’ roles in negatively impacting the civil
rights movement throughout the entire era specified. Even after the positive
change in the Supreme Court in the 1950s, the southern Democrats in
Congress and state governments were still opposed to new legislation, and
were equally hateful throughout history, such as with filibusters against anti-
lynching legislation in the 1930s. Also, the notable lack of cooperation between
civil rights activists such as the NAACP and CORE until 1956 certainly limited
the impact they had on enforcing their activism aims and goals. And so
ultimately, although the Supreme Court played a most definite negative role
throughout most of its history in the period provided, its change towards the
end and other key factors playing a more significant role than it (being a mere
adviser to government) ever did is enough of a disagreement to the statement
that there could ever be.
Jan 2019
Yes
 Aid provided by the ND
agencies was significant and
helped improve the lives of
black Americans, such as the
WPA having 1 million black
Americans working for it by
1939.
 FDR helped to elevate the
status of black Americans by
appointing black advisers such
as Mary McLeod Bethune. The
phrase ‘a black cabinet’ was in
common usage.
 The creation of the
Resettlement Administration
coordinated the programme of
state aid for the rural poor.
Between 1935-38 funding was
provided for all black American
farming projects.
 During WW2 many black
Americans migrated north and
west and found skilled work in
the new defence-related
industries.
 By 1877 both federal and state
legislatures had overturned or
compromised advances
previously made, such as in
1869 Congress refusing to
provide extra funding for the
Freedmen’s Bureau.
No
 th
13 Amendment to the
constitution was passed in
1865 which banned slavery in
all the American states.
 The Military Reconstruction
Act 1867 required former
confederate states to recognise
the rights of black Americans
to vote.
 Considerable urban migration
occurred following the
abolition of slavery, opening up
greater job opportunities to
black Americans.
 The Reconstruction Act of 1867
led to the enfranchisement of
703,000 ex-slaves.
 The Jim Crow Laws in many of
the southern states continued
and the lack of legislation to
address black grievances,
including the failure to achieve
anti-lynching legislation, was
evident in the years 1933-45.
There is much debate surrounding whether the developments under Franklin
D. Roosevelt’s presidency improved the lives of black Americans more than the
developments in the Reconstruction era. Although mixed feelings are given to
both eras by historians, it is apparent that the era of Reconstruction, if solely
focusing on it without pointing out too much of what happened later, was
more improving than FDR’s policies and administrative decisions. Sure, much of
Reconstruction’s benefits did not translate past the beginning of Jim Crow, but
during its dozen years, the legislation passed and focus dedicated to improving
black American civil rights by the Radical Republicans in Congress and office
(Ulysses Grant) was evidently more impressive than FDR, for he lacked drive
and motivation to improve black American lives, as his agenda was fixated on
appeasing the southern Democrats in order to gain their support for his New
Deal plan. But there were notable positive features in FDR’s years, which I will
touch upon shortly. By the end of this essay, a conclusive judgment will be
made.
To begin, let’s consider the employment opportunities gained by black
Americans in the New Deal years, especially from the aid provided by the New
Deal agencies towards the general populace of the Unites States. Although not
as impressive in comparison to their white counterparts, the improvements
made towards the lives of black Americans, at least in the face of mass
unemployment and poverty due to the Great Depression, in the form of the
Works Progress Administration was evident. The WPA had 1 million black
Americans working for it by 1939, which was incredibly useful in integrating
black Americans in labour intensive work alongside their white colleagues.
Furthermore, this guarantee of work came with an equal minimum wage pay to
the white Americans working for it, and the differential gap in number between
black and white Americans working for the WPA wasn’t as significant as may be
suspected, with a rough ratio of 1:3 respectively. Furthermore, the creation of
the Resettlement Administration coordinated the programme of state aid for
the rural poor. After the disastrous Agricultural Adjustment Administration
providing very little in terms of help towards black Americans, but rather
further monopolizing the agricultural sector of the USA (since much of
Congress’s $100 million funding towards the alphabet agency went in the
pockets of rich white agricultural giants) which resulted in the quick
unemployment of 100,000 black Americans (tenant farmers and
sharecroppers) being forced off their land in 1933-34 alone. By 1940,
approximately 200,000 were driven off. However, the Resettlement
Administration arguably amended the faults of the AAA, as it was formed in
1935. Later named the Farm Security Administration, it aimed to co-ordinate
the various New Deal programmes designed to help the rural poor. It was
placed under the direction of Rexford Tugwell, a close adviser to the president.
Tugwell genuinely tried to run a ‘colour blind’ administration. Of its 150 rural
projects, 115 were all white, 9 all black, and 26 were mixed-race projects. In
Gee’s bend, Alabama, an all-black community received financial aid and
assistance. The Administration gave the community cattle, seeds, and fertiliser
to help them become self-sufficient. In 1937, the Administration purchased
land worth $122,000 and subdivided this among the community’s black
farming population. However, the Administration’s life was short-lived, and it
closed in 1938 because it lost its federal government funding.
Conclusively, though, a couple alphabet agencies certainly assisted black
Americans throughout the Great Depression, as seen above.
To continue, FDR passed Executive Order 8802 during World War 2 (June 1941)
where many black Americans migrated north and west and found skilled work
in the new defence related industries. The Order established the Fair
Employment Practicing Committee to enforce the Order. The FEPC was tasked
with investigating and addressing complaints related to racial discrimination in
employment within defence industries and federal agencies. It worked to
ensure that employers complied with the non-discrimination policies set forth
in Executive Order 8802. The committee held hearings, conducted
investigations, and promoted the hiring of workers without regard to race or
ethnicity. The establishment of the FEPC marked a significant step in the federal
government's acknowledgment of the need to address racial inequality in
employment. It provided black Americans with a platform to file complaints
and seek justice in cases of discrimination. The FEPC's efforts contributed to an
increase in the hiring of African Americans in defence industries, opening
economic opportunities and promoting a sense of inclusion. And with the
Great Migration, plus the 2nd Great Migration towards the latter end of the 30s,
black Americans were more than ever capable of finding labour-intensive jobs
to earn money to feed their families.
Finally, FDR helped to elevate the status of black Americans by appointing black
advisers such as Mary McLeod Bethune amongst several other prominent black
activists and politicians. The phrase ‘black cabinet’ was in common usage in
this period, signalling a sociopolitical change in the role of black Americans
within government. The role of Mary Bethune was significant, as she was FDR’s
special adviser on minority affairs in 1935, the year she founded her own civil
rights organisation, the National Council of Negro Women. And later, Bethune
was appointed as director of the Negro Affairs Division of the National Youth
Administration, in 1936, where 500,000 young black Americans were provided
skill training and education amongst other things. This significant departure
from FDR’s typical appeasement of the southern Democrats in not assisting
black Americans in their plight to achieve change in their grievances, such as
anti-lynching legislation, was a step in the right direction, and voting numbers
prove it.
71% of black Americans supporter FDR in the 1936 election, with much of them
voting for FDR rather than solely Democrat. In Chicago, the Democrat vote
raised from 27% in 1928 to 48% in 1932 alone, with more votes coming
throughout the rest of the next terms. It can be concluded from this that most
black Americans saw FDR as their only hope for progress, even if minimal.
However, developments in 1865-77 such as the 13th Amendment, were
arguably historically more important than FDR’s policies and actions. The 13 th
Amendment, coined, confirmed, and established by President Abraham Lincoln
in January 1865 banned slavery in all American states. With much of the
southern state (then Confederate) economy relying on slave-trade, this was
seen as a significantly radical step in advancing black American civil rights. With
4 million freedmen as a result of the Amendment, the black man was no longer
bought or sold, but rather deemed a citizen of the United States, later reaching
the same level of lawful and voting equality as the white man. For instance, the
1866 Civil Rights Act, passed by Congress after overriding President Andrew
Johnson’s veto, was the framework for the 14th Amendment in 1868, which
declared all citizens of the USA to be equally protected under the law. Also, the
15th Amendment gave the right to vote to all American citizens, disregarding
colour or race, in 1870. The 15th Amendment came as a result of the blueprint
developed by the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867 which saw the former
Confederacy be split into 5 military occupied districts by Union generals who
held immense power and influence over state matters; and especially enforced
the defence of black Americans when they voted. As a result, 703,000 black
Americans were now voters, and this was established as a federal law in 1870,
where all states had to recognize the rights of black Americans to vote, even
without military intervention.
To continue, the 1875 Civil Rights Act under President Ulysses Grant saw the
equal access to public amenities such as hotels and parks and many money
services etc. to all United States citizens, regardless of colour or race. This
allowed the integration of black Americans in white society at the time.
We must consider the considerable urban migration which occurred following
the abolition of slavery, too, as this opened greater job opportunities to black
Americans. With the now-free to move wherever abilities of black Americans,
many moved north and west to find jobs. Although most stayed in the south as
sharecroppers due to a lack of educational background and skill, the black
Americans that left to the northern states of Illinois and New York experienced
less discriminatory practices due to the more liberal viewpoint on black
Americans by the north; thereby fewer racist employers. This allowed for the
proliferation of a black society in the north that would be rather important in
the following generations of civil rights activists, such as Malcolm X in the
1960s, as black Americans were able to survive in the north and west.
With the abolition of slavery and massive gains in civil rights, one may wonder
why I don’t consider there to be a significant difference in the positives of both
eras, as the dwindling power of the Radical Republicans resulted in the end of
Reconstruction, effectively boosting the power of the southern Democrats in
federal policies. By 1877 both federal and state legislatures had been
overturned or compromised advances previously made, such as in 1869
Congress refusing to provide extra funding for the Freedmen’s Bureau, or the
Slaughterhouse Decision of 1873 by the Supreme Court which limited the
power of the 14th Amendment, as well as the United States v Reese case of
1876 which weakened the power of the 15th Amendment. These instances of
almost immediate damage to new civil rights legislation demonstrated the lack
of stability within the majority Radical Republican government, leading to
Reconstruction ending in 1877 as southern Democrats made sweeping gains in
1876, along with the election of President Rutherford B. Hayes, who effectively
ended Reconstruction. What came next was the proliferation of Jim Crow as
black Americans were killed in hundreds yearly in the 1880s, as well as the
disenfranchisement of them by the early 20th century. And so overall, the gains
made by black Americans in Reconstruction wasn’t long-lasting, but still
significant for its time, as there was a great deal of Congressional support for
the civil rights advancements of black Americans despite President Andrew
Johnson often denying it.
The southern Democrats just mentioned were prolific in the FDR period, as
they were the main reason for the continued lack of anti-lynching legislation
federally and in the south. Lynching even peaked quite highly in FDR’s first year
as president at 28, just after lynching numbers hitting an all-time low of single
digits in 1932. Through Senate filibustering, attempted anti-lynching legislation
such as the Costigan-Wagner Act of 1934-35 and the Gavagan-Wagner Act of
1937 were both repeated failures at what they attempted to achieve. They
tried to criminalize the act of lynching (for obvious reasons). Rather than
President FDR supporting this, he announced to the general public and to
Secretary of the NAACP (who pushed for antilynching legislation since the Dier
Act nearly 2 decades prior) Walter White that he had no intention or interest to
focus on antilynching legislation (1934), claiming that he needed southern
Democrat support in 1933-37, further proving their influence and power over
federal legislation and government, since much of the limited progress in 1933-
45 was a result of FDR appeasing them. Through months-long filibustering of
Senate sessions and debates, southern Democrats were able to compromise
the passing of the Acts mentioned above, for they were passed in the House of
Representatives, yet were waiting to be approved or disapproved by Senate.
Through filibustering, Senate sessions were delayed so long to the point where
legislation would expire, and thus not be passed.
Ultimately,
Jan 2019
Yes
 The Brown ruling overturned
Plessy v Ferguson 1896, which
had created the concept of
‘Separate but equal’.
 The 9-0 unanimous ruling sent
a clear signal to opponents
that the change it was bringing
was significant.
 The Brown ruling sparked
many attempts to begin
desegregation. NAACP groups
encouraged black parents to
send their children to ‘white’
schools.
 The manner of the class action
lawsuit brought by the NAACP
acted as a model for future
civil rights legal challenges.
 The Brown decision sounded
the death knell for the Jim
Crow Laws throughout the USA
and was a catalyst in launching
the modern Civil Rights
Movement.
 Eisenhower’s appointment of
Earl Warren leading up to the
decision shows that the federal
government began considering
true advancements in civil
rights.
No
 The passing of Brown II in
1955, with its reference to ‘all
deliberate speed’, implied that
the original ruling was ignored
by many.
 The emergence of influential
civil rights activists such as
MLK and his subsequent
actions were more significant.
 The passing of the Civil Rights
Act 1964 formally brought to
an end legal segregation.
 The passing of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 gave a
major boost to the registering
of black Americans to vote.
 The symbolic importance of
the election of Barack Obama
as president in 2008.
There is much debate surrounding whether the Brown v Board of Education
Supreme Court ruling was the most significant advance in the struggle for civil
rights in the years 1954-2009. The Court ruling on Brown kickstarted the peak
of the civil rights movement, with its unanimous decision effectively ruling
Plessy v Ferguson unconstitutional, signalling a new beginning of the new of
Jim Crow. The case also successfully displayed the change in federal
government attitudes towards civil rights, that the NAACP’s battles have finally
culminated in a victory, and the blueprint for what came much later in the
movement. However, a few other factors were arguably more important than
the Brown case, for Brown II a year later wasn’t effective in implementing its
decision in the south. Also, the emergence of nonviolent leaders such as Martin
Luther King and key events, along with the empathetic President Lyndon
Johnson signing civil rights legislation in the 1960s, and the election of
President Obama to office in 2008, were all arguably more symbolic and
perhaps more practical in their impact towards civil rights. By the end of this
essay, a conclusive judgment will be made.
To begin, the Supreme Court case of Brown in 1954 officially and unanimously
ruled that segregation in schools were unconstitutional. This effectively
overruled Plessy v Ferguson in 1896, where created the formal concept of
‘separate but equal’ de jure and de facto legality of segregation. With the Court
case being the first major civil rights Supreme Court case in favour of black
Americans, nearly 60 years after Plessy v Ferguson, signified its importance, for
it sounded the death bell for the Jim Crow Laws throughout the USA and was
successfully presented as a catalyst for the modern civil rights movement.
Clearly, with the victory of the NAACP’s Thurgood Marshall (lawyer for the
case), the beginning of legislative influence of the civil rights movement started
off powerfully and was soon met with more influential Supreme Court cases
victoriously in favour of the movement.
With the unanimous ruling (9-0), the ruling sent a clear signal to opponents of
the movement that the change it was bringing was significant. President
Eisenhower’s appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court leading up to the decision in 1953 shows that the federal government
began considering true advancements in civil rights. In combination, with Earl
Warren’s successful persuasion of notable Justices in favour of the Southern
Democrat policies of segregation and Jim Crowism to vote in favour of the
verdict to overturn Plessy v Ferguson, knowing that a unanimous decision
would be monumental in significance, as well as President Eisenhower’s
indirect contribution of appointing Earl Warren as Chief Justice, both
considerably align with the suggestive instances of government and Supreme
Court finally empathizing with the civil rights movement and black grievances,
after many years of oppressive legislation passed prior to the ruling.
The Brown ruling sparked many attempts to begin segregation shortly, as
NAACP groups encouraged black parents to send their children to ‘white’
schools, especially in the South, such as Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas.
With the Little Rock 9 successfully getting through the racist white mob that
attempted to barricade the 9 black American students from entering the high
school, along with the help of President Eisenhower (in 1957, notably
reluctantly) sending out 1000 members of the 101st Airborne Division to safely
escort the students to the high school, the significance of the Brown ruling was
in full effect just years after its verdict. Also, n 1962, black American, James
Meredith, attempted to enrol at the all-white University of Mississippi. The
Mississippi governor, Ross Barnett, opposed the enrolment. President John F.
Kennedy had to dispatch hundreds of US marshals and hundreds of federal
troops to allow Meredith to enrol and attend the university, with this being yet
another enforcement of the Brown ruling in the South. Evidently, the Brown
ruling began the much-needed desegregation of schooling across the nation,
especially in the Jim-Crowist Old South.
Finally, the manner of the class action lawsuit brought by the NAACP acted as a
model or blueprint for future civil rights legal challenges, such as the Browder v
Gayle 1956 ruling by the Supreme Court where it confirmed a Montgomery
Federal Court decision to desegregate bus transport, deeming it a violation of
the 14th Amendment, as well as the 1962 Bailey v Patterson Case where the
Court desegregated interstate public transportation as a result of the CORE
Freedom Rides of 1961-62 resultantly leading to white mob violence against
Freedom Riders who sought to test the waters in interstate transport, where
white mobs burned down buses and attacked the black American Riders. And
so clearly, the Brown case kickstarted a domino effect of positive Supreme
Court rulings towards the civil rights movement.
June 2019
Yes
 th
13 Amendment to the
constitution was passed in
1865, which banned slavery in
all the American states.
 The Military Reconstruction
Act 1867 required former
confederate states to recognise
the rights of black Americans
to vote and led to the
enfranchisement of 703,000
ex-slaves.
 The 14th Amendment to the
constitution was passed in
1868 and gave all US citizens
including black Americans
equal protection of the law.
 Considerable urban migration
occurred following the
abolition of slavery, opening up
greater job opportunities to
black Americans.
 More emphasis was placed on
educational opportunities for
black Americans by 1900.
No
 The rulings of the Supreme
Court, especially the
Slaughterhouse decision 1873,
allowed state governments to
erode the benefits of
citizenship of black Americans.
 The proliferation of Jim Crow
Laws, throughout the southern
states, effectively introduced a
system of legal segregation in
education, transport, and
public facilities.
 The growth of white terror
organisations such as the KKK
and the White League led to
widespread intimidation of
black Americans.
 Many ex-slave black Americans
continued to work for white
landowners for low wages in a
lifestyle similar to that before
emancipation.
June 2019
Yes
 He brought publicity and
organisation to a number of
significant civil rights protests
such as the Montgomery Bus
Boycott 1955-56.
 He was instrumental in
establishing the Southern
Christian Leadership
Conference (SCLC) in 1957,
which was a civil rights
organisation that supported
the philosophy of non-
violence.
 His advocacy of peaceful
protest and dynamic oratory
were partly responsible for the
Civil Rights Act 1964 and the
Voting Rights Act 1965.
 He was renowned worldwide
as the symbolic leader of the
civil rights movement and was
recognised as such by being
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
in 1964.
No
 Other black American civil
rights groups existed separate
from King, such as the SNCC,
CORE, and the NAACP.
 More violent advocates of
protest such as Malcolm X and
the Black Panthers had
significant influence over
sections of the civil rights
movement.
 Decisions of the US Supreme
Court such as Brown 1954
began the process of ending
segregation, which gave
encouragement to civil rights
protestors to push for more
changes.
 Black Americans played an
increasingly large role in city,
state, and national politics
culminating in the election of
Barack Obama as President in
2008.
 The increasingly widespread
geographical distribution of
black voters after 2000 made
them a powerful voting
constituency in US politics.
There is much debate surrounding whether Martin Luther King made the most
significant contribution to the development of black American civil rights in the
years 1954-2009. Although there were various ways which the federal
government and Supreme Court positively contributed to the civil rights
movement and in passing civil rights legislation, such as the Brown Case and
the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, as well as the prominence of other civil rights
campaigners and organisations all contributing to the cause, as well as the
changes in black voter distribution in the 21st century and the election of
Obama as President in 2008, I do think that Martin Luther King’s significant
contribution to the civil rights movement was perhaps the most impacting. His
rise resulted in the commonplace nonviolent protest methods such as through
his contribution in key events such as in Montgomery 1955-56, Birmingham
1963, and Selma/Montgomery 1965, which all led to him not only becoming
the informal face of the civil rights movement, but also him successfully
creating the SCLC, being responsible partly for the Civil Rights Acts, as well as
him notably winning the Noble Peace Prize in 1964, signifying his international
recognition, along with his national contributions. Still, by the end of this essay,
a conclusive judgment will be made.
To begin, let’s consider Martin Luther King’s role in the Montgomery Bus
Boycott of 1955-56. King was chosen by the NAACP to lead the Boycotts due to
him being an Alabama native and his Baptist Minister background. Martin
Luther King, through the creation of the Montgomery Improvement
Association, and his mass preaches of nonviolence, brought publicity and
organisation to the protest in a way no other black American ever did. Through
his leadership, he was partly responsible for the Browder v Gayle Case in late
1956 where after 382 days of protest, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed a
Montgomery Federal Court ruling on desegregating buses earlier in the year, on
the basis that it violated the 14th Amendment. This kickstarted the dominance
of Martin Luther King as the face of the civil rights movement, where he
notably achieved success in Birmingham several years later. After Montgomery,
he was instrumental in establishing the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference (SCLC) in 1956, which was a civil rights organisation that supported
and was committed to the philosophy of nonviolence, successfully gaining
white American support throughout his years as President (till his death in
1968) of the SCLC because of his promotion and advocacy of peaceful protest
and his dynamic oratorical abilities. Again, in Birmingham 1963, he led a mass
of tens of thousands of demonstrators in April-May where they marched to
protest the desegregation of shopping centres and better/equal employment
opportunities for black Americans amongst other things. MLK successfully
utilized the march to attract media attention to white brutality, as Birmingham
Police Chief Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor’s dispatch of his troops along with ruthless
dogs and water guns attacking the demonstrators, resulting in the arrest of
thousands of black Americans, including MLK, just for peaceful protest, was all
recorded and broadcasted by news report organisations nationally where
outrage came resultantly. This prompted Martin Luther King to write his
famous ‘A Letter from Birmingham Jail’ to the public. And later in August 28,
Martin Luther King’s internationally famous ‘I have a dream’ speech was
proclaimed in front of a crowd of 250,000 on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial
in central Washington, where MLK exclaimed that he has a dream that one day
blacks and whites would be equal amongst other powerful comments. The
combination of these events forced President John F. Kennedy to public
announce his vow to pursue a Civil Rights Bill. Clearly, Birmingham was perhaps
the most successful march by Martin Luther King in his entire career, for it
forced the federal government to finally address the agenda of the civil rights
movement.
The Act came in 1964 under President Lyndon B. Johnson after the unfortunate
assassination of John F. Kennedy just months after his vow to pursue a Civil
Rights Act. However, Martin Luther King did not stop there, as his impact just a
couple years later, in 1965, again launched the fight for what became known as
the Voting Rights Act. O particular event occurred in 1965 which prompted this.
This was the march from Selma to Montgomery. The aim of the march was to
gain national publicity for black Americans rights, and it fulfilled its purpose. On
7 March 1965, at Pettus Bridge, black and white civil rights marchers, including
several male and female members of the clergy, were attacked by Alabama
State Troopers (police) and white opponents. The events became known as
Bloody Sunday. Johnson was so shocked; he federalised the Alabama National
Guard to protect the civil rights marchers. From 17 to 25 March, 25,000 civil
rights marchers completed the walk to Montgomery. During the march, 2 white
civil rights supporters, Viola Liuzzo, and Protestant minister James Reeb, were
murdered by white supremacists. The march and the murders provided
sufficient pressure and national publicity to allow Johnson to get Congress to
pass a Voting Rights Act. And so under King’s leadership, he was partly
responsible for the 2 important Acts which he was alive to witness be passed.
The Federal Housing Act of 1968 was passed just a day after his assassination,
implying his importance as the informal face of the civil rights, as the Act was
dedicated to him.
Finally, Martin Luther King was renowned worldwide as the symbolic leader of
the civil rights movement and was recognised as such by being awarded the
Noble Peace Prize in Oslo, 1964. His contributions to passing the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and his message of peaceful protest and nonviolence did not only win
him this award, but also contributed to the mass growth and impact of civil
rights organisations that followed his philosophy, such as the Student
Nonviolence Coordinating Committee and the Congress of Racial Equality, with
both enacting their own variations of peaceful protest, such as the sit-ins in
early 1960 in segregated restaurants where SNCC members refused to leave
diners despite not being served, as well as CORE’s famous Freedom Rides of
1961 which prompted the federal government to enforce Boynton v Virginia, a
Supreme Court case from a year prior which declared segregated interstate bus
transportation unconstitutional. And so consequently, MLK’s own
achievements and philosophy clearly spread across various civil rights
organisations, preexisting like CORE, or new organisations such as SNCC,
ultimately cementing nonviolence as the main method of protest in the civil
rights peak era.
Jan 2020
Yes
 Lives of black Americans were
severely hindered by Andrew
Johnson allowing former
confederates to take up high
political office in southern
states and tolerating them not
ratifying the 13th Amendment.
 Andrew Johnson’s presidency
had a detrimental effect on
black Americans as he failed to
prevent the introduction of
‘Black Codes’ in many southern
states, which was likened to a
reintroduction of slavery.
 Andrew Johnson had a great
impact on the lives of black
Americans as he used his veto
to obstruct bills designed to
help them, such as the
extension to the Freedmen’s
Bureau and the first Civil Rights
Act 1866.
 Andrew Johnson’s
commitment to obstructing
civil rights was harmful as it
was partly responsible for
emboldening southern
Democrats to continue their
opposition to the rights of
black Americans.
No
 Lyndon Johnson significantly
increased the legal rights of
black Americans by persuading
Congress to pass the Civil
Rights Act (1964), which
brought an end to legal
segregation.
 Lyndon Johnson signed the
Voting Rights Act into law,
which, amongst other things,
outlawed literacy tests.
Andrew Johnson had largely
ignored this issue and
tolerated black codes.
 Lyndon Johnson’s Fair Housing
Act led to significant
improvements in the lives of
black Americans as it outlawed
discrimination on the basis of
colour or race in the rent or
sale of houses.
 Lyndon Johnson made the
symbolically important
appointment of the first black
American to the US Supreme
Court. Andrew was prevented
form making any Supreme
Court appointments.
 Lyndon’s education reforms
improved (1965).
Jan 2020
Yes
 Despite the work of civil rights
campaigners, the proliferation of
Jim Crow Laws, in the years 1883-
c1900, was a major setback for
black Americans.
 Despite their lobbying efforts, the
NAACP and other campaign
groups, largely due to the
political of the southern
Democrats, were notably
unsuccessful in making the ND
legislation less discriminatory.
 Key decisions of the Supreme
Court were more important than
the role of civil rights
campaigners in affecting the lives
of black-Americans.
 Presidents such as Kennedy and
Lyndon in securing civil rights
legislation more important than
role of civil rights campaigners.
 Tension, and often confrontation,
between civil rights campaigners,
hindered the advancement of
their cause as there was often
disagreement to campaign.
 Socioeconomic developments,
wars, and migration had a
profound effect on changes.
Yes
 Campaigners such as Booker T
Washington played a vital role in
advancing the education of black
men in the late 19th century such
as the founding of the Tuskegee
Institute.
 Civil rights groups, including the
NAACP, had some success in
persuading FDR to introduce
changes that ensured fairness in
job opportunities for black
Americans such as Executive
Order 8802.
 The role of MLK in promoting the
message of non-violent, peaceful
protest was crucial in turning civil
rights protest into a national
moral crusade.
 The civil rights campaign was
significantly enhanced both
nationally and internationally by
King’s oratorical skills and
effective media presence; he won
the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.
 Alternative methods of civil rights
protest attracted significant
support through the work of
Malcolm X, the NOI, and the
Black Power movement.
Jan 2021
Yes
 Until c1940, the overwhelming
majority of black Americans
lived in the south and tensions
produced by slavery and the
later resentments against freed
blacks were in the south.
 The Jim Crow Laws, which
created segregation and
interracial tensions over issues
such as schooling, voting, and
transport operating from
c1890-1960s, were
phenomena of the south.
 The lynching of blacks from the
1880s to the mid-20th century
was largely a phenomenon
seen in the old southern states.
 Many of the major flashpoints
of the civil rights era after 1954
such as the Montgomery Bus
Boycott, Little Rock,
Birmingham took place in the
southern states.
 In 2009 the majority of black
Americans continued to live in
the southern states and,
although less pronounced than
before, racial division and
tension over voting rights still
existed there.
No
 The migration of black
Americans northwards from
the late 19th century and
particularly during WW2
produced tensions and hostility
in the North and West.
 There were strikes in northern
cities by white workers
unwilling to work with black
Americans during WW2.
 There was a wave of riots in
cities outside the old South in
the 1960s, such as the Watts
riot in LA and the Newark riot.
 Considerable tension still
existed between black
Americans and the police in
many areas outside the South
in the early 21st century
There is much debate surrounding whether in the years 1883-2009, interracial
tension was mainly concentrated in the South. Although throughout much of
the first half of the period stated having nearly all of its black prejudice and
racial discrimination occur in the South, by the peak of the civil rights
movement era, in the 50s and 60s, widespread national riots reached peak
levels as police brutality wasn’t exclusive to the South. The Great Migration
resulted in strikes and mass worker protest all across the States, and
considerable tension remained beyond the 21st century, especially with police.
Despite all this, though, I do generally agree that the majority of interracial
tension occurred within the South, for the proliferation of Jim Crow mixed with
the majority of black Americans living in the South throughout all of it,
certainly exemplified my point that until the 50s and 60s tension was
concentrated mainly in the South. Furthermore, major flashpoint events in the
peak of the civil rights movement occurred in the South, such as the
Birmingham Riot and Montgomery Bus Boycott. In addition to this, despite
lynching throughout the late 19th century and early 20th century being
commonplace in the South, with much of the black populace living through it
in the South, it’s statistically apparent that in 2009 the majority of black
Americans had returned to the South and live there, clearly adding fuel to the
fire in interracial tension concentrated in the south. By the end of this essay a
clear judgment will be made.
To begin, let’s consider the situation from 1883-c1940, where the
overwhelming majority of black Americans lived in the South and tensions
produced by slavery and the later resentments of Supreme Court cases in
support of Jim Crowism and ‘separate but equal’ de jure and de facto racial
discrimination across the South. Resentments against freed blacks by the
southern Democrats, blood relatives to form Confederates, were concentrated
in the South. This resulted in the widespread terror of terror groups such as the
Ku Klux Klan and the White League to name a couple effectively instilling fear in
the black population, especially in the final couple decades of the 19 th century.
The lynching of black Americans from the 1880s to the mid-20th century was
largely a phenomenon seen in the South, with anti-lynching legislation efforts
being in vain with the NAACP failing to facilitate a successful passing of
legislation in the Dier Bill of 1919, the Costigan-Wagner Bill 1934-35, and
Gavagan-Wagner Bill in 1937. Although the Wagner Bills passed through the
House of Representatives, southern Democrat influence and power in the
Senate culminated in filibustering this legislation, effectively failing to pass
them for yet another couple decades. Lynching was horrifically high in the
1880s, where an average of 182 murders were committed per year, over 80%
of them being black Americans. Lynching later also peaked once again in FDR’s
first year as President with 28 in 1933, just after lynching numbers hit single
digits just a year ago. Clearly, this indicates racial prejudice against the black
populace, with the public display and successes of white supremacy running
rampant in the South.
To continue with Jim Crow, the Jim Crow Laws, which created segregation and
interracial tensions over issues such as schooling, voting, transport, and
employment operating from c1890-1960s, were phenomena of the South.
Through the Plessy v Ferguson Case of 1896, as well as the rising dominance of
the southern Democrats in the old South in the 1880s and beyond, legislation
passed was completely in support and in favour of segregating and
discriminating against black Americans. Their right of suffrage was stolen from
them throughout the 1880s and 90s by updates to state legislation such as the
Mississippi State Convention in 1890 updating its State Convention to introduce
a $2 poll tax and literacy tests to potential voters, effectively disenfranchising
most of the black population. And later with the Louisiana Grandfather Clause
of 1898, which updated the State Constitution in its own State Convention,
effectively stating that if a potential voter’s grandfather had not voted prior to
the year 1867, then they would be unable to vote, with individual exceptions in
terms of property ownership. Due to black Americans not earning the right to
vote until the 15th Amendment of 1870, they were clearly mostly
disenfranchised, with 130,000 black voters in 1896 dropping to 5,320 in 1900
and even more in 1904, with numbers dwindling to 1,342. Clearly, voting rights
were a key feature in Jim Crowism, extending itself all the way up until the
1965 Voting Rights Act, which outlawed all legislation passed by the Old South
to disenfranchise black Americans. This was just one of few ways the South
extended Jim Crow, for the updates made were nationally recognized by the
Supreme Court in the Mississippi v Williams case of 1898, which ruled that
these updates were constitutional, following the Plessy v Ferguson Case that
brought about the official idea of ‘separate but equal’ treatment and services
towards whites and non-whites.
Fast-forwarding to the 1950s, many of the major flashpoints of the civil rights
era after 1954 such as the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Little Rock, and
Birmingham, took place in the Southern states. With both Montgomery and
Birmingham located in Alabama, it is clear that the state attracted heavy
protest and demonstrations. As seen by the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955-
56, which lasted 382 days, which targeted the segregationist and humiliating
policies of the Montgomery bus companies that required black Americans to
move to the back of the bus if a white American had entered and had the right
to sit in the front. The case being argued for over a year clearly signified a rise
in southern state demonstrationist influence and power, swelling interracial
tension for over a year until the case of Browder v Gayle deeming bus
segregation unconstitutional. Later in 1957, in Little Rock, Arkansas, the Little
Rock 9 (formally known) group of black Americans attempted to instil
themselves as students of Central High, Little Rock, despite immense racist
remarks and citywide bullying and discrimination pit against them. Through the
reluctant orders of President Eisenhower, the Arkansas National Guard was
ordered to support the integration of the black students in the white high
school, despite heavy backlash from the State Governor, as well as most of the
white population within the state. Clearly, needing the support of federal
backing for the simple integration of school, which reminiscently noting that
segregation in schools were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in
the Brown v Board of Education 1954 case, indicated that interracial tension
was still incredibly high in the South. And with the Birmingham Riot of 1963
through the leadership of MLK and the SCLC resulting in Bull Connor’s (police
chief) troops unleashing ruthless dogs and using water guns and effectively
using violence to arrest and stop the nonviolent protest that was being
orchestrated, televised by the media, was yet another obvious instance of mass
demonstration being put on the brakes due to racial tension and discrimination
in the 50s and 60s. Ultimately, Birmingham forced President JFK to announce
his plan of signing a Civil Rights Act, later honoured by President Johnson in
1964.
Moving onto the 21st century, it’s worth noting that the majority of black
Americans continued to live in the southern states and, although less
pronounced than before, racial division and tension over voting rights still
existed there, especially by 2009. With southern states announcing potential
plans of limiting the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which finalized the 15 th
Amendment effects, granting the right to vote to all US citizens and removing
all obstacles that would bar people from the right to vote, it was clear that the
civil rights plight of black Americans was clearly unfinished, and there needed
to be work. Furthermore, the election of Obama in 2008 as President resulted
in widespread backlash, especially in the South, where notable instances of
racist remarks made towards or about Obama were evident in schools, as mere
children displayed generational and inherited racism towards black Americans,
calling him a monkey and accusing him of being a Muslim terrorist, amongst
many other things. Clearly, the 21st century continued to tell the tale of
interracial tension, despite much progress being made in the latter half of the
20th century, especially in the South.
However, it’s certainly worth noting that the migration of black Americans
northwards from the late 19th century and particularly during World War 2
produced tensions and hostility in the North and West. With the slow drift to
the north and west, as well as the Great Migration of 1915-45, being a result of
increased economic opportunities for black Americans in the form of
employment in northern and western states, black Americans continued to
face much of what came to them in the south. Companies and businesses still
kept a high profile of racial discrimination and segregation in areas outside the
South, especially due to the fact that in WW2, where black Americans sought
work in manufacturing war equipment and instruments, discriminatory
practices were made against them in working separately, in worse conditions,
in comparison to their white counterparts. This told a long time to address, but
it came in the form of FDR’s Executive Order 8802 on 25 June 1941, which
prohibited ethnic or racial discrimination in the nation’s defence industry,
including in companies, unions, and federal agencies. It set up the Fair
Employment Practices Committee to ensure that this Order was followed. The
mentions of unions are important, as they reference the fact that most trade
unions were unwilling to admit black Americans in them, throughout the entire
nation I might add, effectively displaying national interracial tension in labour
forces. Such tension can be seen in the strikes in northern cities by white
workers unwilling to work with black Americans during WW2. This is evidenced
by the Detroit Race Riot of 1943 which killed 25 black Americans and 9 white
Americans. Interracial fighting was common, with fistfights breaking out
between the different races for days. Clearly, interracial tension was not
exclusive to the South, with northern and western employees and labourers
feeling deeply frustrated towards the mass migration of black Americans to
their cities, competing for jobs where they accepted being paid less than their
white counterparts, seemingly ‘stealing’ jobs from them.
Riots were not exclusive to this era, however, as the riots in Chicago 1919, the
Tulsa Race Riot in 1921, the Watts Riot in 1965, as well as the Newark Riot of
1967, all provide evidence that there was a long wave of race riots throughout
the 20th century outside the South. Especially important were the Watts and
Newark Riots, for they exposed the lack of true coordination between federal
government and white police forces in limiting black American prejudice. With
Watts occurring just a year after the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in
Los Angeles, August 1965, it is clearly important. The inner-city areas of the
north and west were largely untouched by the gains achieved by the civil rights
movement. Over 3500 black rioters participated in the 4-day riot, which was
one of the 239 outbreaks of racial violence in over 200 cities in the 1964-68
period, indicating that despite legislative successes, black American militancy
was on the rise. The rioters were protesting against racial brutality by police,
who apparently kicked a pregnant black woman as well as ruthlessly arrested a
black man, as well as the poor housing and unemployment prospects in the
Watts district. Tension rose as the black American man was arrested, which led
to violent exchanges, sparking the riot. There were 34 people killed and 1032
reported injuries. Property damage exceeded $40 million, mainly to white
owned businesses. Clearly, the Watts Riot provides a great deal of information
to the argument that interracial tension wasn’t exclusive to the South. This can
be further emphasised in the Newark Riot of 1967 as a result of the area being
segregationally motivated in its housing between white and black Americans. In
1967, Newark had the highest % of substandard housing in the USA and the
highest % of crime and infant mortality. With more city problems arising as a
result of interracial tension, the situation resulted in days of rioting, where the
National Guard fired on rioters, killing 26 black Americans, including a 10-year-
old Edward Moses, and 1000 had been injured. Damage to the value of $10
million had been done to property. And so evidently, being in New Jersey, the
deadliest riots seem to have occurred outside the media-focused scope of the
South, but rather in the north and west, where there wasn’t as much emphasis
on civil rights advancements there.
Fast-forward to the 21st century again, considerable tenson still existed
between black Americans and the police in many areas outside the South, with
riots occurring throughout the nation, especially in response to police
shootings of black Americans like Cincinnati 2001 and Oakland 2009, which
kept the issue of race at the forefront of political debate. Especially in
Cincinnati, Ohio, a midwestern state, where riots in a reaction to the fatal
shooting of an unarmed young black man by a Cincinnati police officer was
seen as unacceptable and led to the riot. And with Oakland in 2009, where
peaceful protests turned into rioting after the fatal shooting of Oscar Grant, an
unarmed man, by a transit policeman. These instances weren’t exclusive to the
21st century, as several other notable events of riots and interracial tension
dominated the north and west, publicized by the media in detail, often
detailing mass death numbers and casualties. Even as Obama won the
Presidential election, white mobs were reported to have jumped and assaulted
numerous black Americans in cities such New York City, where one teenager
claimed to have been assaulted by 4 white Americans with baseball bats,
chanting “Obama” as they beat him to bad conditions. And so evidently,
interracial tension spanned itself across the nation, even in the 21st century,
merely as a result of Obama’s election as President of the United States.
In conclusion, although interracial tension examples mentioned above were
events that occurred across the nation, such as in the North and West, it was
still concentrated in the South historically. Northern and Western tensions
peaked as a result of the Great Migration to the North and West and
throughout the civil rights movement’s peak in the 50s and 60s. I see these
instances as the beginning of the end of black American acceptance of their
inferior position in American society, where they had enough and began
viewing the advances made in favour of their plight and utilized riots to
demonstrate their unhappiness. Although hundreds had died and thousands
injured, these were notably freak riots, and did not span every single example
throughout its time. Sure, with the election of Obama experiencing backlash in
cities such as New York City contributing to evidence against the essay
statement, it would seem right to disagree with it, but with the evidence
provided historically, it slightly sways in favour of the statement. With Jim
Crowism and white supremacist terrorism being phenomena of the South, as
well as the proliferation of southern Democrats resulting in much of the
southern restrictions on black American lives in all aspects, it’s obvious that for
at least from 1883-1954, tension was most certainly concentrated in the south.
Also, with lynchings being so high, murder rates due to black prejudice was
mainly in the South. Later in the civil rights era of 1954-2009, major flashpoints
of protest took place mainly in the South, such as Birmingham and
Montgomery, where as a result legislation was passed in order to overturn
racial discrimination and segregation and to appease the black grievances of its
people. And throughout the 21st century, with much of the black population
being in the South, their right to vote continued to be challenged, much more
than the civil liberties of black Americans in the north and west had. And so
ultimately, it is clear that there is more evidence that interracial tension was
predominantly a Southern aspect of American society, although in minor
proportions, for the events that occurred throughout the history of the north
and west point towards the other direction, although not enough to justify
disagreeing with the essay statement.
Jan 2021
Yes
 The proliferation of Jim Crow Laws
in southern states encouraged
segregation in housing, schooling,
and transport leading to pressures
to migrate from South to North.
 New Deal racial quotas, introduced
by federal government after 1933,
helped speed up the Great
Migration from South to North,
changing the pattern of black
settlement.
 WW2 created new economic
opportunities and boosted
migration to take up work in war-
related industries based on the west
coast, such as aircraft production
and shipbuilding.
 Increased national wealth in the
1950s encouraged rapid migration
to cities. By the late 1950s the USA’s
largest cities had gained an extra 1.8
million black residents.
 The growth of restrictive covenants
and of white only housing
developments, such as Levittowns,
speeded up the process of making
inner city settlement predominantly
black.
 The growth of a black middle class
and increasing educational and
political opportunities, especially in
the south, led to increasing
bifurcation in the settlement and
housing of blacks.
No
 By 1900 over 90% of black
Americans lived in the former
confederate states with the
majority of these still living in
rural areas.
 Migration from the South to
the North often resulted in the
swapping of poor rural living
conditions for substandard
inner-city housing for black
Americans.
 In 1934 the practice of
redlining housing areas came
into existence through the
National Housing Act of 1934.
This practice reinforced the
poor inner city living
conditions facing many black
Americans.
 The 1960s and later saw a
pattern of black Americans
migrating back to the southern
states and returning to the
area of their or their parents’
birthplace.
There is much debate surrounding whether the years 1883-2009 saw major
changes in the pattern of black settlement and housing in the USA. Although
there was a great deal of migration throughout the period stated due to black
Americans finding economic opportunities outside the South and escaping the
South’s prolific Jim Crowism, there was a notable return to South towards the
latter half of the period. The increased national wealth and restrictive
developments of black communities in this era, especially in the New Deal
years, contributed to the 2nd Great Migration, while later as legislation was
passed to support black society, the rise of a black middle class in
neighbourhoods was evident in a form of city and suburban migration.
However, black Americans often were historically subject to bad housing and
poor rural and urban circumstances which they lived in, which much of Jim
Crowism and negative legislation throughout the nation enforcing these
conditions. By the end of this essay, a conclusive judgment will be made.
To begin, let’s consider the change in black settlement as a result of the
proliferation of Jim Crow Laws in southern states which encouraged
segregation in housing, schooling, and transport, leading to pressures to
migrate from South to North. Most popular destinations were the northern
cities of New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Cleveland. Those who lived in
Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee tended to move to Chicago, while those
living on the east coast gravitated towards New York, Philly, and Boston. By
1917, all these cities had sizeable black American communities, with areas such
as the South Side of Chicago and Harlem in New York City becoming distinctive
black areas. Push factors also came in the form of fearing the white
supremacist terror groups of the south such as the KKK and the White League,
with the first reviving itself in 1915 and reinstating its lynching methods where
thousands of black Americans were historically killed and hung from poplar
trees.
Entering the Great Migration of 1915-45 came as a result of black Americans
moving from the rural southern areas of the south-east coast of the USA to the
cities in the north. 1.6 million black Americans was around the range of black
Americans that left. From 1910-25, more than 10% of the black population
moved north. Between 1910-30, the black American population increased by
40% in northern states, especially in cities mentioned earlier. These statistics
tell us that there was a ‘Great Migration’ to the north and west, but why? Well,
it is estimated that 400,000 black Americans left the Old South from 1916-18 to
take advantage of job opportunities created by WW1. European migration
dropped and the war production industry boomed, requiring new labourers,
and in this case, the black American migrants took up the jobs. The new
economic opportunities were significant for these black Americans who were
paid proper wages to sustain a decent life economically. Later in the 1920s
came the Jazz Years, an economic boom where mass production and
manufacturing required new labourers, too. With economic opportunities on
the loom, black Americans further moved north to swoop available jobs, plus
the new economic opportunities readily allowed the black Americans to fund
their migration, since that was an issue that many weren’t able to solve due to
financial weakness. The increase in black population in Detroit from 1916-30, a
city famous for its car manufacturing factories, is evident of northern
migration, with a near 700% increase from 5700 in 1910-1920, and a 300%
increase from the number in 1920 to 1930. Later came the Great Depression
and New Deal years, where racial quotas, introduced by the federal
government after 1933, helped speed up the Great Migration from south to
north, increasing the changing pattern of black settlement. The Work Progress
Administration, National youth Administration, and Civilian Conservation
Corps, all allocated 10% of their budgets for black Americans, who comprised
10% of the population but 20% of the poor. All these organisations employed
black Americans, especially young from ages 18-25, in areas of manufacturing
and education, with the WPA having employed 1 million black Americans by
1939, and the CCC seeing 250,000 young black Americans completing their up
to 18-month programme from 1933-39. The NYA provided hundreds of
thousands of black students a decent education and employed teachers in
various areas across the USA. Clearly, the New Deal years prior to WW2
contributed significantly towards the Great Migration. WW2 itself created new
economic opportunities and boosted migration to take up work in war-related
industries based on the west coast, such as aircraft production and
shipbuilding, similarly to WW1. 15 million blacks and white Americans moved
permanently in this period. For instance, 120,000 black Americans moved wets
into the Los Angeles area for work. One of the most important reasons for this
successful migration was FDR’s Executive Order 8802, which prohibited
segregation and racial discrimination in war-related industries, setting up the
FEPC to maintain this. And so overall, the FDR years contributed positively to
migration and job employment, as many continued leaving the South to the
north and west for economic reasons.
The increased national wealth in the 1950s also encouraged rapid migration to
cities. By the late 1950s, the USA’s largest cities had gained an extra 1.8 million
black residents. Due to President Eisenhower’s successful combination of low
taxes, balanced budgets, and public spendings all contributing to this, the
economy grew 37% during the 1950s, and unemployment remained low, about
4.5%. Having achieved victory in WW2, the USA boomed once again in its
economy after surviving the Great Depression, now supplying products back to
Europe and other nations with manufactured American goods, which entailed a
continued migration of black Americans to manufacturing-based cities and
states in the north and west, as well as having had enough of Jim Crowism and
now being able to afford their move to predominantly black areas outside the
South where interracial tensions were not as powerful.
Generally speaking, too, the 1950s migration could also be a direct result of the
growth of restrictive covenants and of white only housing developments, such
as Levittowns, speeding up the process of making inner city settlement
predominantly black. With much of WW2 veterans taking up the opportunity
to purchase the cheap Levittowns after WW2 due to the Veterans
Administration and Federal Housing Administration designating these cheap
houses to veterans, a lot of white Americans left the urban main cities of the
north and west and moved to these rural suburbs. And so, as a result, black
American migrants evidently took up their spots, as seen by the statistics
mentioned earlier.
Fast-forwarding to the 21st century, the growth of a black middle class and
increasing educational and political opportunities post-successes in legislative
advancements against Jim Crowism and black American sociopolitical
inferiority, especially in the South, led to increasing bifurcation in the
settlement and housing of blacks. With many remaining in ghetto areas, yet
some moving in white neighbourhoods as a result of increasing opportunities
and successes in financial wealth, the split between black American classes
became increasingly evident in the South. Many black Americans were now
becoming wealthy businessmen and careermen in their own right, as the
separation of the advancements of black American rights from the 60s and
2000’s were of a few generations, meaning that black Americans now had an
ever-increasing potential in achieving what they hadn’t been able to in the
past, financial and economic equity with white Americans.
However, it’s worth noting various different ways where migration was not as
significant. Prior to the Great Migration, in 1900, over 90% of black Americans
still lived in the former Confederacy with the majority of these still living in
rural areas in bad conditions. These bad conditions exemplified the lack of
funding towards black communities, meaning that these black Americans
couldn’t even fund migration north/west even if they wanted to. In 1910, 89%
of black Americans till lived in the former Confederate states, with 80% of them
living in said rural areas. The cost of relocating proved prohibitive for many.
Also, many black Americans were unwilling to depart from the South even if its
meant having to endure Jim Crowism and racial prejudice indefinitely, for many
sought to remain within their black communities, fearing that they may just
face the same treatment outside the South just like the South. And so clearly,
using statistical data, the migration of black Americans wasn’t so significant in
number for a very long time, as black Americans lacked the incentive or
finances to migrate much in the late 19th century and early 20th century. There
weren’t as many promises of job opportunities in comparison to late war years
during this time.
Furthermore, migration from the South to the North often resulted in the
swapping of poor rural living conditions in the South for substandard inner-city
housing for black Americans in the north. Black Americans were often subject
to similarly harsh living standard in the north and the south, effectively
reducing incentive to migrate. And for those who migrated, they were left
helpless under a lack of promises of government support, and where support
came, it was humiliating. The rise of shantytowns such as in Harlem during the
Great Depression, often called Hoovervilles, were extremely cheap areas of
shelter with terribly conditioned houses for the homeless. Some of these
houses were made of pure stone. And so, throughout the 1930s, many black
Americans who migrated north had to endure living life and sleeping in these
shantytowns, such as Central Park in New York City, where homeless families
camped out at the Great Lawn. With black American poverty levels being the
highest out of any race at the time of the Great Depression, 20% of the entire
US population of poor, it is evident that many of them were required to
experience the same, if not worse, living conditions as the south in the north.
In 1934 the practice of redlining housing areas came into existence through the
National Housing Act of 1934, which practiced reinforcing the poor inner city
living conditions facing many black Americans in the New Deal Years until the
1980s. The housing programmes were equivalently described as a ‘state-
sponsored system of segregation’, as the government’s efforts were clearly
primarily designed to provide housing to white, middle-class, lower-middle
class families, leaving black Americans and other people of colour out of the
new suburban communities and pushed into the urban housing projects
instead. And so despite the move from south to north in the Great Migration,
much of the northern black Americans became generationally trapped or
financially stuck living in these urban areas, later known as ghettoes and hoods.
And finally, the 1960s all the way up to the 21st century saw a pattern of black
Americans migrating back to the southern states and returning to the area of
their or their parents’ birthplace. By 1970, black Americans were more
urbanised than the average American population, and by 1970s, only 53% of
black Americans lived in the Old south. 40% of black Americans lived in the
northeast and Midwest and 7% in the west. Approximately 2/3 of the black
American migrants who moved back to the Old South in the years 1965-70
returned to the area of their or their parents’ birthplace. From 1975-80, at
least 41% of black American migrants moving south were return migrants. High
crime rates and limited job opportunities in the north, as well as new job
opportunities rising in the south, economically incentivised the migration. From
the 1970s, the Old South offered far better job opportunities as the region
experienced economic growth. The north and Midwest became known as the
Rust Belt as heavy industry went into decline as a result of the 1973 Oil Crisis.
Once booming cities such as Flint in Michigan experienced heavy
unemployment rates as a result. And so, by the 21st century, according to a
Census in 2000, 54% of black Americans lived in the Old South. And so
evidently, percentagewise, black American distribution was unchanged in terms
of the South, but with the increasing black population in other areas of the
North and Midwest due to an increase in childbirth due to a better ease of life,
the number is significant in speculating that black Americans maintained
majority population percentages in the South, although still not as high as the
90% during the Jim Crow eras.
And so ultimately, although there were majo
June 2021
Yes
 The Supreme Court
Slaughterhouse decision 1873
opened the floodgates to state
challenges to the rights of
black citizens, thus negating
much of the impact of the 14th
Amendment.
 In 1876, the United States v
Reese case ruled that the 15th
Amendment didn’t
automatically grant the right to
vote to anyone. This was used
to slowly reduce the number of
black voters in southern states.
 1883 Supreme Court
judgements ruled that the
1875 Civil Rights Act was
invalid, thereby negating many
of the landmark changes
brought about during the
Reconstruction period.
 Plessy v Ferguson 1896, by
embracing the concept of
‘separate but equal’, enabled
legal segregation. It was
quickly followed by state laws
establishing separate facilities
for black and white Americans.
 Williams v Mississippi 1898
failed to overturn the changes
made to the Mississippi State
Constitution in 1890.
No
 The Supreme Court was not
responsible for instigating
legislative obstacles to civil
rights; they were just the
enabler of it.
 The decisions of individual
states to deprive black
Americans of their political
rights was the most significant
obstacle to civil rights such as
Mississippi in 1890.
 The creeping and widespread
proliferation of Jim Crow laws,
extending social segregation
throughout the southern
states, was a serious obstacle
to civil rights.
 The hostility and obstruction of
Presidents, such as Andrew
Johnson, was a significant
obstacle to black American civil
rights.
 Increasing support for white
organisations, such as the KKK
and the White League,
hindered the advancement of
civil rights for black Americans.
There is much debate surrounding whether the rulings of the Supreme Court
were the most significant obstacle to the advancement of civil rights in the
years 1865-1900. Although arguably the most important wall that the civil
rights movement failed to cross, the Supreme Court’s relative importance to
influences by the southern Democrats and the new legislative policies of Jim
Crow in the south were in my opinion more important. Sure, the Supreme
Court contributed negatively towards civil rights in the 1870s, 80s, and 90s, but
the gains made by southern Democrats in the south resulted in peak
disenfranchisement of the black populace since the 15th Amendment, as well as
the proliferation of Jim Crow and white terror groups being a direct product of
Democrat victory in the south as well as in the federal government itself.
Without the influence of the southern Democrats, later stage legislation would
not have been passed in Congress. By the end of this essay, a conclusive
statement will be made regarding the accuracy of the question.
To begin, though, let’s consider the Supreme Court Slaughterhouse decision of
1873 which opened the floodgates to state challenges to the rights of black
citizens, thus quickly negating much of the impact of the 14th Amendment,
established in the US Constitution only 5 years earlier. In 1873, the US Supreme
Court ruled that the 14th Amendment protected the rights of national
citizenship, such as the right to interstate travel, but it did not protect the civil
rights that individual Americans received from state citizenship. This proved to
be incredibly important in shifting the tides within the south, as by 1875,
Radical Reconstruction was on the wane, since Democrats made sweeping
gains in the 1874 congressional elections, granting them federal power on top
of southern state dominance. The negation of much of the power of the 14 th
Amendment meant that most of the 4 million freedmen (since black Americans
lived predominantly in the South) were subject to further escalation of
problems with white superiors, reminiscent to the days before the 13th
Amendment.
Furthermore, only 3 years later in 1876, the United States v Reese case ruled
that the 15th Amendment didn’t automatically grant the right to vote to
anyone. This was used to slowly reduce the number of black voters in southern
states. Yet another weakening of a new Amendment, this time from 1870,
where the Court’s judgment stated that the 15th Amendment did not give the
right to vote to anyone. Several years later, in the 1883 Supreme Court cases,
the Court confirmed the decision made in United States v Reese of 1876, which
essentially became one of the building blocks in the introduction of Jim Crow
and the disenfranchisement of black Americans in the South.
Speaking of the 1883 cases, namely the United States v Stanley, United States v
Ryan, United States v Nicholas, United States v Singleton, and Robinson et ux. v
Memphis and Charleston Railroad, were all cases against issues such as racial
discrimination in hotels in Missouri (2 of them), in theatres in San Francisco,
California and New York City (a further 2), and a 5th involving racial
discrimination on a railway. The complainants collectively preached that the
rights given to them by President Grant’s Civil Rights Act passed by Congress in
1875, which granted black Americans many public amenities equal to their
white counterparts were violated. Their complaints also included the 14 th and
13th Amendments. However, in October 1883, the 8-1 majority decision by the
Court initiated what became known as the Jim Crow Era, as the Court declared
the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to be unconstitutional, effectively deleting much of
the progress made by black Americans in the Reconstruction era. As far as
breaking the 14th Amendment, the Court declared that it outlawed specific
actions by state governments only, such as the right to vote or to sit on a jury,
not individual acts of discrimination, essentially appeasing de jure racial
discrimination and hate. As a result of the decision, most of the gains made by
black Americans during Reconstruction were removed. Black Americans were
now open to racial discrimination by individuals and businesses across the USA.
Fast-forwarding to the late 1890s, and Jim Crow is running rampant. However,
the landmark decision of Plessy Ferguson 1896 and Williams v Mississippi 1898
were 2 of the most radically oppressive legislation passed by the Supreme
Court since the abolishment of slavery. Take Plessy v Ferguson, which
embraced the concept of ‘separate but equal’ services for blacks and whites
respectively. The complainant, Homer Plessy, and his lawyer lost the case of
challenging the Louisiana Law of 1890 which demanded ‘separate but equal’
accommodation on railroads for black and non-white people. The Court went
on to argue that segregating facilities posed no problem, as long as the facilities
were equal. This kickstarted the de facto discrimination of black and whites,
now federally accepted, that became commonplace across the United States of
America until the Brown Decision of 1954. Regarding Williams v Mississippi, the
case complainant failed to overturn the changes made to the Mississippi State
Constitution of 1890, which enlisted a $2 poll tax and intense literacy tests for
all voters, which heavily disenfranchised the black state populace. The
Constitution also established stringent residency requirements, which further
targeted black voters who may have recently moved to the state or who lived
in more transient conditions. These measures collectively succeeded in
disenfranchising a significant portion of the black population in Mississippi. As
a result, the number of registered black voters dramatically decreased, and the
political representation of African Americans in the state significantly
diminished.
Ultimately speaking, the Supreme Court certainly played a role in being a
significant obstacle to the advancement of civil rights in the Reconstruction and
Jim Crow Eras, yet there is one key point that needs to be made regarding the
legitimate power of the Court.
The Supreme Court was notably not responsible for instigating legislative
obstacles to civil rights; they were just the enabler of it. The Supreme Court
famously held and still holds no power towards actually enforcing Court
decisions. Without support from both Congress and President, Court decisions
remained Court decisions. This is incredibly important in rationalizing my
introductory point about the influence of southern Democrats in the passing of
such legislation and their role in playing the absolutely strongest obstacle the
civil rights movement faced for several decades.
For instance, the decisions of individual states to deprive black Americans of
their political rights could be considered the most significant oppressive
obstacle to civil rights and voting rights for black Americans, such as the update
to the Mississippi State Constitution mentioned earlier. This wasn’t exclusive to
Mississippi, however, as Louisiana is yet another example of a state destroying
voting rights to non-whites.
The Louisiana Grandfather Clause of 1898 was disastrous in its effects. The
Clause was ostensibly designed to exempt individuals from new voting
requirements if they or their ancestors had been eligible to vote before the
Civil War. Specifically, it stated that a person could only vote if they met new
literacy and property requirements unless their grandfather had been eligible
to vote before January 1, 1867. This date was chosen because it was before the
Reconstruction Acts were enacted, which granted voting rights to African
American men in the South. With a similar aim to the Mississippi Constitutional
Convention of 1890, the law was passed with strong intention to severely
weaken the 15th Amendment’s impact. Like the constitutional changes in
Mississippi, the Grandfather Clause had a profound impact on the black vote in
Louisiana. In 1896, the estimated number of black Americans registered to vote
in Louisiana was 130,000; in 1904, the estimated number was 1,342. These
examples of southern Democrat influence were only a limited couple of their
damaging actions.
Because the creeping and proliferation of Jim Crow laws, which extended social
segregation throughout the southern states, were historically attributed to
them. As stated earlier, the Supreme Court could only make Court decisions,
while the government could actually enforce them. The gains made by
Southern Democrats in the 1870s and 1880s enabled them to easily enforce
legislation without the fear of losing a 2/3 majority vote. Even prior to the
proliferation of the southern Democrats in Congress and Office came a
southern Democrat himself, President Andrew Johnson, who after Abraham
Lincoln’s assassination, built a frame of opposition to the civil rights movement.
Throughout his single term, his attempts at vetoing the 1866 Civil Rights Act, as
well as the extension to the Freedmen’s Bureau symbolized a distinction
between what the Radical Republicans of Congress believed to be best for the
nation and its people, and what Andrew believed to be best. Impeached,
although acquitted by a singular vote, his unpopularity was a stark contrast to
the popularity of somebody like his mindset in office and within Congress in
the form of southern Democrats in the 80s and 90s. Most importantly,
President Johnson did more bad than good, mostly bad, barely any good,
towards the civil rights movement, and his overstay in office may have possibly
resulted in a domino effect in enabling the south to rebuild itself in a much less
punishing way than what the Radical Republicans wished, for he allowed the
proliferation of the Black Codes in states such as Mississippi and Florida, which
became the blueprint for Jim Crow a decade later.
Finally, let’s consider the increasing support for white terrorist, white
supremacist organisations, such as the KKK and the Knights of the White
Camelia in the period. The KKK, which began as a group of pranksters dressing
up and engaging in light-hearted intimidation of black Americans, quickly
changed into a major terror organisation. Klansmen violence was prominent,
especially at its height in 1869-71. In the autumn of 1870, after the ratification
of the 15th Amendment which gave black males the vote, nearly every black
church and black schoolhouse in Tuskegee, Alabama, was burned down. In
1871, 500 masked men laid siege to the Union County Gaol and lynched 8 black
prisoners. Lynching was too prominent in the 70s and 80s, with lynching rates
from 1868-76 standing at 50-100 per year, and in the 80s an average of 182 per
year. The role of the Knights of the White Camelia led to the single biggest loss
of life of black Americans during Reconstruction. This occurred in 1873, in
Colfax, Louisiana, where black people began drilling with weapons in fear of
attack by white terror groups. On Easter Sunday, armed with a small cannon
and rifles, white men slaughtered 50 black Americans. When the black
Americans offered to surrender under a flag of truce, the massacre continued.
In total, 280 black Americans were killed. The Colfax Massacre was one of
many examples of disgusting repression and racial hatred towards black society
for the sake of white supremacy. As it can be seen, the KKK and several other
white supremacist groups were unfortunately a continuous fear amongst the
black Americans of the United States, with much of the KKK’s actions being not
only ignored, but oftentimes endorsed by southern state governments, leading
to thousands of innocents losing their life at the hands of the white men.
Overall, although the rulings of the Supreme Court in 1865-1900 were certainly
near the top of the list that included obstacles to civil rights, much of what
came along with them can be attributed to a single source: the southern
Democrats. Not only were they the ones in government who instigated the
Supreme Court decisions in formal legislation, but they had also contributed
immensely, directly, and indirectly, to the top black grievances for many
decades. Be it voting rights or lynching, or simply the humiliating inferiority of
being black, a mere distinction in skin colour came at a sociopolitical cost for
black Americans under southern Democrat leadership and rule. Sure, the 1873
and 1876 cases were monumental, and can be argued to be without the
influence of much southern Democrat power as it was still within the
Reconstruction period, but what came in the latter period of the question was
undoubtedly a result of southern Democrat influence and power over Court
decisions, state government legislation, and most importantly, a successful
interpretation and rehash of President Andrew Johnson’s federal blueprint, a
southern Democrat, but only more oppressive.
June 2021
Yes
 The Boycott brought MLK to
national prominence as a civil
rights campaigner and he used
this to become the figurehead
of the movement over the next
decade.
 The Boycott represented a
more direct attitude to protest
on behalf of the NAACP. Rosa
Parks was deliberately chosen
to test racial segregation on
public buses with the aim of
using this to dismantle the Jim
Crow Laws.
 The Boycott enshrined the
principle of nonviolent protest
as the central platform of
protest for the civil rights
movement.
 The legal challenge to the
Boycott culminated in the
Supreme Court ruling, Browder
v Gayle, which ruled that
segregation on public transport
violated the 14th Amendment
and so re-energised the civil
rights movement.
 The Boycott led to the
foundation of other
campaigning groups, such as
the SCLC thereby broadening
the civil rights movement.
No
 Impact of Civil rights campaign
groups, such as the NAACP and
CORE, had existed before the
Boycott and continued to do so
afterwards.
 Landmark Supreme Court
judgements such as Brown v
Board of Education had
profound effects on the
movement by enabling legal
challenges to segregation in all
areas of society.
 The protests in 1963 in places
such as Birmingham Alabama,
were peaceful, yet deliberately
provocative, with a view to
mobilising TV audiences to
apply political pressure.
 The Civil Rights Acts of 1964
and 1968 as well as the Voting
Rights Act 1965 gave
encouragement to the
movement to broaden their
campaigns to target economic
equality especially in the cities.
 Growth of a black middle class
and increasing educational and
political opportunities, esp
after 2000, led to a decline in
direct campaigning and
organised protest.
 Obama W
There is much debate surrounding whether the Montgomery Bus Boycott had
the most impact on the civil rights movement in the years 1954-2009. Although
there were many extremely positive and impacting conclusions that were made
after the Boycott, such as the rise of Martin Luther King into national
prominence and the informal declaration of nonviolent peaceful protest being
the standard for the movement, they were arguably not as important as other
key factors. These factors being the Supreme Court decisions made as a result
of the Boycott, as well as the roles of Presidents throughout the period in
signing new legislation and 21st Century symbolic and geographical notable
changes. However, the most important effects of the Boycott cannot be
understated, especially in regard to its blueprint-esque inspiration to the
foundation of other groups that developed around the same time or shortly
after. By the end of this essay, a conclusive judgment will be made.
To begin, let’s consider the boycott itself, having been planned out by the
NAACP. Interestingly, the Boycott represented a more direct attitude to protest
on behalf of the NAACP which was more typically known for its legal action
against Jim Crow and repressive legislation against black Americans. Rosa Parks
was deliberately chosen to test racial segregation on public buses with the aim
of using this newfound method of protest to dismantle the Jim Crow Laws. The
Boycott lasted from 1955-56 (starting on 1 December) and there was another
notable presence in the leadership team for this Boycott. Although Parks was
the one getting arrested, the NAACP needed a local black American to publicise
the protest. Therefore, they chose a Baptist minister, newly arrived in the city, a
native of Atlanta, Georgia. He was Martin Luther King.
With King as leader of the Boycott, a local organisation was formed to ensure
the Boycott was effective, which was the Montgomery Improvement
Association (MIA). The notable thing to consider is that the Boycott brought
Martin Luther King to national prominence as a civil rights campaigner, and he
used this to become the informal figurehead of the movement over the next
decade. The success of the Boycott further enshrined the principle of
nonviolent protest as the central platform of protest for the civil rights
movement. This was incredibly important, as with both of the points
mentioned above, the white populace of the United States quickly became
intrigued and adapted towards this newfound, peaceful (inspired by Mahatma
Ghandi) protest methods for humanitarian rights. The effects of these could be
seen throughout much of the rest of the era.
It would be incorrect to mention the victory of the Boycott without specifying
its intensity and the basis which it was done in. The legal challenge to the
Boycott culminated in the Supreme Court ruling Browder v Gayle, which ruled
that segregation on public transport violated the 14th Amendment, therefore
reenergising the civil rights movement. Being one of the first main victories by
the NAACP and the civil rights movement generally in this era, it contributed
towards the blueprint which much of the future civil rights activism groups
followed. The decision gave the MIA great constitutional and political backing.
And after 381 days, on 21 December 1956, the bus boycott came to an end,
with MLK becoming one of the first black Americans to ride at the front of a
Montgomery bus, the very thing which they boycotted for. Being a grass-roots
mass protest by black Americans who adopted a nonviolent way of voicing
their grievances, it was extremely successful in its legislative achievements, as
well as leading to the creation of the SCLC in 1957.
At the mention of other campaigning groups earlier, it’s important to note how
the Boycott influenced them, such as the SCLC and SNCC. The creation and
widespread adoption of the nonviolent methods of Montgomery, as well as the
widespread appeal of the new groups, with SNCC playing the role of a youth
representative campaigning organisations, broadened the civil rights
movement. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, under MLK’s
leadership up until his untimely death, spread across the southern states,
further expanding its Montgomery-based blueprint of nonviolent protest for
racial equality, such as the Birmingham Protest of 1963, which news of police
racial brutality against nonviolent protest spread like wildfire across the nation,
signalling a new beginning for the civil rights movement. For the Student Non-
Violent Coordinating Committee, having been founded in February 1960, it too
captured the essence of the Montgomery Boycott. For example, the famous sit-
ins of 1 February 1960, where 4 black American students refused to leave a
white Americans only lunch counter, waiting to be served. The actions of these
students led to copycat lunch counter demonstrations across the South in
February-April 1960.
Ultimately, it can be seen how positively influential the Montgomery Bus
Boycott was in shifting the tides of protest methods towards nonviolence, as
well as the legal wins it garnered. However, the event alone wasn’t as
important as several other key aspects during the period, both instantaneous
and across a long duration of time.
For instance, take the existence of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and
the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP)
prior to the Boycott, and the continuation of their existence. Not to mention
their prolific legal battles, particularly the NAACP. It was the NAACP that played
the complainant role in the Brown v Board of Education Case of 1954, where
the Supreme Court declared the end of ‘separate but equal’ de facto legislation
that was passed in the Plessy v Ferguson case of 1896. It was Thurgood
Marshall from the NAACP (lawyer) who fought this case and presented it and
overall achieved victory. The NAACP had been created many years prior to the
Boycott, on 1909, and the victory of Brown 45 years later signified the
culmination of its efforts towards civil rights. Regarding CORE, it was founded in
1942, and too believed in nonviolent protest. CORE was brought to national
prominence in 1961 with its Freedom Rides, where 4 white and 4 black
students took interstate buses from Virginia to Mississippi, aiming to test the
existing law on desegregation. In 1946 and 1960, the US Supreme Court
declared racial segregation on interstate buses unconstitutional. A bus carrying
the Freedom Riders was violently attacked by a white mob and the bus was
burnt, which was televised by the media (national press) and reported, causing
uproar outside the South. Freedom Rides such as these existed continually
after, too, in the South, further showing the spirit of CORE members. The aims
of CORE were realised, as under Robert F Kennedy (head of US Justice
Department and brother to President John), orders were issued to enforce
racial integration on interstate buses, effective from 1 November 1961.

Now that’s out of the way, let’s return to the Supreme Court and President, as
mentioned earlier. Landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown I had
profound effects on the civil rights movement by enabling legal challenges to
segregation in all areas of society. With the unanimity of the Brown I case
victory in 1954, the Boycott was seen as a viable attempt at what it attempted
and succeeded at achieving. Without the appointment of Chief Justice Earl
Warren by President Eisenhower a year prior, this case would not have been as
successful as it was, effectively kickstarting the end to Jim Crow, as the case
outlawed racial segregation within schools federally, deleting the ‘separate but
equal’ rhetoric of the Jim Crow Laws of the late 19th century. For Presidents, we
must consider the roles of John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson in their
cooperation with the civil rights movement. However, the events of 1963 must
first be spoken about.
The protests of 1963 in places such as Birmingham Alabama by the SCLC were
peaceful, yet deliberately provoked existing racial problems within the south.
With the media reporting on the occurrences of the protest, such as the
ruthlessness of the Birmingham city police chief, Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor.
Determined to stop the demonstration, his police force used police dogs and
water cannons to stop the demonstration, effectively attacking and arresting
many of the protestors. These incidents were filmed and shown on US
television and broadcast across the country. King himself was arrested and
wrote ‘A Letter from Birmingham Jail’ to highlight his non-violent civil rights
credentials. Although a peaceful end to the confrontation was negotiated by
the SCLC and local businessmen regarding job and shop facility segregation and
racial discrimination, the event was publicized by the media and contributed to
later Civil Rights legislation. To continue, Martin Luther King’s speech at the
steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC, in front of 250,000, on 28
August 1963, quickly established itself as one of the greatest speeches of the
20th century. ‘I have a dream’ that one day soon racial discrimination would
come to an end, he exclaimed. The combination of these two events prompted
President Kennedy to go on nationwide television to announce that he would
introduce a civil rights bill to Congress to outlaw racial discrimination.
With the assassination of President Kennedy soon later in the year, President
Johnson in 1964 was determined to fulfil Kennedy’s pledge. This culminated in
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, amongst many other points, brought an end
to legal segregation in the USA. For example, in Title II, the Act outlawed racial
segregation for all public facilities and accommodation, a repeat of the 1875
Civil Rights Act under Grant, as well as Title VII, which forbade all discrimination
in employment on the grounds of race, colour, religion, national origin, and sex.
This was seen as a major triumph for those campaigning for gender equality in
the USA. Finally, the Act set up the Equal Employment Opportunities
Commission (EEOC) to ensure that the Civil Rights Act was implemented.
Having attacked both de jure and de facto segregation across the USA, the Act
was shortly followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Act simply yet
effectively outlawed literacy tests and provided for federal examiners to
replace state government officials with the power to register votes. The issue
of poll taxes had already been addressed in 1964 with the 24th Amendment to
the US Constitution, which outlawed their use. The Voting Rights Act proved to
be the most effective use of federal power in the electoral system since the end
of Reconstruction in 1877. By the end of 1965, 250,000 new black voters had
been added to the electorates of the southern states. By the end of 1966, only
4/13 southern states had less than 50% of the potential black electorate as
registered voters. The Act was readopted by the US Congress in 1970, 1975,
and 1982, and stands out as a major landmark in enabling black Americans to
play a full part in the US political system. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 too
contributed to Movement, as it outlawed racial prejudice and discrimination
within the sale or rent of real estate based on colour and race amongst other
things.
These Acts did not only showcase the legislative power of the government in
making radical change to the social and political parts of the USA, but also
encouraged the movement to broaden their campaigns to target economic
equality, especially in the cities, such as trade unions, etc.
This economic growth can be spotted in the growth of a black middle class and
increasing educational and political opportunities, especially in the 21 st century,
which notably led to a decline in direct campaigning and organised protest.
What can be taken out of this is that black Americans across the nation became
more and more satisfied with their increasing civil rights. With less and less
organised protest, outside police brutality incidents, the black populace
seemed to have finally become at least close to being fully integrated within
American society, living amongst their white counterparts and neighbours. The
21st Century had another splash of symbolic victory for the Civil Rights
Movement, although indirect: the Presidential victory of Barack Obama.
Symbolically speaking, the election of a black man to President was
monumental. Although perhaps not so much legislatively advancing, the mere
fact that a black man headed the United States government office was
something noteworthy. It was seen by millions as the culminated efforts of the
black civil rights movement hitting the ceiling and moving beyond what was
prior issues of sociopolitical injustices. With the election of Obama in 2009, the
United States did not only establish a new era of sociopolitical equality, but
also likely restored some faith in its claims of being the land of freedom.
Overall, although the Bus Boycott was the first singular event that was notable
in inspiring much what came after it, the Boycott wasn’t as important in key
decisions made by the US Government and Supreme Court in civil rights affairs.
Jan 2022
Yes
 Sweeping gains were made by
the Democrats in the 1874
congressional elections and
enabled them to continue their
opposition and held end
reconstruction in the southern
states.
 Democrats supported white
terror group activity, helped to
undermine Republican Party
organisation in the south, and
thereby threatened civil rights
gains.
 Southern Democrats’ influence
ensured that ND programmes
mainly benefited whites.
 Southern Democrats’
influence, after 1933, ensured
that no effective attempt was
made by the federal
government to interfere with
the Jim Crow Laws.
 FDR’s reluctance, his need for
southern Democrat support in
the years 1933-37, and their
control of congressional
committees, ensured that the
ND didn’t lead to any major
extension to civil rights.
 Block anti-lynching legislation
No
 Presidential reluctance to
protect the rights of black
Americans was an obstacle,
such as Andrew Johnson’s
madness, Grant’s unwillingness
to use federal troops to
suppress white terror, and
FDR’s lack of support for anti-
lynching legislation.
 Greater concern for other
political and economic
priorities limited focus on black
American rights, such as
prioritising overcoming the
difficulties caused by the
economic depressions after
1873 and 1933.
 Despite opposition from
southern Democrats, Congress
passed the Reconstruction Acts
of 1867. These acts led to black
voting majorities in 5 southern
states.
 Some southern Democrats, in
the 1930s, campaigned to
address black American
grievances, notably Huey P.
Long.
Jan 2022
Yes
 Obama’s election was a
symbolically important event
for the black community as he
was the first black American
President.
 The modernity and slickness of
Obama’s campaign was a
significant event in highlighting
how the changing geography
of black voters could be
utilised to effect change in
American politics.
 Obama’s election was
significant, to many, for the
message it projected to the
international community about
America being more politically
comfortable with diversity.
 Obama’s election produced a
white, conservative backlash.
No
 The Brown decision (1954) was
a more significant event as it
sounded the death knell for
the Jim Crow Laws throughout
the USA and was a catalyst in
launching the modern Civil
Rights Movement.
 The Brown ruling was vital in
overturning Plessy v Ferguson
1896, which had
controversially and divisively
created the concept of
‘separate but equal’.
 The Montgomery Bus Boycott
was a hugely significant event
as it helped launch the career
of MLK and highlighted how
peaceful action could lead to
meaningful change for black
Americans.
 The passing of the Civil Rights
Acts of 1964 and 1968 and the
Voting Rights Act 1965 were
more significant events as they
provided a legislative canon for
advancing the rights of black
Americans.
 The assassination of MLK was a
hugely significant event for
black American advocates to
rally around and later led to a
national day of remembrance.
There is much debate surrounding whether the election of Barack Obama as
President in 2008 was the most significant event for black Americans in the
years 1954-2009. Although symbolically significant, I do tend to lean towards
more legislatively and practically important advancements in civil rights in this
era. sure, Obama’s election was a symbolically important moment in US history
as well as how well it was executed being a marvel, plus the reactions of
national and international communities being incredibly expressive. But the
Supreme Court cases of the 1950s and 60s, as well as the combined efforts of
Congress, Presidents, and civil rights campaigners and organisations were all
arguably more important than the election of Obama as President due to their
long-lasting, direct impact to the lives of black Americans in 1954-2009. By the
end of this essay, a conclusive judgment will be made.
To begin, let’s consider the symbolic victory of Obama’s election. Never once
did much of the United States believe that there would be a black American US
President until Obama emerged victor in 2008. For hundreds of years, black
Americans were severely inferior to their white counterparts socio-politically.
However, the tides certainly shifted with Obama’s victory, especially due to the
fact that Obama was a political nobody just over a decade prior. Having won
with such youth (relative to the average age of former presidents being much
higher than his, in his 40s) and political inexperience relative to his Democrat
Primary opponent Senator Hillary Clinton, and Republican Candidate John
McCain, his rise to the highest seat in the US political office was most definitely
seen and revered by many Americans across the nation amongst all races and
colour to be the result of the culminated efforts of the civil rights movement
for hundreds of years.
Furthermore, the modernity and slickness of Obama’s campaign was a
significant event in highlighting how the changing geography of black voters
could be utilised to effect change in American politics. Obama’s charismatic
leadership and strategic campaigning, where he broadened his coalition with
all political parties, succeeded in convincing even the most conservative black
Americans in the federal populace. President Obama notably won 95% of the
black American vote, up from 84% who voted for the Democrat Party candidate
John Kerry in 2004. He also received 65% of the Latino vote, 13% higher than in
2004. Having won much of the Northern and Western States, such as Illinois
and California, and losing several Southern States such as Alabama, was
indicative of Obama’s team’s smart campaigning in utilizing the effects of the
Great Migration and general movement of black Americans away from the
South by the 21st century. Furthermore, Obama’s use of technology to
fundraise his campaign was exemplified by his campaign attracting over 3
million donors, and $650 million more than the combined spending of both
major candidates in the 2004 presidential election. His campaign team
effectively used Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and www.barackobama.com to
connect with young voters. Research had shown that 42% of 18–29-year-olds
used the internet as the basis of their coverage of campaign news. Also, This
strategy also proved very effective in fundraising. Using the internet, Obama
raised $6.9 million compared to only $4.2 million for the Clinton campaign.
Campaign contributions to Obama came from large numbers of small
donations rather than large contributors. The average contribution was less
than $200. Therefore, Obama’s intelligent use of the internet to raise support
and fund his campaign could be seen as incredibly important as not only was
he the first President to exploit this well, but also the first and only black
American President to do so, naysaying the white supremacist naysayers who
started a wide backlash against Obama’s victory in 2009.
Producing a white backlash was evidently probably looking back at how history
had treated black American victories. This was especially hateful against ethnic
minorities or supporters of Obama amongst sufferers of white guilt and plain
racists. It was very often that posters or signs or anything that promoted the
election of Obama were often torn down, with many school students too
reporting classmates and colleagues chanting racist remarks about Obama,
sometimes even sending death threats to him or wishing death upon him. Such
disgusting behaviour was certainly learned and passed down by their parents
or caregivers. The rise of interest in the Ku Klux Klan became apparent, too, as
crosses were burned in yards of Obama supporters in Hardwick, N.J., and
Apolacan Township, Pa. In addition to this, A black teenager in New York City
said he was attacked with a bat on election night by four white men who
shouted 'Obama.' As we can tell, hate crimes against minorities, particularly
black Americans, were commonplace after the election of Obama, signifying
the importance of the event.
But the international community had a contrasting reaction to his election, for
his election was to many a message towards the international community that
America had finally become more political comfortable with diversity. Also,
many saw his presidency as a break from the unilateralist foreign policies of the
Bush administration, contributing to improved global perceptions of the United
States. It was often seen as the start of an era of ‘post-racial’ America, at least
politically. In October 2009, he was informed that he had won the Nobel Peace
Prize for his actions in foreign affairs, an area he felt was one of his weaknesses
in the presidential campaign. So clearly Obama’s victory was seen as a step in
the right direction, since much of Africa by then had been liberated particularly
– from its white colonizers, such as South Africa – and the election of a black
man to US head of office was certainly an achievement to behold.
June 2022
Yes
 Under FDR aid provided by ND
agencies, especially in the
Southern States, was
significant and a radical
departure from earlier times.
 During FDR’s presidency the
switch in voting habits of black
Americans, with 71%
supporting him in 1936,
indicated gains by them.
 One of FDR’s key ND agencies,
the Works Progress
Administration (WPA), had 1
million black Americans
working for it by 1939.
 Enough black Americans, like
Mary McLeod Bethune, found
themselves in leadership
positions that there was even
talk of a ‘black cabinet’ of FDR
advisers.
No
 FDR did nothing to tackle the
continuation of Jim Crow Laws
in many of the southern states
and failed to introduce
legislation to address black
grievances like anti-lynching
legislation.
 Lynchings, which were
commonplace in the late 19th
century, increased in FDR’s first
year as President.
 FDR did little to combat the
continued influence of
southern white Americans in
the Democratic Party, which
acted as a brake on any
advances in civil rights.
 During FDR’s presidency
differential treatment of blacks
continued. Many of the ND
agencies like the CCC
continued to disadvantage ‘em.
 During FDR’s presidency legal
rulings such as Grovey v
Townsend 1935 challenged
remaining Reconstruction
legislation.
 Segregation in housing policy
continued like FHA continuing
to refuse to give mortgages.
 Nothing done to ameliorate
the Supreme Court rulings.
There is much debate surrounding whether or not President Roosevelt failed to
seriously address the political and economic problems which black Americans
had faced since the late 19th century. Having underwent the Great Depression,
the United States of American elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt to lead
them through it, and his plan came along with the New Deal. Despite this,
much of the New Deal and much of his terms’ national advancements during
the Great Depression lacked true civil rights progression, as the continuation of
Jim Crow Laws, instances of lynchings, the influence of southern Democrats in
federal and state affairs, as well as failures of the New Deal at implementing a
segregationist-free workforce, and the availability of equal black mortgages to
whites were all severe problems unaddressed by FDR. However, it’s also worth
noting that the New Deal agencies did contribute positively in some respects to
the lives of black Americans, in particular the WPA and the general southern
state aided given to the general populace at the time, whether black or white.
Furthermore, legal rulings were made during his terms, and black cabinet
members began appearing out of thin air; whilst black Americans began voting
Democrat more and more with every election, displaying a sense of acceptance
by the blacks towards the change that came with the New Deal. By the end of
this essay, a conclusive judgment will be made regarding the validity of the
statement.
To begin, let’s consider the general scope of black American standards of living
and civil rights up until FDR’s election in 1932. Due to the proliferation of Jim
Crow in 1883-c1900 through the Plessy v Ferguson case, the 1883 cases, and
the strengthening of southern Democrat dominance, power, and influence in
the south, much of the national, especially at the southern state level,
advancements made by black Americans during the Reconstruction era was
deleted. This continued throughout the 20th century, and unfortunately no true
changes were made by FDR’s administration towards the ‘separate but equal’
de facto segregation that was popularized so widely across the south. Coming
from New York, a northern state, FDR understood better a larger sense of
equality between black and white Americans, but despite this, he proceeded to
nominate a Texan vice-presidential candidate, whom he won with. This allowed
the continuation of the southern white Americans in the Democratic Party to
be the main driving force in not only Congress levels through filibusters, but
also at the Presidential level, as FDR was now forced to appease the south by a
lack of implementation of federal legislation towards black grievances, such as
anti-lynching laws.
Lynchings were a commonplace practice in the late 19th century, with an
average of 182 lynching per year in the 1880s. Funnily enough, lynchings were
cut back on significantly as the KKK dwindled in power, yet they increased in
FDR’s first year as President. In 1932, lynching figures dropped below double
digits for the first time. Yet under FDR’s first year, they rose to 28. Several
attempts to declare lynching a criminal offence had been made before 1932,
such as the Dyer Bill, but had failed to pass. Several further attempts were
made in the 1930s, which culminated in the Gavagan Bill, which passed the
House of Representatives in 1937 miraculously but failed to become law as it
was defeat in the US Senate through filibusters led by southern Democrats.
Essentially, filibusters were the deliberate use of extensive speechmaking in
order to prevent a vote or proposal in the US Senate. The southern Democrats
often utilized filibusters to delay the passing of legislation, with many of them
often being given up on in time. In addition to this, FDR himself was reluctant
to deal with the subject of lynching, as he told the secretary of the NAACP,
Walter White, that he was unwilling to challenge the power of southern
Democrat congressmen and senators as he feared that an anti-lynching law
would alienate them, saying he needed their support for other New Deal
legislation that would provide work and social welfare for poor and
unemployed Americans, including black Americans. This essentially meant that
FDR claimed to have been focusing on the economic standpoint of the black
Americans, rather than the sociopolitical.
However, with much of the New Deal agencies, there was a significant
differential treatment of black Americans that continued to disadvantage black
Americans, such as in the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Agricultural
Advancement Administration. Starting with the latter, sharecropping
predominated among black farmers in the south, and small groups of rich
white farmers dominated agriculture. Having Congress put aside $100 million
for the AAA, the rich white farmers dominated the country committees set up
to administer AAA funds. Although 700,000 farms existed in the cotton growing
area of the USA, the vast majority of the money received for farmer
subsistence went to the large farms owned by white Americans, effectively
displaying a monopoly of corruption within the Administration. Between 1933-
34, 100,000 black tenant farmers and sharecroppers were forced off their land,
as white landlords reduced their acreage in order to qualify for AAA financial
payments. By 1940, approximately 200,000 black farmers had been driven off
their land. Regarding the CCC, the early years were racially integrated, and it
was even stated in the act of Congress that established the CCC that there
should be no racial discrimination in the CCC. However, these integrated camps
were disbanded in July 1935, when CCC director, Robert Fechner, issued a
directive ordering the complete segregation of black and white enrolees. Racial
discrimination towards blacks in the CCC and segregation wasn’t limited to the
south, as instances of this also existed in Pennsylvania, a northern state.
Finally, its important to also state that segregation in housing policy continued
such as the Federal Housing Agency continuing to refuse to give mortgages to
black families in traditionally white neighbourhoods. This, predictably, was a
result of the lack of willingness of white neighbourhoods in integrating black
culture and society within their own societies, as they deemed them socially
inferior, as thugs, crooks, criminals, and many more negative comparisons
made towards them.
As we can realize, much of FDR’s presidency wasn’t dedicated towards the
advancements of black American civil rights, both politically and economically,
as much of the New Deal benefitted white Americans, rather than their black
counterparts.
However, there were rare, although notable instances where the New Deal did
seriously benefit black Americans. Before we get into that, it’s important to
consider the fact that the New Deal itself and its agencies and the aid provided
by said agencies, especially in the south, were significant and landmark
administrations that radically departed from earlier times, especially towards
the minor instances where the New Deal did help black Americans. Prior to
this, the quality of life of black Americans would have been irrelevant in
maintaining the state of the nation and its people, but the Great Depression
sincerely did turn the tides ever so slightly, as in some instances, black and
white Americans were treated as who they truly were: citizens of a starving
nation. A great example of this is the impact of the Works Progress
Administration, which had 1 million black Americans working for it by 1939.
Under Harry Hopkins, the relief agency had provided 350,000 black Americans
work every year between 1936-40. Its educational programmes employed over
5,000 black American teachers, and taught 250,000 black Americans how to
read and write, improving upon literacy levels. In the National Youth
Administration, the head of the Negro Affairs Department, black American
Mary McLeod Bethune, provided skills training for 500,000 young black
Americans. These examples of employment and educational prowess under the
New Deal are noteworthy, as they represented a significant detour from FDR’s
policies which often only benefited white Americans. It is a miracle that such
policies underwent reality despite the influence of the southern Democrats
federally.
To continue, it is noteworthy that there was a switch in voting habits of black
Americans during FDR’s era, with 71% supporting FDR in the 1936 presidential
election, indicating that the majority of black Americans did gain at least one
way or another under FDR’s first term. Many black Americans even revered FDR
as their saviour; somewhat of a depressing state many of them lived in. Many
black Americans voted for FDR rather than the Democrats, as his New Deal
programmes offered jobs and hope to many poor and unemployed black
Americans in the trenches of the Great Depression. In Chicago, the Democrat
vote rose from 27% in 1928 to 49% in 1932. Such examples of increased
support for the Democrat Party by black Americans can be looked back upon as
a bizarre phenomenon, as in factual bases, the New Deal provided them with a
fraction of the help given to white Americans, yet they cherished their
livelihood improvements, and the statistics show it.
Finally, it is noteworthy that there was a major increase in black Americans,
such as Mary McLeod Bethune, who found themselves in leadership positions
federally that there was even talk of a ‘black cabinet’ of FDR advisers. FDR
appointed several black advisors and civil rights advocates to advisory roles
within his administration. On the insistence of Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of FDR,
Mary was made his special adviser on minority affairs in 1935, the year she
founded her own civil rights organisation, the National Council of Negro
Women. The following year, she became the chairperson of an informal ‘black
cabinet’, who were a group of federally appointed black American officials to
help plan priorities for the black American community. Examples of important
members to the black cabinet were Mary, Robert Vann, assistant to the US
Attorney General, and Robert Weaver, adviser on Negro Affairs in the PWA.
Such contradiction to the removal of most, if not all, black legislatives and
political figures in the late 19th century, FDR did the unthinkable. Not only did
he have his own black cabinet, but he also, again under the insistence of his
wife, in early 1939, the prominent black American opera singer, Marion
Anderson, was invited to sing in Washington DC on Easter Sunday as part of a
national celebration. She was scheduled to sing at Constitution Hall, near the
White House. However, Constitution Hall was owned by an all-white
organisation, the Daughters of the American Revolution. They refused to allow
a black American to sing in their hall. As a result, on 27 February 1939, Eleanor
Roosevelt made a public display of resigning from the Daughters of the
American Revolution. Instead, she arranged for Marion Anderson to sing on the
steps of the Lincoln Memorial in central Washington DC. She got President FDR
to give public support and, on Easter Sunday, 75,000 people turned up to see
Marion Anderson sing. Even though they were invited, Vice President John
Nance Garner of Texas and all but one of the US Supreme Court failed to
appear. The event attracted the biggest crowd to hear a black American all the
way up until MLK’s ‘I have a dream’ speech in August 1963, signifying the
event’s radical existence during its time. This can be seen as incredibly
important, as although FDR was practically an appeasement toy for the
southern Democrats, he still did listen to his wife regarding black American
affairs and contributed to their political and social prowess through these.

In conclusion, though, President Roosevelt failed to seriously address the

political and economic problems which black Americans faced since the late
19th century. Jim Crow was still running rampant, he was a puppet to the
continuous southern Democrat influence nationwide, lynchings continued and
even rose during his first year in office, and barely any legislation, be it court
cases to implement anti-lynching laws, or the alphabet agencies, were seriously
passed with the benefit of black Americans in mind. Sure, the New Deal
agencies were a step in the right direction towards helping the nation
(arguable), especially the south, including black Americans, they still were only
a fraction of the help needed to sustain their recovery at the same rate as their
white counterparts. Sure, the WPA had 1 million black Americans working for it
by 1939. Sure, there were way more votes for FDR in the 1936 election by black
Americans. And sure, there was the informal creation of a black cabinet in his
administration, but FDR ultimately failed at what could have been an earlier fix
in the nation’s racist policies of ‘separate but equal’, the entirety of Jim Crow,
and the prevention of murders nationwide through the rise of lynching in his
terms. Therefore, FDR was a notable failure of a President when it comes to
civil rights, as much of which prevailed was the continuation of political and
economic inferiority of America’s black Americans.
June 2022
Yes
 The rather disparate nature of
the black power movement, with
no agreement as to exactly what
it stood for, limited its ability to
seriously influence political
events.
 Malcolm X failed to build
alliances with the radical
elements in the more widely
supported civil rights groups such
as SNCC and CORE. His influence
as an influential advocate of
militancy was cut short by his
assassination.
 Black Panther Party never
exceeded 5,000 members and
was largely confined to areas of
northern cities such as Chicago
and parts of Cali.
 Voting Rights Act 1965 had little
to do with black militancy,
showing legislation improved
political lives of blacks more.
 Campaigns of NAACP partly
resulted in key decisions like 1954
which predated black power
movement.
 Increasing number of elected
black Americans at both State
and National level as well as the
emergence of a significant black
middle class after 2000 was
indicative of the rejection of
black militancy.
 Obama W
No
 Black Power movement
encouraged more militant action
to tackle black poverty in inner
cities and staged high publicity
protests such as at the 1968
Olympics drawing attention to
inequality.
 Black Power movement not only
represented a change in tactical
strategy, but also a change in
mindset for black Americans. This
resulted in the development of a
more overt black cultural
movement.
 Malcolm X was a gifted orator
and this ability made him a
popular guest on TV, radio shows,
and on university campuses. This
helped disseminate an alternative
vision for black Americans.
 Race riots and direct militancy
protest in the years 2000-09
especially in response to police
shootings of black Americans like
Cincinnati 2001, Oakland 2009
kept the issue of race at the
forefront of political debate.
 Black Power movement helped
organize scores of community
self-help groups and institutions
that did not depend on whites
and mobilized black voters. Many
of these remained important into
the 21st century.
There is much debate surrounding whether the advocates of black militancy
made only limited contributions to improving the civil rights of black Americans
in the years 1954-2009. Black militancy made lasting efforts in influencing the
rapid radicalisation of a good portion of black American youth in this era
through the Black Power movement, the writings and leadership of Malcolm X,
as well as positively contributing towards the communities it dominated in,
particularly the north, such as in military protesting for change or community
efforts. In actuality, however, these were all merely focused in certain regions
as black militancy did not have as strong of a following or support in
comparison to the nonviolent methods of Martin Luther King and others. Black
Power was disorganised, Malcolm X failed to form connections with larger
organisations such as the SCLC, and the Black Panther Party failed to grow out
of its 5000 memberships. Also, much of the legislation achieved by the civil
rights movement as well as the rising elections of black Americans in
government positions were irrelevant to the movement and what it perhaps
achieved in other sectors of black society. By the end of this essay, a conclusive
judgment will be made.
To begin, let’s consider Black Power. Black Power was a phrase-turned
philosophy coined by the likes of Stokely Carmichael in the 1960s, who later
became the leader of the SNCC. The rather disparate nature of the black power
movement, with no agreement as to exactly what it stood for, limited its ability
to seriously influence political events. With the successful philosophies of black
American integration in American society by the likes of Martin Luther King,
Black Power was viewed by various different groups in different ways, but
generally as a more radical philosophy. MLK particularly was critical of it and
being the informal leader of the civil rights movement at the time, this
negatively impacted Black Power. Furthermore, with the adaptors of Black
Power, such as CORE, SNCC, and the Black Panther Party, all interpreting Black
Power differently, there was never a real coordination between all parties and
organisations towards a fundamental blueprint for what it stood for, resulting
in a lack of influence by it. Even Stokely Carmichael attempted to join the Black
Panther Party in 1968, offered the position of Prime Minister within the
organisation’s governing body, yet he departed less than a year later from his
position as his viewpoint of Black Power severely contrasted that of the BPP.
Speaking of the BBP, its membership never exceeded 5,000 members and was
largely confined to areas of northern cities such as Chicago and parts of
California. These were normally within ghetto areas, too, within capitals of
states. The lack of expansion of the Black Panther Party made it an extremely
outcast-like organisation in the civil rights movement, often being attributed to
its extreme radicalism and attempts and wishes of one day forming a
revolutionary coup to establish itself as the main national governmental body
of black Americans. In addition, the Party was self-declared Marxist-Leninist
from 1968, which resulted in two outcomes. A lack of participation of new
members, as seen above, due to the fear or disapproval of the communist
ideology of the Party, as well as common FBI spy infiltrations that severely
disfigured the coordination of the Party throughout its existence. All of these
contributed to the failure of the BBP in having a significant role in the civil
rights movement, both in number and radical ideology.
Regarding Malcolm X, he failed to build alliances with the radical elements in
the more widely supported civil rights groups such as the SNCC and CORE.
Having left the Nation of Islam in 1964, he sought to form alliances with the
new radical youth leaders of the SNCC and CORE, such as Stokely Carmichael of
SNCC and Floyd McKissick of CORE. Unfortunately for him, his continued
support to the idea of black separatism and an ultimate return to Africa, as well
as rejecting the nonviolent approach of MLK, urging for black victims to fight
back against police and white brutality, backfired, as both organisations
rejected his overtures as he tried to form an alliance with them. Having been
assassinated less than a year after he left the Nation of Islam in February 1965
by NOI gunmen, his influence as an influential advocate of militancy was cut
short, effectively allowing for the continued proliferation of nonviolence as the
main method of protest in the civil rights movement, for Malcolm X was
certainly the second most famous individual campaigner for civil rights in the
1960s, only second to MLK.
Now, with the advancement of legislation in the 1960s such as the Civil Rights
Acts of 1964 and 1968, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, these
legislative successes had little to do with black militancy showing legislation
improved political lives of black people way more than black militancy could
ever. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 officially outlawed national discrimination and
segregation, both de jure and de facto, and provided black Americans with
much of the same rights as white Americans in public amenities, job
employment, and many other forms of services and practices now
desegregates and equal. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the final blow to
southern Democrat instigation of voter restrictions, as it banned literacy and
property tests, just after the removal of the poll tax in the 24th Amendment to
the US Constitution just a year prior. This enfranchised the black Americans of
the States, and finally gave justice to what the 15th Amendment had attempted
to achieve under the heroism of the Radical Republicans in Congress post-Civil
War. And finally, the Fair Housing Act (also known as the Civil Rights Act of
1968) imposed a federal ban on racial discrimination in the rent or selling of
houses and property amongst other factors. And so ultimately, it was
legislation that saw an increase in black voters, black living standards, and
black/white support for the integration of all American citizens within a
combined American society of sociopolitical inclusion.
This sociopolitical inclusion resulted in increasing numbers of elected black
Americans at both State and National level as well as the emergence of a
significant black middle class after 2000, which is indicative of the rejection of
black militancy, as much of it was built on the fundamental belief of no
integration. With black senators such as Alan Keyes in the 1990s and Barack
Obama becoming Illinois State Senator in 2004, the rise of significant positions
in Office held by black Americans indicated a political integration of their
people. Furthermore, with Barack Obama’s symbolic and historic victory in the
2008 Presidential election, a stronger piece of information can be provided.
Not only did Obama’s victory in the election prove that black militancy failed to
achieve their wishes of a lack of integration of black Americans within
American society, but the victory of Obama was and still is certainly the most
significant Democratic, political victory in civil rights history. It teaches us that
the BBP’s wishes of a communist black America, and Malcolm X’s words of a
return to Africa ultimately failed to transpire into something important, for
Obama’s rise to the highest political office position was indicative of the
opposite outcome. And finally, with Obama achieving 95% of the black vote
nationally, as well as winning most of the northern and western states
electorally in his 2008 election campaign, the rise of a black middle class clearly
outweighed the effects of black militancy, as it was because of them that
Obama won, and it was because of them that nonviolent protest in the 20 th
century achieved some of its aims, much more than black militancy could ever.
However, it can be argued that black militancy did truly have some benefits. For
instance, the Black Power movement encouraged more militant action to tackle
black poverty in inner cities and staged high publicity protest, notably at the
1968 Olympics, drawing attention to racial inequality within the nation. During
their medal ceremony In Mexico City in 1968, Tommie Smith and John Carlos,
both black Americans representing USA in the 1968 Olympics and winning 1 st
and 3rd place in their track and field races, each raised a black-gloved fist during
the playing o the US national anthem. This action shook much of the national
and international world, as it was seen as a symbolic victory of publicizing the
Black Power movement, gaining publicity for it and attracting new supporters
of it. With this publicity stunt, as well as diversifying the civil rights movement,
bringing in a contained chaos, it can certainly be argued that Black Power did
achieve some success in the 1960s.
Black Power had also helped organise scores of community self-help groups
and institutions that did not depend on whites and mobilized black voters,
especially in the north and west. Many of these remained important into the
21st century, such as the BBP’s free breakfast programme for black children in
Oakland, 1967, and offering medical advice to the black residents in the
Oakland ghetto. It also monitored the levels of police brutality and the
harassment of black communities by law enforcement officers. This can be
seen as influential towards the race riots in Oakland later in the 21st century,
which much of the black populace now and becoming generationally inspired
with denying mistreatment from white officers.
Furthermore, Black Power did not only represent a change in in tactical
strategy, but also a change in mindset for black Americans. This resulted in the
development of a more overt black cultural movement. With some supporters
and leaders of the Black Power movement advocating for the recognition of
black culture and black African history, this achieved a cultural phenom of black
Americans identifying more with their cultural heritage and ancestral blood
than their American traumatic past. Also, Black Muslims in the NOI published
their own black history books, which stressed the glories of the points
mentioned above, and they rejected the term ‘negro’ as racially derogatory and
preferred ‘Afro-America’. With much of the NOI converts usually discarding
their original names to form Muslim names, removing possible slave owner last
names, this shifted the national dynamic in some black American groups, as
they were more drawn to their blackness rather than Americanness. Stokely
Carmichael himself stated that he was no longer fighting for ‘freedom’ in 1966,
but for ‘black power’, a philosophy of black importance in American society,
where they for many years were taught to be inferior to their white
counterparts. With black nationalism on the rise, it was no surprise that many
aligned with it.
An example of NOI convert is Malcolm X, who rejected his former slave last
name. Despite fighting with the Nation of Islam’s ideology and leader, Elijah
Muhammad, towards the final years of his life, Malcolm X was notably a gifted
orator, and this ability made him a popular guest on TV, radio shows, and on
university campuses (second most in demand speaker in the country by 1964).
This helped disseminate an alternative vision for black Americans. As
mentioned earlier, his advocacy for black Americans to fight back against racial
injustices through the use of violence was seen as extreme by his nonviolent
campaigner counterparts such as MLK, and much of the white populace, but to
many, his vision and philosophy represented a new form of self defence against
the white man and the white police when white on black police brutality was
so significant, such as in Watts in 1968 and other riots in Newark and Detroit in
the same decade. What Malcolm X brought to the table wasn’t extremism, but
a rational humanitarian viewpoint on how black Americans should react to
their generational racial prejudice from white Americans, rather than
succumbed as prey to their predators. This alienated much of the suffering
black Americans living in the north at the time, and thus contributed
significantly to his own role as campaigner at the time.
Moving onto the 21st century again, it can be argued that race riots and direct
militancy protest in the years 2000-2009 being prolific at times, especially in
response to police shootings of black Americans like Cincinnati 2001 and
Oakland 2009, kept the issue of race at the forefront of political debate.
Because of these race riots and protests, the federal and state governments
were forced to involve themselves in race politics, and in times appease the
wishes and grievances of black victims of such police brutality. Due to the new
generation of black Americans learning and studying the Black Power
movement in the 20th century, it is likely that much of these riots were inspired
by it, for black Americans had learned that enough is enough, and nonviolent
protest cannot amend police brutality; there needed to be change and they
sought it through militance.
Ultimately,
Jan 2023
Yes
 Following abolition ex-slaves
were free to move, to marry
without any other person’s
consent, and could choose to
work unsupervised and not in
gangs under an overseer.
 Abolition led to further
legislation, such as the Military
Reconstruction Act requiring
former confederate states to
recognise the rights of black
Americans to vote leading to
the enfranchisement of
703,000 slaves.
 14th Amendment law
protection and 15th
Amendment voting
 Considerable urban migration
occurred following the
abolition of slavery, opening
greater job opportunities to
black Americans.
 During these years, a greater
number of black Americans
entered political life – 2
senators and 15 congressmen.
They took control of South
Carolina’s state assembly.
 Big improvement in black
education and literacy and
more emphasis on educational
opportunities by 1900 (blacks).
No
 Vast majority of slaves didn’t
receive the 40 acres and a
mule that many expected, and
believed that they had been
promised, would occur with
emancipation.
 Rulings of the Supreme Court,
especially the Slaughterhouse
Decision 1873, allowed state
governments to erode the
benefits of citizenship of black
Americans.
 The proliferation of Black
Codes initially, then Jim Crow
laws, throughout the south,
effectively introduced a system
of legal segregation in
education, transport, and
public facilities.
 Growth of white terror
organizations, such as the KKK
and the White League, led to
widespread intimidation and
violence of against blacks.
 Many ex-slaves continued to
work for white landowners for
low wages in a lifestyle similar
to that before emancipation.
Jan 2023
Yes
 President Lincoln ‘approved’
the 13th Amendment to the
USA Constitution, thereby
abolishing slavery.
 President Grant signed the Civil
Rights Act of 1875
guaranteeing blacks full and
equal enjoyment of the
accommodations, advantages,
facilities, and privileges of
public venues including inns,
hotels, theatres, and public
transportation.
 President Eisenhower, in his 1st
State of the Union address,
called for an end to racial
discrimination and reaffirmed
Truman’s commitment to
desegregation of the military
and within federal
government.
 Eisenhower approved and
signed the Civil Rights Act
(1957), designed to improve
voting rights and appointed
Earl Warren to the Supreme
Court, who ruled favourably on
the Brown Case (1954-55).
 Kennedy and Johnson Civil
Rights Bills
No
 Radical Republicans such as
Thaddeus Stevens and Charles
Sumner were tireless in their
campaigns to introduce civil
rights legislations like 1866
Civil Rights Act.
 Frederick Douglass
campaigned to improve the
lives of black Americans
through his Presidency of the
Freedman’s Savings Bank and
his newspaper, The New
National Era.
 Elizabeth Cady Stanton
campaigned for equal rights,
especially the right of suffrage
for black Americans.
 Impact of MLK in promoting
the message of nonviolent,
peaceful protest helped to turn
civil rights protest into a moral
crusade, and his oratorical
skills and effective media
presence helped raise the
national profile of the
movement and pressured
presidents.
 Rosa parks.
 Malcolm X, NOI, Black Power,
more radical than MLK.
There is much debate surrounding whether presidents were more influential
than civil rights campaigners in bringing about progress for black Americans in
the years 1865-77 and 1954-68. Looking at both periods exclusively and
together, it can be argued that American Presidents were more influential in
bringing about progress for civil rights, for only they were capable of officially
signing legislation and convincing Congress to agree upon said legislation.
Through President Lincoln’s 13th Amendment and President Grant’s Civil Rights
Act of 1875 and his KKK Acts, a great deal of sociopolitical progress was made
in the Reconstruction era, even if it didn’t last. Also, President Eisenhower,
Kennedy, and Johnson all contributed significantly to the abolishment of Jim
Crow and integration of black Americans in US society in their respective terms.
However, it is worth noting the impact of Radical Republicans and civil rights
activists in the Reconstruction era, for the likes of Thaddeus Stevens and
Frederick Douglass certainly contributed to the plight. In addition to this, the
roles of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks, amongst many others,
were also important in facilitating the change made in the middle of the 20 th
century. By the end of this essay, a conclusive judgment will be made.
To begin, let’s consider the role of President Lincoln in ‘approving’ and signing
the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution on January 31, 1865, thereby
abolishing slavery. Black Americans were now federally freedmen, with 4
million slaves emancipated. Black Americans now had the right and freedom to
move, to marry without any other person’s consent, and could choose to work
unsupervised and not in gangs under an overseer. The abolition of slavery
marked perhaps the most significant and radical change in the role of black
Americans in society, as much of the South was dependent on slavery for their
economy, and thereby freed 4 million slaves at the cost of economic growth.
Also, President Lincoln’s 13th Amendment established a symbolic base for civil
rights activism beyond that of becoming free at last, but rather now entering
US society with the goal of achieving equity and equality with their white
counterparts in all aspects of life.
Later in the Reconstruction era came President Ulysses Grant, who was a
famous presidential supporter of the Radical Republicans and their plans for
Reconstruction. With the proliferation and rise of white terror groups, notably
the Ku Klux Klan, where he notably signed Acts to quickly criminalize them, as
well as signing the 1875 Civil Rights Act, Grant was known for his positive
legislative decisions for the civil rights movement. The Enforcement Acts of
1870-71 was to address and combat the actions of said white supremacist
groups, and to protect the civil and political rights of black Americans. The first
Act made it a federal offense to interfere with an individual’s right to vote on
the basis of colour, race, or previous condition of servitude. This empowered
the voting rights of black Americans in the south where much of the white
terror groups grew and were established in. The second Act authorized the
President to use the military to suppress domestic violence and protect civil
rights, granting federal authorities the power to enforce penalties against those
who conspired to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights. The third Act,
also known as the KKK Act, was a direct response to the escalating violence and
intimidation carried by the KKK and other terror groups. Notably, the Act
authorized the President to use military force to suppress Klan activists if local
authorities were unable or unwilling to do so. The emphasis on unwilling is
important, for it essentially means that even if southern state governments
were unwilling to cooperate in suppressing the KKK, the federal government
could step in. These three Acts in junction all presented a Presidential attempt
at minimizing terror groups. The 1875 Civil Rights Act guaranteed blacks full
and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and
privileged of public venues including inns, hotels, theatres, and public
transport. Due to this Act, business and service segregation was essentially
federally prohibited up until the Court Decisions of 1883. While the Act did not
last long, it certainly did improve black American rights for the time it lasted, at
least in the federal sense, for discrimination was still common at the time.
Fast-forwarding to the 1950s and 60s, President Eisenhower had a mixed
record of supporting the movement. However, with him calling for an end to
racial discrimination and reaffirmed President Harry Truman’s commitment to
desegregation of the military and within federal government, all in his 1 st State
of the Union address, indicated that he had at least a vision for an integrated
American society in certain aspects of life. Although he was known to be
reluctant to involve himself in civil rights, he did affirm some of his promises
made. President Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren to position of Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court in 1953 which allowed for the Brown I-II cases to be
passed unanimously, effectively ending legal segregation in schools, as well
several other acts later passed that effectively contributed to the end of Jim
Crow. Eisenhower particularly approved and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957,
designed to improve voting rights, which was the first federal civil rights
legislation passed by Congress since Grant’s Act of 1875. The Act essentially
empowered federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions against
interference with the right to vote and established a federal Civil Rights
Commission with authority to investigate discriminatory conditions and
recommend corrective measures. President Eisenhower’s notable acts such as
these certainly did improve civil rights for black Americans, as it established a
blueprint for what came later under John F. Kennedy’s and Lyndon B. Johnson’s
presidencies.
President Kennedy, being pressured in 1963 after the Birmingham riot in
Alabama, made a nationwide TV broadcast stating that he would ask Congress
to pass legislation to bring greater racial equality and end legal segregation,
and provide greater protection for black Americans to vote, essentially what
the 14th and 15th Amendments had promised. Unfortunately, he was
assassinated before he would be able to pass the legislation. Luckily enough,
though, his vice-presidential successor, President Lyndon Johnson, was
determined to passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, publicly stating that he was
ready to lose the 1964 presidential election if it meant passing the Act. The
Civil Rights Act of 1964 officially outlawed national discrimination and
segregation, both de jure and de facto, and provided black Americans with
much of the same rights as white Americans in public amenities, job
employment, and many other forms of services and practices now
desegregates and equal. Next came the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting
Rights Act of 1965 was the final blow to southern Democrat instigation of voter
restrictions, as it banned literacy and property tests, just after the removal of
the poll tax in the 24th Amendment to the US Constitution just a year prior. This
enfranchised the black Americans of the States, and finally gave justice to what
the 15th Amendment had attempted to achieve under the heroism of the
Radical Republicans in Congress post-Civil War. And finally, the Fair Housing Act
(also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1968) imposed a federal ban on racial
discrimination in the rent or selling of houses and property amongst other
factors. And so ultimately, it was legislation that saw an increase in black
voters, black living standards, and black/white support for the integration of all
American citizens within a combined American society of sociopolitical
inclusion. All these legislations were passed under the guidance of President
Lyndon Johnson, both in honour of Kennedy’s promise, and his recognition that
civil rights must finally make a leap and advance beyond its stagnation point
federally, dunking the alley-oop made by Supreme Court decisions in the years
prior.
However, there were certainly notable civil rights campaigners in the
Reconstruction era and between 1954-68, there’s no doubt about it. For
example, Radical Republicans such as Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner
were tireless in their campaigns to introduce civil rights legislation such as the
Civil Rights Act of 1866. Leading the Radical Republicans in Congress
throughout President Andrew Johnson’s single term, they successfully overrode
15 presidential vetoes by Andrew which were attempts to discombobulate the
process of civil rights advancements. The 1866 Civil Rights Act was one of
them. In the same year, Congress passed a law which set aside 44 million acres
in 5 southern states for ex-slaves, where the term 40 acres and a mule came
from. This Act was succeeded by the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867,
which was also overridden by a veto from President Johnson, which split up the
former Confederacy into 5 districts under military rule. The military Union
generals were placed there to ensure that no tomfoolery was going on as black
Americans began to vote in their respective states. This enfranchised 703,000
black voters. Later came the 14th and 15th Amendments, which ensured the
equal protection of all US citizens under the law, as well as granting the right to
vote to all US citizens, respectively. As we can see, legislation passed by
Congress, through the leadership of Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner,
positively impacted the rights of black Americans for much of the rest of
Reconstruction. Radical Republican gains in Congress in Congressional elections
are certainly proof of that.
Next, Frederick Douglass was arguably the most prolific black American civil
rights campaigner in the Reconstruction era, for he campaigned to improve the
lives of black Americans through his Presidency of the Freedman’s Savings Bank
and his newspaper, The New National Era. Frederick Douglass notably declared
in May 1865 that slavery would not be abolished until the black man had the
right to vote. For 16 years he edited his influential lack newspaper and thereby
achieved international fame as an inspiring and persuasive orator and writer. In
thousands of speeches and editorials, he levied a powerful indictment against
slavery and racism. Throughout 1865-69 Douglass held lectures on
Reconstruction and women’s rights, garnering heavy sympathy for his plight.
He was even nominated as vice president of the US on a ticket headed by Equal
Rights Party nominee Victoria Woodhall. As we can see, Frederick Douglass, an
escaped slave at a young age, was prolifically tireless in his dedicated actions
towards civil rights advancements, and heavily contributed to them, often
being amongst whites and advising them towards positive black American
treatment and legislation.
Finally for the Reconstruction era, we can mention the role of Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, who campaigned for equal rights, especially the right of suffrage for
black Americans. Typically known for her role as a women’s rights advocate,
being a white woman, it was surprising yet great seeing her support black civil
rights. She was one of the main organisers of the American Equal Rights
Association, which campaigned for equal rights for both black Americans and
women, especially the right of suffrage. Evidently, she did have a strong
contribution to black American civil rights, even if somewhat indirect, due to
her popularity and fame as a women’s rights advocate which extended her
plight minorly towards black Americans.
Now onto the 1950s, where both Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King
June 2023
Yes
 Opportunities for blacks
damaged by Andrew Johnson
allowing former confederates to
take up high political office in
southern states and tolerating
them not ratifying 13th
Amendment.
 Andrew didn’t prevent Black
Codes which was likened to a
reintroduction of slavery.
 Andrew used his presidential veto
to obstruct bills designed to help
blacks, such as the extension to
the Freedmen’s Bureau and first
Civil Rights Act 1866.
 Andrew’s commitment to
obstructing civil rights was
harmful as it was partly
responsible for emboldening
southern Democrats to continue
their opposition to improving the
rights of blacks.
 Aid provided by ND agencies was
significant in improving the lives
of blacks such as the WPA having
1 million blacks working for it by
1939.
 Roosevelt helped elevate the
status of blacks by appointing
Mary McLeod Bethune (sing).
No
 Andrew signed acts such as the
Military Reconstruction Act 1867,
which helped black Americans by
requiring former confederate
state to recognise the rights of
blacks to vote.
 FDR’s reluctance, his need for
southern Democrat support in
the years 1933-37, and their
control of congressional
committees, ensured that the ND
did not lead to any major
extension of civil rights.
 Southern Democrats successfully
blocked attempts to introduce
anti-lynching legislation in both
1934 and 1938 such as the
Gavagan Bill.
 New Deal programmes mainly
benefitted white Americans.
June 2023
Yes
 Establishment of SNCC in 1960
heralded the start of a
substantial era of more direct-
action protest which drew
attention to the cause of civil
rights such as sit-ins for media.
 SNCC took a leading role in
voter registration campaigns
and their efforts gave
momentum for the Voting
Rights Act of 1965.
 CORE’s Freedom Rides (early
1960s) were helpful in moving
forward arguments about
desegregation by attracting the
support of influential
politicians like Attorney-
General Robert Kennedy.
 From 1961 CORE had 53
regional offices to promote
civil rights activities in the
southern states and played a
central role in promoting
initiatives such as President
JFK’s Voter Education Project.
 SNCC leadership was influential
in setting up the Black Panther
Party, which had some success
in spreading its ideas about
self-help and community
action within the black
American community
No
 Brown Ruling (1954-55)
overturned Plessy v Ferguson
which had created the concept
of ‘Separate but equal’,
thereby removing the main
legal justification of
discrimination.
 The emergence of influential
civil rights activists such as
MLK were significant. His
message of non-violent,
peaceful protest helped turn
civil rights protest into a
national moral crusade.
 Other civil rights groups such
as the NAACP and SCLC played
significant roles in advancing
the cause such as the work of
James Bevel & SCLC in
Birmingham Alabama.
 Federal legislation by President
Johnson ended legal
segregation and gave a major
boost to the enfranchisement
of blacks.
 Blacks played larger roles in
city, state, and national politics
in 21st century.
 Increased widespread geo-
distribution of black voters
after 2000 made them
influential in politics.
There is much debate surrounding whether the work of the SNCC and CORE
was mainly responsible for advances in black American civil rights in the years
1954-2009. Although the existence of CORE in particular operated from 1942
and its Freedom Rides and democratic pushes in the 1960s served as a catalyst
to the civil rights movements success, as well as the SNCC’s nonviolence direct
protest methods and later radicalism pursued a successful youth support and
following in the era, these two organisations paled in comparison to the impact
of Supreme Court rulings, Federal legislative and Presidential roles, as well as
other particular campaigners and organisations such as MLK and his SCLC.
Furthermore, the growing black middle class and their dispersion contributed
heavily to national politics such as their contributions to Obama’s election, a
symbolic victory in of its own. By the end of this essay, a conclusive judgment
will be made.
Firstly, the establishment of the Congress of Racial Equality in 1942 notably
preceded much of the nonviolent organisations that came after the victory of
the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955-56. This allowed CORE to develop a
coordinated and powerful faction of civil rights activists, and their Freedom
Rides of the early 1960s were helpful in moving forward arguments about
desegregation by attracting the support of influential politicians such as
Attorney General Robert Kennedy, brother of President John F. Kennedy. The
Freedom Rides were CORE’s test of the 1960 Supreme Court case of Boynton v
Virginia, which overruled the segregation of interstate bus travel. Through the
successes of CORE’s Freedom Rides in displaying white mob violence in the
South against black Americans exercising their sociopolitical and humanitarian
rights in the media resulted in national outrage and a determined Attorney
Journey Kennedy to enforce the Boynton v Virginia ruling, essentially
confirming federal approvement of the desegregation of interstate
transportation in buses and waiting rooms. The CORE’s members’ bravery and
willingness to risk their own lives in front of the aggressive white mobs that
notably burned and attacked buses that contained the CORE activists was an
example of its powerful, direct nonviolent methods of protest, which further
advanced the desegregation of public transport nationally after the kickstart of
Montgomery. Importantly, the 8 members of CORE that participated in the
Freedom Rides were half black half white, showcasing a unity between black
and white Americans.
Another key role CORE played was in 1961 where CORE had 53 regional offices
to promote civil rights activities in the southern states and played a central role
in promoting initiatives such as President JFK’s Voter Education Project. The
presence of these regional offices by 1963 consisted most of the major urban
centres of the Northeast, Midwest, Mid-Atlantic and West Coast having at least
one office, including a growing number of offices on college campuses. This
shows that CORE had national influence, rather than only in the South.
Effectively, the VEP under JFK raised and distributed foundation funds to civil
rights organisations for voter education and registration work in in the South
from 1962-92. The VEP notably helped make great inroads in the registration of
voters, especially in rural areas.
Looking at the Student Nonviolent Coordination Committee, it was established
a bit later in 1960. The SNCC heralded the start of a substantial era of more
direct-action protest which drew attention to the cause of civil rights such as
the sit-ins for the media. These sit-ins were essentially SNCC members refusing
to leave lunch counter diners and restaurants that refused to serve black
Americans, remaining seated for national news reporting organisations to
report the segregated services of the South’s most simply public services. This
successfully resulted in the SNCC becoming and emerging as the youth wing of
the civil rights movement after the sit-ins of February-April 1960. This much
needed youth wing was a positive addition to the civil rights movement, as
their more direct action was a more aggressive form of the older-aged-led
organisations such as MLK’s SCLC and the NAACP.
Also, the SNCC took a leading role in voter registration campaigns, especially
with Freedom Summer in 1964. With the 1964 Civil Rights Act bringing an end
to legal segregation, the SNCC declared its next aim as the enfranchisement of
black Americans in the South, where many obstacles were maintained since
the Jim Crow voter laws of the 1890s. the SNCC set up the Mississippi Freedom
Democrat Party due to them finding it very difficult to register black
Mississippians by normal methods of voting registration. This alternative to the
white-dominated state party resulted in the MFDP appearing in the 1964
Democrat Party National Convention. The attempted compromise by President
Johnson’s advisers of allowing 2 representatives of the MFDP to participate led
to the official state delegation leaving, which created the atmosphere for more
radical action on the issue of black American voting rights, coming next year in
Selma. Freedom Summer was also significant because of CORE’s direct
participation in it, too, implying an increasing cooperation between civil rights
organisations that weren’t as commonplace in the era as many may think.
Finally, CORE’s contribution in helping to organise the famous March on
Washington in 1963, which resulted in 250,000 marching peacefully to the
Lincoln Memorial in Central Washington to demand equal justice for all citizens
under the law, resulted in Martin Luther King’s famous 28 August ‘I Have a
Dream’ Speech which was one of the main factors in forcing President Kennedy
to haste in his vow to ask Congress to pass legislation to bring greater racial
equality and end legal segregation, and provide greater protection for black
Americans to vote. This manifested in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which clearly
CORE’s organisation of the March on Washington contributed indirectly
towards, being such an experienced organisation partly leading the March.
Also, after 1866, both the SNCC and CORE radicalised with the leadership of
Stokely Carmichael and Floyd McKissick respectively. The SNCC leadership of
Stokely Carmichael in particular was influential in setting up the Black Panther
Party, which had some success in spreading its ideas about self-help and
community action within the black American community, notably beginning a
free breakfast programme for black children in Oakland 1967 and offering
medical advice to the ghetto residents. The reason I attribute the creation of
the BBP to the SNCC’s leadership is because of Stokely Carmichael’s
popularization of the ‘Black Power’ movement, philosophy, and message, with
the Black Panther Party being one of the most important products of the
philosophy in organisation campaigns that adopted the philosophy. It even
formed an alliance with the SNCC in February 1968, although lasting less than a
year due to the disagreements between the organisations’ paths forward. Still,
Black Power was clearly another success in radicalizing and bringing a much-
needed new light to more militant civil rights that the movement needed
towards the end of the 1960s, along with the roles played by Malcolm X and
the Nation of Islam.