1

F966B5: Civil Rights in the USA; 1865-1992 The notes in this unit are arranged chronologically around key turning points A: Introduction: Civil War and Emancipation Civil war broke out in the USA in April 1861 and lasted for almost exactly four years. The

Southern states seceded from the Union to protect the right to own slaves. Southerners believed that Abraham Lincoln, the newly elected President intended to free slaves. Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist. His only aim was to prevent the Southern states from

seceding. The war was fought to maintain the Union not to free slaves. Slavery soon became an issue in the Civil War. Many slaves were captured when Northern

troops invaded the South. What was to be done with them? Lincoln stated that because slaves were property, they could not be merely confiscated. In 1862, Congress allowed confiscated slaves to be freed and to join the Northern army. Lincoln

was forced to make a decision. In September 1862, he decided that slaves would be freed after the next Northern victory.

Emancipation was announced after the dubious victory at Antietam: all slaves would be emancipated on 1st January 1863.

Even so, the Proclamation was ambiguous. It did not cover slaves in the North and Tennessee,

governed by Andrew Johnson, a supporter for Lincoln, was exempt. What effects did Emancipation have? In the South, very little because there the North had no authority. In the North, there were protests against Emancipation, particularly amongst immigrant groups. Nearly 200,000 slaves were recruited into the Northern army, but were forced into black

regiments, were paid much less than white soldiers and faced much the worst conditions. The test would come when the Civil War came to an end. Why were there added complications? There were major differences between North and South. The North had most industry and the

largest cities. Most immigrants went to the North because there were greater prospects of unemployment. The South was largely agricultural. Staple crops such as cotton and tobacco were grown on

large plantations usually tended by black slaves. Northern society tended to be more commercial: Southern society appeared to be more gentile,

even aristocratic.

2

Instinctively, the British government had tended to side with the South when war broke out in

1861. There was also conflict between the federal government and the states. The Federal government

was responsible for defence, foreign policy and some areas of taxation, but states dealt with law and order and education.

States’ rights was a fundamental issue in the USA and inevitably it was heavily involved in

slavery. Attempts by federal governments to interfere in the treatments of former slaves were seen as

undermining the rights of states to govern themselves and an unwarranted extension of executive power.

Political parties, such as existed were divided on slavery. Lincoln, who was not an abolitionist,

was a Republican. But his party was predominantly anti-slavery. In the years after 1865, it was the republicans who did most to force the South to extend civil rights.

Democrats in the North were usually abolitionists, but in the South, Democrats were the

strongest supporters of slavery. Consequently, attempts to improve civil rights were never going to meet with easy success.

3

B: Reconstruction and Compromise: 1865-1914 To what extent did black Americans gain civil rights in the years after 1865? The end of the Civil War left the South in ruins. Northern campaigns in 1864-5 had sometimes

used mass destruction as a means of breaking the morale of the South. The big issue was, how could the South be brought back into the Union?

The task should have been undertaken by Abraham Lincoln, but he was assassinated on 12th

April 1865 and replaced by Andrew Johnson, his vice-president. Johnson was a pro-slavery Democrat from Tennessee, a Southern state. On 15th April 1865, he announced that Southerners would be pardoned if they swore an oath of

loyalty to the Union and ratified the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution (which declared that slavery was illegal) in state legislatures.

Johnson’s conditions were rarely carried out and he did little to enforce them. Southern states had to accept the end of slavery but frequently introduced Black Codes which

discriminated against former slaves in employment, justice, voting and education. They were the forerunners of Jim Crow Laws.

Republicans in the North were shocked. In 1866, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, which

stated that that African-Americans were equal with all others before the law. Johnson attempted to veto the Bill.

It became clear that Johnson wanted to keep former slaves in some sort of second class status to

avoid competition with whites. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution outlawed Black Codes, but was only ratified by

one southern state. It was followed by several Reconstruction Acts but readmission to the Union (and allocation of

federal funds) would only be possible after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress was now taking the lead and Johnson could do little about it, despite trying to veto

every Bill. However, Southern politicians easily found get-out clauses in the Amendment and Acts and exploited everyone.

In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment attempted to close all loopholes in previous legislation and a

second Civil Rights Act in 1875 banned segregation in public, but not in schools. How were the opponents of civil rights able to mount a comeback? The main weapon was the Supreme Court, which had the power to review legislation and decide

whether it contravened the Constitution. 1873: in the Slaughterhouse Case, it declared that the Fourteenth Amendment protected national

civil rights but not state civil rights.

4

1883: the Court declared that the Ku Klux Klan Act (which banned violent intimidation) and the 1875 Civil Rights Act were both unconstitutional.

In 1877, a close presidential election led one candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, to agree to a

compromise in order to gain Southern Democratic support. The Compromise resulted in the removal of all federal troops from the South and, with them,

protection of former slaves. To what extent did the lives of former slaves improve as a result of Reconstruction? There were violent attacks on black Americans all over the USA but the worst instances were in

the South. The Ku Klux Klan and other racist organisations attacked black Americans, usually at night to

intimidate them. Acts passed to suppress the KKK had little effect because lawyers and the police in the South

were often involved in Klan activity. Some blacks Americans took advantage of the Homestead Act and moved west, but the

majority remained in the South scratching a living as sharecroppers. The most important improvements resulted from self-help. Booker T Washington pioneered

education and several universities were founded for black Americans in the North. He set up the National Negro Business League and met several presidents. However, he was criticised because he appeared to be more concerned with his own success

than with the improvement of civil rights for all black Americans. Churches played an important role, as they would in the 1950s and 1960s. They enabled a form

of black consciousness to develop for the first time. Churches helped to organise black Americans for the first time. This enabled national

organisations, such as the NAACP to develop more effectively. Churches imposed a form of discipline on the developing civil rights movement. They ensured

that protests were in the main peaceful and law-abiding. This led to the campaigns of King and others.

Despite Black Codes and Jim Crow laws, black Americans were elected to state legislatures and

two were elected to the Senate. William Du Bois was a critic of Washington. In 1909, he helped to set up the NAACP, which

campaigned for complete civil rights. By 1917, there were 43,000 members in branches all over the USA. Many women joined

because they saw the link between civil rights and equality for women. Some historians now see this period as fundamental to the long-term development of the civil

rights campaigns.

5

The grass roots work carried out by churches made possible the successful campaigns of the

NAACP and Martin Luther King. They provided the backbone for a national campaign. How were the lives of black Americans affected after the Compromise? During the 1890s, Jim Crow Laws began to be passed in the South. Loopholes in the Fifteenth

Amendment were exploited to impose literacy tests on black voters. In 1896, Plessy v Ferguson established the principle that separate could mean equal. This gave

Supreme Court approval to segregation. 1n 1899, the Cunningham case confirmed that segregation was constitutional in education. Despite the creation of schools for black Americans, many remained illiterate and found

themselves in the worst and lowest-paid jobs. In the South, the average wage was less than half of that in the north and illiteracy rates were

eight times higher. Black Americans suffered most from the effects of these comparisons. Attacks on black Americans were commonplace as were rapes. All-white juries usually refused

to convict even when guilt was obvious. In the North, black Americans were not accepted by trade unions. Consequently, they were

often forced into the worst and lowest paid jobs. Violent attacks were less common but not unknown.

In most major cities, ghettos developed. These were often associated with poor public health

and high infant mortality. Black Americans were usually disregarded by US presidents. Taft consulted Booker T

Washington, but Theodore Roosevelt, the most liberal president on the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, showed less interest.

Wilson and Hoover were racist to some extent How were Native Americans treated in the later nineteenth century? The great move westwards took place from the early 1860s. The 1862 Homestead Act offered

free land to settlers and the completion of the transcontinental railroad in the late 1860s opened up the prairies to cattlemen.

Until then, Native Americans had been largely left alone, but a series of treaties in the 1860s

restricted them to reservations. Some Native Americans adapted to the new life, but most could not cope with the loss of the

Great Plains, the destruction of the buffalo herds and farming. After the Civil War (1861-65), Union generals such as Sherman and Sheridan adopted a very

violent policy towards Native Americans. The slaughter at battles during the Civil War encouraged extermination of some tribes.

The Sioux victory at the Battle of the Little Big Horn led to the destruction of the Native

American way of life.

6

The Sioux were hunted down and forced to flee across the border to Canada; their leaders were

arrested or killed. In 1887, The Dawes Act granted each family 160 acres of land, but applicants had to use an

English name. It was a blatant attempt to force Native Americans to adopt white ways and to break up the tribal structure.

Dawes was aiming to destroy Native American culture. The supporters were contemptuous of

the Native American way of life. Most promises were not kept and agents often stole the best land. Native Americans found

themselves living in poverty and suffering from disease. The buffalo was hunted almost to extinction. The Indians depended on buffalo for many

things. Their disappearance was a disaster. The whites shot buffalo for sport, for their hides and for their bones, which were sent East for

use as fertiliser or glue. They were also killed deliberately to force the Indians on to reservations. In 1840 there were

probably 13,000,000 buffalo; by 1885 there were 200. Life on the reservations was very hard. Indians were often given land which was infertile. Indians found that they could not support themselves and had to be given food to keep them

alive. The food was very poor quality.

Indian Agents, the whites who were supposed to look after the Indians, were often corrupt and kept much of the money for themselves.

Without buffalo, Indians had to change their way of life. For example, their tipis were covered

with canvas, not buffalo hide. Indians could no longer hunt and did not want to farm. Diseases from the whites became common and killed many. They had no dignity. Many

became alcoholics to forget their meaningless life. The chiefs were ignored by the whites, so their power and authority collapsed. They were not allowed to practise their religion. Their children were sent away to schools and were given whites’ clothing. They were taught to speak English and were punished for speaking in Native American

language. Indians were converted to Christianity and were treated as second class whites.

7

How were immigrants treated in the USA?

Immigrants began to flood into the USA in the second half of the nineteenth century. They were attracted by the discovery of gold in California in 1848 and the prospect of free land. This was the ‘open door’ policy.

European immigrants, particularly from Britain, Scandinavia and Germany, were accepted quite

well, but arrivals from Southern Europe were viewed with more suspicion. Even so, in big cities, ‘ghettos’ began to appear and immigrants were not accepted into

mainstream American society. The Chinese were the worst treated of all immigrants. Many worked in coalmines or set up

small shops. Alone, they were denied US citizenship under the Fifteenth Amendment. Hispanics were only treated slightly better. Many arrived in the USA as former Mexican

territories were occupied. They ended up (as they still do) working in labour intensive occupations for low wages.

What effects did immigration have? More than 25 million immigrants arrived in the USA in the second half of the nineteenth

century. They boosted the US economy by providing a vast labour force that had little organisation and

would work in the most dangerous jobs for low pay. Women were the most exploited, often working in sweat-shops for piece rates. Competition for work forced wage rates down and boosted the economy still further. US cities expanded rapidly and large immigrant areas appeared. These were open to exploitation

by criminals. Immigrants were often unfamiliar with democratic processes and resorted to violence.

Some Americans came to view immigrants with disfavour. ‘Nativism’ helped established the

concept of what a true American should be. Anti-Catholic and Anti-Jewish societies began to appear: the forerunners of WASPs in the early

twentieth century. But although some efforts were made to weed out undesirables at Ellis Island, the main point of

entry, immigration continued unabated to the end of the century. Mass immigration and its impact on trade union organisation The arrival of many immigrants in the middle and late nineteenth century coincided with the

US Industrial Revolution. In mines and factories, they were willing to take on dangerous and dirty jobs. Women, in

particular, were prepared to endure high levels of exploitation, working over 16 hours per day in ‘sweatshop’ conditions.

8

Immigrant families were ready to accept bad housing conditions and poverty, the result of

‘laissez-faire’ policies pursued both by their employers and landlords. Immigrants tended to weaken the struggle for trade union rights because they were always

ready to take work at lower rates than ‘American’ workers. Their acceptance of bad working conditions angered many poor, native-born Americans who

believed that immigrant workers kept wages low and reduced their own bargaining power. As a result, trade unions struggling to gain recognition and influence often discriminated

against African-Americans and Italians. Most immigrants stayed around New York and Boston with movement to the West and the

Pacific Coast coming later. The vast majority of the ‘new’ immigrants (those arriving after 1880) settled in cities and had

no interest in agriculture. By 1910, a third of the population of the 12 largest American cities was foreign-born and

another third was made up of immigrants. New York had more Italians than Naples, more Germans than Hamburg, twice as many Irish as

Dublin and more Jews than the whole of Western Europe. Each group of immigrants became concentrated in different industries – Poles, Slovaks and

Hungarians in mining and heavy industry, Russian and Polish Jews in the garment trade, Italians in construction work and the Portuguese and French-Canadians in textiles.

Immigrant workers frequently suffered long working hours, exploitation, and dangerous and

unsanitary conditions of work. This was particularly true of the garment industry. Under the contracting-out system, men, women and children worked for as long as sixteen

hours each day in squalid tenements or unventilated and poorly lit ‘sweatshops’. Trade union rights were weak because Federal governments adopted laissez-faire policies for

much of the nineteenth century. US industry was also dominated by large corporations (trusts), which acted pretty much as they

chose; cutting wages and extending hours and dismissing workers who refused to accept changes.

The Sherman Anti-trust Act (1890) was one of the few federal interventions into industrial

relations. The Pullman Strike The Pullman strike of 1894 exemplified the difficulties faced by trade unions. In May 1894,

Pullman cut wages by 25% because of an economic depression. The American Railway Union ordered its members to strike and Pullman refused to talk to the

Union.

9

The Union offered to operate trains which did not have Pullman cars, but railway companies

refused to accept a compromise. The attorney-General issued an injunction banning any attempt to prevent the mail being

transported. Eventually, President Cleveland sent in troops in July to break the strike; he used the pretext

that the mail had to be kept moving. ARU officials were arrested. The strike ended in August but the leaders were not re-employed.

Injunctions were the standard way of attacking strikes until the 1930s when their use was

banned. The impact of black Americans on trade unions From 1877, black Americans began to move north to seek work in industrial cities. There was

no de jure segregation, but much hostility. They often accepted lower wages than even immigrants and hence caused further antagonism.

In difficult times, they were often hired to replace more expensive ‘white’ labour. Some trade unions accepted black Americans as members, e.g. the AFL; there were also

attempts to create ‘black’ unions. The National Negro Labor Union was established in 1869 and tried to affiliate to the AFL.

Trade union successes The Knights of Labor (founded 1869) was one of the most successful unions after 1865. It

demanded an eight-hour day and the abolition of child labour. Its membership grew to about 70,000 by the 1880s, but it virtually collapsed after the

Haymarket Affair (two days of violent rallies in which four protesters and seven policemen were killed) in 1886.

The American Federation of Labour (AFL) attempted to unite unions from different industries

and had 2 million members by 1914. Women in 1865 Although the role of women in the East was traditional, in the West, women played a more

important role. Women homesteaders were crucial in the development of the great Plains, where labour was

scarce and all work had to be carried out by hand. In some territories, e.g. Wyoming, settlers were so scarce that women outnumbered men. In

such areas, women gained the vote because there were so few voters. In Wyoming, they gained the vote in 1869.

10

In the West, women’s role has become something of a myth. They are credited with a civilising influence in newly occupied areas. There is some truth in this; women were usually schoolteachers.

Women also found work as prostitutes and even bandits, the latter being some form of equality. By 1900, many groups were campaigning for women’s rights. Although women were now

accepted as fully qualified doctors and lawyers, the campaign for equal rights continued particularly over wages and working conditions.

Women had campaigned successfully for the vote in several states where they outnumbered

men, but there was still no national suffrage and no national movement to bring it about.

11

C: The First World War and the 1920s Was the First World War a major turning point in improving the lives of black Americans? Yes, because: Half a million black Americans moved north to find work in war industries. They found less

segregation and were able to vote for the first time. Black councillors were elected and black newspapers founded in many areas. Wages rose and many black Americans found themselves better off. Immigration fell,

particularly from 1917, so there was less competition for jobs. Many black Americans served in the army. Although they were in separate units, they proved

that they could fight and experienced a less segregated society in France. On their return, there was a boost to demands for civil rights. The Jazz Age gave black Americans opportunities that had not existed before. The ‘Harlem

Renaissance’ attracted support from many whites. No, because: There were no permanent improvements in terms of legislation. White soldiers found that their jobs and neighbourhoods had been taken over when they

returned home. This led to race riots in Chicago in 1919, the Red Summer. The Ku Klux Klan came back to prominence in the early 1920s. Black Americans suffered from the wave of isolationism and the Red Scare that affected the

USA from 1917. The NAACP failed to make a breakthrough in the 1920s and remained a largely middle class

movement. Traditionally, the Republican Party had been the main supporter of civil rights, but in the 1920s,

there was a marked shift in policy. The ‘laissez-faire’ policies of the Republicans in the 1920s were of little use to civil rights

campaigns. What little progress had been made was swept away by the depression that resulted from the

Wall Street Crash in October 1929. By 1932, unemployment of black Americans reached 60% in some cities. Average wages fell by 40% and immigrants and minorities suffered most. Native Americans found that it was impossible to farm competitively on reservations.

12

How did the First World War change immigration policy in the USA? The open door policy was already being challenged by the early twentieth century. Increasing numbers of immigrants came from Southern and Eastern Europe and spoke little

English. Many Americans had not wanted to become involved in the War and were keen to cut off links

as soon as possible in 1918. There was a demand for a return to the ‘Monroe Doctrine’. Demands for ‘Prohibition’ were supported by the domination of the brewing industry by

German immigrants. The Russian Revolution raised fears of communism spreading to the USA. This led to hysteria

about other ‘isms’, including anarchism. Consequently, The total number was restricted from 1921, when the Immigration Quota Act was imposed. A quota system let in numbers of people according to their presence in the US Population. This

favoured WASP immigrants and worked against 'new' immigrants from Italy, Spain, Poland, Russia etc.

In 1924 the quota was reduced to 2% of the population in 1890 and to 150,000 a year in 1929. However, the Acts were not always effective. Mexicans and Canadians were completely

unrestricted and Asians were in effect the only group to be banned. Nevertheless, during the 1920s, the population of the USA grew from 106,000,000 in 1920, to

123,000,000 in 1929. The main reason was immigration.

Numbers of immigrants to the USA 1919 140,000 1925 310,000 1920 400,000 1926 320,000 1921 802,000 1927 340,000 1922 370,000 1928 350,000 1923 520,000 1929 280,000 1924 690,000

However, in the USA, discrimination increased severely. The case of Sacco and Vanzetti

revealed the deep-seated fear of foreign influence. The Palmer Raids showed that many Americans wanted to preserve their sense of national

identity and were prepared to act if necessary. The concept of the WASP became widespread. Membership of the KKK reached a peak of 5 million in 1924. Then in 1925 a leading member

of the KKK, David Stephenson, was convicted of the kidnapping, rape and murder of a young woman.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment and died in prison 31 years later. Within a year KKK

membership had fallen from 5,000,000 to 300,000.

13

How did the First World War change the status of women? The USA did not enter the First World War until April 1917; consequently there was little

opportunity for women to take over industrial work. Women had, however, taken over their work in heavy industry, manufacturing, driving

transport vehicles and delivering mail. The experience not only provided the opportunity to earn good wages but also increased

support for the movement to gain the vote. Women did become prominent in the Prohibition campaigns that had begun in some states

before the War. Many small towns and women's organisations campaigned against alcohol. Politicians agreed

with them to get their votes. They blamed alcohol for breaking up families, causing unemployment, ill health and suffering

for women and children. The Anti-Saloon League and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union supported Prohibition. How did the status of American women change in the 1920s? During the 1920s, feminist groups continued the struggle for female emancipation. This had

begun in the nineteenth century over issues such as the right to higher education and access to the professions such as medicine and the law.

In 1917, Jeanette Rankin (Montana) became the first woman to be elected to Congress and The

National Woman’s Party led by Alice Paul began a more aggressive campaign to secure the vote.

In January 1917, women picketed the White House. Later the same year, 168 women made US

history by becoming its first political prisoners when they were arrested for peaceful picketing. In prison, they went on hunger strike and were force-fed.

In 1919, Congress passed the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution which became law on

26th August 1920. Women were allowed to vote for the first time in the presidential election of that year. Women

in the western states had actually had the vote for some time, mainly because in the west, women vastly outnumbered men.

In 1924, Nellie Tayloe Ross of Wyoming became the first woman to be elected state governor. In 1926, Bertha Knight Landes became the first female mayor of a city (Seattle). Carrie Chapman Catt and The National League of Women Voters (1920) tried to raise the

awareness of women to the opportunities opening up to them. Most women appeared more interested in mass produced labour saving devices. They seemed

happy to stay at home rather than developing their careers at work.

14

Significantly, the early breakthroughs were all in western states where there were fewer men. Why were women less successful in the 1920s? The 1920s saw increasing limits on the opportunities open to women. Medical schools

allocated only 5% of their places to women and the number of women doctors declined over the period.

In 1920, 47.3% of college students were women. Over the decade, the percentage declined. The American workforce remained mainly male. Although the number of women at work rose

by 2 million in the 1920s, the figure was only 24% of the population. Discrimination in wages continued. Some feminists pursued the cause of equal rights in

employment and equal pay but others put their energies into peace movements and social reform.

The feminist movement therefore splintered. The older followers rejected the materialism and

mass consumption of the 1920s. In doing so, they lost the support of younger women who were attracted by it.

Why were the achievements of women limited? Many women were not interested in politics. In the nineteenth century, they had supported the

abolition of slavery. In the 1920s, middle class women supported the temperance movement and Prohibition.

American women had different views of their role in society. There was still a strong belief

that their domestic role was of the greatest importance. Women who had worked during the First World War were content to return to the domestic

scene after 1918. African American women were not allowed to vote in elections even after the law changed.

They were subject to the same Jim Crow Laws that their husbands faced. Some middle class women, however took up the anti-lynching cause and later supported the

cause of equal rights for men and women. Trade Unions in the 1920s Between 1921 and 1933, the United States was generally a laissez-faire society. Harding and

Coolidge believed that it was not the function of governments to interfere in people’s lives by enacting laws unless vital American interests were threatened.

Businesses were left to organise their own affairs with workers free to bargain for their wages

at the workplace. But it became impossible for workers to improve their conditions without the employment laws to protect them.

Employers were reluctant to become involved in collective bargaining and were suspicious of

trade unions.

15

Low pay and dangerous working conditions often led to strikes. Between April and September

1922, around 500,000 miners went on strike against wage reductions. In 1919 and 1920, strikes by West Virginia coal miners were smashed by state troops. In 1927,

force was used to suppress a strike of textile workers in Tennessee who were receiving 18 cents an hour for a 56-hour week.

In all disputes, the government backed the employers against the workers. Two state laws

banning child labour as well as laws setting a minimum wage for women workers were declared unconstitutional by The Supreme Court.

In 1921, 5.1 million Americans were members of trade unions but by 1929, this number had

fallen to 3.6 million. Henry Ford offered welfare capitalism. He reduced working hours and raised wages, but in

return workers were not allowed to join unions. In 1927, a new Ford factory was opened on the River Rouge at Dearborn, Michigan with work

for 80,000 workers. But whilst Ford workers were relatively well paid, they were tightly disciplined and closely

supervised. Strong-armed security men intimidated and assaulted those attempting to organise trade unions.

No labour union was recognised by the Ford Company until 1921.

16

D: The New Deal and the Second World War Was the New Deal a major turning point in improving the lives of black Americans? Yes, because: Roosevelt, a Democrat, was sympathetic to civil rights. This was a marked change in the

political landscape. Traditionally, Democrats had tended to oppose improvements in civil rights. From 1933,

Democrat presidents supported the campaigns. Roosevelt included specific policies to help black Americans in the New Deal. Separate CCC

camps were set up for black Americans and many found temporary work. Roosevelt appointed a ‘Black Cabinet’ to advise him on social and economic issues. From 1933, the number of black Americans employed by the federal government began to rise

steadily. Many black Americans believed that Roosevelt was a president whom they could trust. Millions

lined the route of his funeral procession in April 1945. Eleanor Roosevelt, the president’s wife, campaigned against racism and encouraged women to

oppose lynching and rape. The NRA set regulations for sweatshops and tried to control the use of child labour. The NIRA encouraged employers to allow collective bargaining. It provided legal backing for

the rights of black Americans. Many black Americans became members of trade unions for the first time. This led them further

into civil rights campaigns. The number of black Americans in federal employment rose from about 50,000 in 1933 to about

200,000 by 1945. Obviously, the Second World War was a major factor in this increase. With each successive election, Roosevelt’s margin of victory shrank and he became more

dependent on the votes of black Americans. No, because: Roosevelt showed little real interest in civil rights. He did not intervene to support Bills that would have made lynching a crime. He was hamstrung by his reliance on the support of Democrat Congressmen from the South: the

so-called ‘Dixiecrats’, who opposed any attempt to improve civil rights. The same difficulty would prevent Truman and Kennedy from acting in the 1940s and 1960s. It is impossible to be certain how much influence the ‘Black Cabinet’ had on policy.

17

Black Americans did not always take advantage of the opportunities that resulted from

Roosevelt’s policies. How did Native Americans benefit from the New Deal? In 1924, Native Americans had been granted US citizenship. But there were several attempts to

deprive Native Americans of land granted to them. A senate inquiry in 1928 produced shocking evidence of malnutrition, poverty and disease. In 1934, the Indian Reorganisation Act allowed Indians to own reservation land in common

rather than as individuals. This went some way to restore the traditional society that had been attacked and broken up by

the Dawes Act in 1887. However, the effects were limited because often land had been leased to white farmers. It provided loans to help Native Americans set up businesses and protected rights of women. How did women benefit from the New Deal? Eleanor Roosevelt was the most important propagandist for women. Frances Perkins was the first woman to be appointed to the Cabinet. Minimum wages were set in 1938, but they were much lower than those for male workers. But, only 8,000 women found places in CCC camps, despite the urging of Eleanor Roosevelt. Trade Unions during the New Deal The National Recovery Administration (NRA) was set by the National Industry Recovery Act in

1933. It aimed to improve industrial relations by encouraging agreements between employers and workers.

By 1934, 23 million workers were covered in 557 agreements. Henry Ford refused to sign up to

it. In 1935, the NRA was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and was replaced by the

Wagner Act. The Act gave workers the right to join unions and set up the National Labor Relations Board to

bargain on behalf of workers and prevent the use of blacklists by employers. However, the Act did not, on the other hand, cover those workers who were covered by the

Railway Labour Act, farm employees, domestic workers, supervisors, independent contractors and some close relatives of individual employers.

18

The Committee on Industrial Organisation was set up to campaign on behalf of workers in mass production industries. It accepted black Americans and was important in their gaining integration into industry.

The CIO had 3.7 million workers by the late 1930s and was able to force all car makers to

accept union with the exception of Ford; he held out until 1941. The Fair Labor Standards Act set a minimum wage of $25 a week and a overtime at 1.5 after a

forty hour week. However, the figures for women were much lower. The Wagner Act (1935), with its encouragement of industrial unionism, illustrates the role of

the state in regulating industrial relations. It created the prospect of averting strikes and industrial disruption through collective bargaining

and collaboration between management and centralised unions. Between 1929 and 1939, union membership roughly trebled from under 3 millions to nearly 9

millions. By 1945, 14.3 million American workers were union members, 35% of the non-farm workforce. Was the Second World War a major turning point in improving the lives of black Americans? In the armed forces more than 1 million black Americans joined the armed forces during the

war. They fought as bravely as any other soldiers. Segregation in the armed forces, which was complete in 1941, was loosened during the war. In

the navy, aboard ship, it was all but impossible. In 1946, the navy introduced complete integration.

Some army units were gradually integrated towards the end of the war because of problems of

reinforcements. 620 black Americans became pilots during the war, although they formed separate squadrons at

first. Black Americans became senior officers for the first time. Many black Americans were sent to Europe where there was no segregation. They fought against the Nazis who were racist. Why, therefore, did they face racism on their

return to the USA? But: Blood was kept separate for blood transfusions. Complete integration only took place in 1950. Some Southerners opposed the war because they supported Hitler.

19

In the USA: 700,000 black Americans travelled north and west to find work in war factories. In the Northern states they were free to vote and there was no segregation (i theory). Roosevelt set up the Fair Employment Practices Commission to force companies to employ

black Americans. Roosevelt refused to award federal contracts to companies that would not employ black

Americans. Boeing changed policy as a result. Unemployment of black Americans fell by 85% during the war. Philip Randolph became a leader of the NAACP and organised the ‘Double V’ Campaign. Membership of the NAACO rose from 50,000 to 450,000 during the war. CORE was established in 1942 and began to use sit-ins as a form of protest. But: Trade Unions and employers resisted attempts to improve the employment of black Americans,

who were often refused promotion. In Detroit, there were race riots in 1943 Wages rates were still lower for black Americans. Most found themselves living in ghettos in the cities. Education of black Americans was still poor compared to that of whites. In 1950, thirty-two

states out of forty-eight had segregated schools. Some historians now see the period of the New Deal and the Second World War as crucial to

the development of civil rights campaigns. Many of the policies that would later become central to campaigns were evolved in the 1930s

and early 1940s. Sit-ins and boycotts were used in the South as well as legal challenges to Jim Crow Laws. Philip Randolph’s threatened Washington March in 1941 helped to force Roosevelt change of

policy over employment and also presaged the tactics of King in 1963. Randolph adopted a similar tactic in 1948 to put pressure on Truman to integrate the armed

forces.

20

Women during the Second World War The war accelerated the trend for married and older women to join the workforce. Between the

wars, the proportion of women at work remained constant at around 25%. By 1945, it had jumped to nearly 36%.

Through advertising and publicity, the government encouraged the wartime mobilisation of

women. Congress passed The Lanham Act of 1943 providing modest funding for child-care facilities.

Women went to work in the shipyards and aircraft factories and trained as fitters and

electricians. In aircraft engine plants, the proportion of employees who were women rose from 27% to 31%.

Women replaced men as bank clerks and cab drivers. The number of working mothers also increased dramatically. This led to an increase in juvenile

crime. Many women found work in the defence industries. There was strong government pressure upon women to work; the most famous example was

the poster campaign based upon 'Rosie the Riveter'. But at the end of the war many women were persuaded to give up work and return to family

life. Trade Unions during the Second World War 1941, Henry Ford was forced to recognise the Auto Workers Union. Union membership rose from 8 million to 14.8 million. Unions were able to take advantage of

the demand for labour to bargain for paid holidays and health benefits. Fair Employment Practices Commission was established in 1943 to prevent discrimination in

federal projects. Companies awarded federal contracts had to agree not to discriminate against black Americans. Defence contracts were used to encourage conservative companies such as Ford to concede

union recognition. In 1940, trade union membership stood at 8.9 millions. By 1945, the figure had reached 14.8

millions – 36% of the non-agricultural workforce. The leaders of the CIO/AFL unions agreed to a non-strike pledge. The number of stoppages

declined in 1942/43 and this enabled industrial unions to grow. How did civil rights change as a result of the Second World War? Campaigns for civil rights improved because: President Truman was prepared to act to in support of civil rights.

21

He set up a commission in 1946 and proposed a Civil Rights Bill in 1947. In 1948, he ordered the integration of the US armed forces. This took effect in 1950. The FEPC was continued after the war and gradually adopted in more and more states and

cities. The NAACP began a series of law-suits against boards of education where it could be proved

that segregated schools spent far more on white children. The Supreme Court, which in the past had decided in favour of segregation, began to decide in

favour of civil rights claimants. In 1944, Smith v Allright outlawed attempts to prevent black Americans from voting in

‘primary elections’. In 1946, Morgan v Virginia prohibited segregation on interstate transport. In 1950, McLaurin v Oklahoma State University upheld the rights of black students to receive

equal Higher Education. Thurgood Marshall, later to be the first black American on the Supreme Court, took the lead in

many cases. But: Truman was prevented from going further because of opposition from Southern Democrats. The KKK still existed and lynchings were still taking place. In 1946, several war veterans were

killed in rural Georgia for voting whilst a soldier in South Carolina was blinded because he did not sit at the back of a bus.

The influence of Joseph McCarthy and the Red Scare resulted in people with liberal ideas,

including civil rights campaigners, being branded communists. Did the Cold War hinder the development of civil rights? Yes, because campaigners were seen as dangerous liberals at a time when the USA was under

threat. The siege mentality created by the Red Scare prevented real progress in the years from 1945 to

1954. Several campaigners were arrested and accused of being communists. On the other hand, criticism from the Soviet Union was embarrassing when the USA claimed to

be defending the free world. Presidents acted in order to improve the international image of the USA at a time when the

USSR appeared to be on the front foot.

22

Unions after the Second World War In 1947, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act (the Labour-Management Relations Act). This barred ‘the closed shop’ and permitted the President to call a sixty days ‘cooling-off’

period to delay any strike that might endanger national security or health. The unions termed the law a ‘slave labour bill’ and demanded a presidential veto. Truman vetoed the measure and he criticised Congress for ‘a shocking piece of legislation’,

which was biased against labour. Although Congress easily overrode the veto, Truman began to regain labour support. Unions during the Red Scare Anyone refusing to answer HUAC questions often lost their livelihoods. HUAC frightened labour unions into expelling Communist members and ignoring progressive

causes. Unions were thereby forced to concentrate exclusively on securing better pay and benefits for

their workers as their political influence was curtailed. HUAC extended its investigations into the entertainment industry. Film directors and

screenwriters who refused to co-operate were cited for contempt and sent to prison. Blacklists in Hollywood and radio broadcasting barred the employment of anyone with a slight

questionable past thereby silencing many talented people.

23

E: The 1950s and 1960s Were the 1950s a major turning point in improving the lives of black Americans? The Brown Case There was a series of important legal victories in favour of civil rights. The ‘Brown’ Case resulted in a clear statement from Chief Justice Warren that separate could

not be equal. In a second judgment in 1955, Warren stated that integration should take place ‘with all deliberate speed’.

The success was largely the result of the advocacy of Thurgood Marshall, who argued that

segregation had a long-term effect of condemning black Americans to second-class status. In many cities, the judgment was followed by immediate integration of schools However There were widespread protests in the South. ‘States rights’ was against federal policy. Southern states did not integrate and the vast majority of schools were still segregated at the

beginning of the school year in September 1957. Warren’s second ruling failed to set a date for integration and thus could be used as a get-out

clause in the South. Eisenhower failed to take decisive action to enforce Brown. Consequently, a second incident

was needed to force executive action. Little Rock Arkansas In September 1957, nine black students attempted to attend Central High School. The governor of Arkansas, Orval E. Faubus, prevented their entry by the use of the National

Guard (state troops). When Faubus was forced to withdraw the National Guard by a federal court order, a crowd

gathered to taunt and insult the children as they tried to enter the school. Eisenhower intervened by putting the National Guard under federal control and using them to

escort the children safely into school. The troops patrolled the school for the rest of the year. To avoid desegregation, Faubus shut down all the public high schools in 1958-9. The events at Little Rock reinforced northern white perceptions about race relations in the south

and the unacceptable behaviour of white southerners. This was enhanced by the fact that many of the events were televised and comparisons were

made between the behaviour of the nine black students and the crowds outside the school.

24

However Eisenhower had only intervened after violence broke out in the schools and Faubus apparently

broke an agreement to withdraw the troops. Schools remained closed until 1959 harming the education of many children Once again, Eisenhower failed to follow up the case and take executive action. The Montgomery Bus Boycott The most effective incident on the mid-1950s was the Montgomery Bus Boycott Across the south, buses were segregated, with blacks having to sit at the back or to stand if there

were too many white passengers on board. The Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955 was not the first one to take place (e.g. Baton Rouge,

Louisiana in 1953), but it was the one that attracted the greatest amount of public attention. It began with the arrest of Rosa Parks when she refused to give up her seat to a white man. In response to her arrest, a boycott of the buses was organised by the NAACP and the local

churches. To co-ordinate the boycott, an organisation called the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) was created. The President of this was Martin Luther King.

Initially, the MIA did not demand an end to segregation – just polite and fair service on the

buses. These demands were rejected and blacks were harassed for their participation. King was arrested for speeding (at 30 mph in a 25 mph zone!) As the boycott progressed, so the

demand for desegregation of the buses emerged. In 1956, a federal district court ruled in the case of Browder v Gayle that segregation on the

buses was unconstitutional. This ruling was upheld in the Supreme Court later the same year. The day after the Supreme Court upheld Browder v Gayle the Montgomery Bus Boycott was

called off after 381 days. Why was the Montgomery Bus Boycott important? It led to the Browder v Gayle ruling that declared segregation on the buses unconstitutional. It boosted the morale of the civil rights movement; the black community had taken action, stood

firm and emerged victorious. It demonstrated the capacity of non-violent protest to achieve change. The media attention helped to create white northern support for the aims of the civil rights

movement.

25

It led to the creation of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the emergence of Martin Luther King as a leading light within the civil rights movement. His contribution reinforced the philosophy of a non-violent approach to the achievement of change.

Whereas there was little to be gained from integrating schools, the bus boycott was potentially

ruinous. The boycott led to the realisation that black Americans were capable of achieving changes in

civil rights themselves. The bus boycott campaign was the first to be organised by black Americans and carried through

to a successful conclusion without any outside help. This encouraged many who had not been involved to take part for the first time. How important was Martin Luther King in the development of civil rights campaigns? He was highly intelligent and very well educated, having received a Ph.D. from Boston

University in 1955. This gave him an advantage over the often limited opponents of integration in the South.

He was a powerful and charismatic speaker who was able to put into words the hopes and

aspirations of the millions of black Americans. He was personally very brave. Despite intense provocation (his house was fire-bombed and he

received constant threatening letters) he refused to back down and was therefore a source of inspiration to campaigners.

He refused to use violence, thus depriving his opponents of the means of attacking him. His

moderation attracted widespread white support. He was a supreme organiser and was able to keep disparate groups together, including

supporters who wanted to use violence. He was able to use the media very effectively to publicise the brutality of life in the South and

to gain support from the white majority in the North. It was King, therefore, who, more than any other, welded the various strands of the civil rights

campaigns into a national movement. How much had changed by the end of the 1950s? Civil rights campaigner had had several key victories in Topeka, Montgomery and Little Rock. They had proved that they could organise a successful campaign without outside help. The campaigners had an inspirational leader in Martin Luther King. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference was to prove a very effective vehicle in

organising protests.

26

Were the years 1957-60 a period of treading water? Some historians see the period from 1957-60 as disappointing after the victories of 1954-7. Eisenhower was not prepared to go any further except in trying to ensure the voting rights of

black Americans. There were no positive steps by King, the SCLC or the NAACP. Others regard this as an important period of consolidation for the SCLC before the challenges of

the early 1960s. New supporters were attracted, particularly from students, which would form the SNCC. How did the campaigns for civil rights change in the early 1960s? The successes of the 1950s led to increased support for action to achieve civil rights. King’s charismatic leadership was particularly effective on young people: many of the

campaigners in the early 1960s were students. The election of John F Kennedy as president in November 1960 suggested that there would be

new impetus to federal policy. In February 1960, students began a sit-in at Woolworth’s in Greensboro, North Carolina. It

lasted for four days and Woolworth’s was forced to close. The Student Non-Violent Co-ordinating Committee was set up to organise the campaign. Sit-ins soon spread to more than 100 cities and 2000 protestors were arrested by police. These

actions were seen on television sets all over the USA. In some areas, the sit-ins worked. Stores gave in when their profits fell. But in the Deep South,

the opposite happened. Freedom Riders tried to test segregation on transport which had been declared to be completely

illegal by Boynton v Virginia in 1960. They were attacked on entering the South and buses were firebombed. Southern police made no effort to offer protection.

The worst treatment was meted out in Birmingham, Alabama, where Bull Connor was the police

chief. What were the aims of the new tactics? To expose the true nature of life in the South To gain maximum publicity on television and the other media By non-violence reaction to expose the brutality of opponents of civil rights To force the federal government to act in support of the campaigners To gain support in the North

27

Did the new tactics work? They were very effective in attracting media coverage and gaining support in the North. Campaigners were exposed to increasingly violent reactions, especially if they were white. The Kennedys used federal marshals to protect campaigners and enforced the integration of

interstate transport. Federal marshals were sent in to protect James Meredith when he attempted to enrol at the

University of Mississippi. Robert Kennedy started the Voter Education Project in 1962 to encourage black Americans to

register as voters in the South. But the Kennedys were unwilling to intervene where state governments responded moderately

rather than by using violence. King’s Albany campaign in 1962 failed because the chief of police understood that he needed to

prevent any white violence, which limited the media interest and hence the effectiveness of the non-violent strategy.

The various civil rights groups (most notably SNCC, NAACP and SCLC) had different

approaches to the most appropriate tactics to pursue and were not following a common policy of co-operation.

The most successful campaign, and the most dangerous, was that in Birmingham, Alabama, in

April 1963. Why was Birmingham, Alabama, so important? At first, the SCLC had little success because the authorities responded moderately. King was

arrested and released a week later, but this was hardly news worthy. However, while in prison he wrote the ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’, which set out his policy

of non-violence and attracted widespread attention and support. In early May, the SCLC decided to us children in the protests. Bull Connor ordered fire hoses to

be used on them and dogs to be set to attack them. All over the USA, people were horrified at the sight of police dogs attacking protesting children.

It was a turning point in the campaigns. Many who supported segregation were forced to

condemn the actions of Connor. The Birmingham authorities arranged a meeting with King and agreed a programme of gradual

de-segregation. They were persuaded by the economic damage that Birmingham was suffering as a result of the publicity.

Birmingham was a major success for King, or so he claimed, but now he wanted more: a federal

Civil Rights Bill.

28

The Civil Rights Bill Kennedy already had plans for a Civil Rights Bill, but suffered from the same problem that had

beset Roosevelt and Truman. Having been elected by the slimmest of margins, he was heavily dependent on the votes of Southern Democrats.

King decided to put pressure on the federal government by organising a grand, national event: a

march in Washington ending symbolically at the Lincoln Memorial. Kennedy initially opposed the idea but was convinced that it would be non-violent and would

help the campaign for a Civil Rights Act. 250,000 people marched and heard King deliver his ‘I have a dream’ speech. It was an

overwhelming success and encouraged Kennedy to press a head with a Civil Rights Bill. It was published in September 1963. But before the Bill could come before Congress, Kennedy

was assassinated. Why did Kennedy have little success in civil rights? There are differing views about Kennedy’s role in civil rights. There is no doubt that he

personally deplored discrimination, but was he totally committed to its eradication. His policy appeared to be pragmatic rather then principled. He was ready to compromise over

the treatment of the Freedom Riders and protesters in Birmingham. He needed to keep Southern Democrats ‘on-side’ rather than risk losing his chances of re-

election. But his reticence could also be explained by the complicated nature of the Constitution. Stirring

up the thorny issue of states’ rights could have caused more trouble than it was worth. Interstate travel was not a clear-cut constitutional issue. It was one thing to issue law-suits, but

quite another to pass Acts of Congress. Furthermore, civil rights was by no means the only major issue that Kennedy was having to

tackle. The little matters of Cuba, Berlin and the build up in Vietnam were all demanding his attention.

Why was the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964? Lyndon Johnson was able to capitalise on the sympathy after the death of Kennedy. Many

Congressmen came to support his ideals as a result of the nature of his death. LBJ was an experienced politician, having been in the senate for twenty years, unlike Kennedy

who was a relative newcomer. LBJ was able to persuade Congressmen to support civil rights, including the majority of

republicans in the House. He was a Southerner who understood and was able to counter the point of view of Southern

Democrats.

29

He had been a teacher and understood the impact that segregation could have on black

Americans. When all else failed, he was prepared to threaten and bully opponents and used his height and

weight to good effect in interviews. The Civil Rights Act, 1964 Segregation in public places and facilities was banned. The desegregation of schools was to be

speeded up by the intervention of the Attorney General. Discrimination in the hiring, firing and paying of workers on the basis of racial, gender or

religious discrimination was prohibited. It was made more difficult to use devices such as literacy tests to exclude blacks from voting. Any programme that received federal assistance was forbidden to discriminate against blacks. Why did King organise the Selma March? King wanted to test the application of the Civil Rights Act and chose Selma, Alabama, in the

Deep South. Many black Americans had been prevented from registering to vote in Selma. He used the same tactics as in Birmingham in 1963 and forced the local police chief to overreact

and attack protesters. King went on to organise a march from Selma to Montgomery, the state capital, to publicise the

difficulty of registering. The first attempt to hold the march failed when police attacked the marchers. King called off the

second attempt, but the third attempt but was a great success. LBJ was persuaded to introduce the Voting Rights Bill, which became law in 1965. Any attempt

to prevent black Americans from voting was made illegal. Further legislation included the Open Housing Law, which banned discrimination in the sale or

rental of houses. A second Civil Rights Act of 1968 which banned discrimination in housing and made it a

Federal offence to injure civil rights workers, or even to cross a state boundary with the intention of committing such a crime.

How successful had King’s campaigns been in the years to 1965? On the face of it, King had been completely successful. Two major civil rights Acts had been passed and he had had the support of two US presidents.

30

With the exception of a few states in the Deep South, there was wide support for civil rights across the USA.

Fringe Southern states, such as North Carolina, which had opposed civil rights in the past, had

now adopted integration in every area. However: While the law had been changed, many people’s minds had not. There was still much latent

opposition to integration. King himself had come under criticism, for almost the first time, for failing to press a head with

the first two marches from Selma. He was blamed for the deaths of protesters in Selma. While Acts had been passed, black Americans still worked in the worst jobs and tended to have

the lowest incomes, even in the North. Was integration really achievable? Was King being taken in by Northern liberals who wanted

acquiescent black Americans but did not want to allow real equality? The evidence was that spending on education and housing in black areas was still far lower than

in white areas. In 1965, the Moynihan Report showed that 50% of black males between 16 and 25 had criminal

records. The unemployment level for black Americans was twice that for whites. Average income of

whites was much higher. Even in the more liberal North, black Americans were no better off. Increasingly, some campaigners were turning to Black Power as an alternative path. The SNCC

was becoming increasingly violent and King’s influence was on the wane. Tension between the SCLC and the SNCC had come to the fore in Mississippi Freedom

Summer. The SNCC tried to set up the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party to rival the real

Democrats. LBJ relied on Mississippi votes for his re-election in December 1964 and persuaded Democrats

to prevent the MFDP from registering at the annual convention. The SNCC was furious and turned against LBJ and King, who was trying to maintain contact

with Johnson How did King react to the changing circumstances? He moved his campaigns to the North to tackle social and economic problems. There had been race riots in some Northern cities in 1965, so King chose Chicago, one of the

worst affected.

31

But he was unfamiliar with conditions in the North and his tactic of provoking the police did not

work. Protests and marches met determined opposition and violence. King was injured on one

occasion. He was able to reach a limited agreement with the Mayor of Chicago, but looked weak and

indecisive. How did King react to the Vietnam War? King faced major difficulties when the war broke out intensely in 1965. On the one hand, he

understood the debt he owed to LBJ: one the other he felt morally forced to speak out against the war.

He was not only angry at the tactics used by the US forces, but also at the enormous expense of

the war. Money was being used to pay for the war that had been committed to Johnson’s massive

Programme for Poverty, which would have benefited all black Americans. The casualty rate amongst black soldiers was higher than that of white soldiers. King did not openly criticise the Vietnam War until April 1967 and then planned another

Washington on the lines of the Bonus Marchers in 1932. He intended to set up a shanty-town outside the White House to highlight the poverty and

distress faced by many black Americans. He did not live to put his plans into effect. How important was Martin Luther King in the campaigns for civil rights? From 1957 to the mid-1960s he was the undisputed leader of the civil rights movement. He set the tone and the tactics for the campaigners. His involvement in the Montgomery bus boycott enabled campaigners to win a crucial victory,

which was a key turning point in the campaign. The SCLC became the main engine of the movement from 1957. His charismatic leadership and powerful speeches influenced black and white alike. His role in Birmingham and the Washington March in 1963 were perfect examples of how non-

violent action could be effective.

32

On the other hand King did not play an active role in the sit-ins and Freedom Rides of the early 1960s. King was at his most effective in the South where he was able to win propaganda victories over

inexperienced politicians and police chiefs. From 1966, he was increasingly out of his depth in the North when faced with situations that he

did not understand. He was not seen as a role model by many young, northern black Americans because he was a

Southern Baptist minister. He showed too little interest overall in the social and economic problems faced by black

Americans. His main aim was to ensure that the rights guaranteed in the Constitution were available through the law.

Criticism of the Vietnam War reduced his influence with Johnson and was seen as unpatriotic

by some. King was at his most influential in the years from 1957-65. He then found himself out of touch

with many Northern black Americans. He was unable to influence Mayor Daley of Chicago to do more than make vague promises.

When new expressways were needed, the homes of black Americans were in the way. King had begun to reconsider his policy in 1964 and had drawn closer to Malcolm X when the

latter left the Nation of Islam. He was in the process of adapting his policies and adopting a more radical stance when he was killed in 1968.

Why were divisions in the civil rights movement developing in the mid-1960s? There had always been divisions in the civil rights movement. The NAACP was traditionally

conservative and concentrated on legal process. The SCLC was more provocative, but peaceful. The SCLC tended to be more active because its members were younger and less patient. The sit-

ins and Freedom Rides were carried out without the support of King and his request to be allowed to join in was turned down.

King’s continued support for cooperation with the federal government aroused criticism. His

refusal to support the Mississippi Democratic Freedom Party was unpopular with the SNCC. Johnson’s refusal to back the SNCC persuaded many that he was an unreliable champion of

civil rights. His apparent weakness at Selma and his initially ambivalent attitude to the Vietnam War

resulted in a move away from the SCLC.

33

In the early 1960s, King faced rivals that were as charismatic as himself for the first time. Malcolm X was as effective at commanding support as King had been in the late 1950s.

From 1965, Stokeley Carmichael talked openly about the need for revolution. The race riots from 1965 made King’s position more difficult. King’s move to Chicago and the failure of his tactics convinced many that more decisive action

was required. The Black Panthers, although only a tiny group, created a major impact and weakened King’s

control. Why did Black Power develop from the late 1950s? There had been divisions in the civil rights movement since its inception. These gained in pace

in the mid-1960s. The ideas of Black Power did not form a coherent ideology in the same way as Martin Luther

King’s ideas of non-violence. Martin Luther King’s tactics had been a valid strategy in the context of the legal racism of the

south and had operated to undermine legal discrimination. It had been clear from the events in Chicago that these methods were not relevant to the

problems of discrimination in the north. Therefore, northern blacks were looking for ideas that were appropriate to their position and

Black Power seemed to offer answers to their social, economic and political problems. How did Malcolm X differ from Martin Luther King? Many of the ideas of Black Power were derived from the teachings of Malcolm X. He had been

involved in petty crime as a young man, but whilst in jail had converted to Islam, changed his name from Malcolm Little and had become a member of the Nation of Islam.

He was an inspirational speaker and his ideas included the following elements:

A belief that blacks should distance themselves from white society and not attempt the

integration advocated by Martin Luther King and his followers. He believed that blacks should develop their own organisations and self-help completely

separate from those of white society. These ideas of segregation were derived from Marcus Garvey whom Malcolm X’s parents had

admired. A belief that non-violence in the face of white aggression was not an appropriate response. He

argued that when blacks were faced with white oppression then armed self-defence was justifiable.

34

However, although he preached this position, he himself never directly engaged in violence, which has led to some debate as to whether he was merely using the language of violence to achieve concessions from the authorities.

Malcolm X parted from the Nation of Islam in 1964 when he discovered that its leader, Elijah

Muhammad, was not adhering to its strict codes regarding sexual behaviour. He formed a new organisation, the Organisation of Afro-American Unity, that aimed to promote

black nationalism. Malcolm X was assassinated the following year by members of the Nation of Islam. The Meredith March In 1966, James Meredith decided to march from Memphis, Tennessee to Jackson, Mississippi in

an attempt to encourage voter registration under the new Voting Rights Act. Meredith was shot by an unknown assailant and unable to continue the march. A number of

black organisations decided to complete the march. These included SCLC, SNCC, CORE, NAACP and the National Urban League.

Events reinforced the divisions between these various groups: NAACP and the National Urban

League did not participate because of disagreements with SNCC. Other divisions also emerged between the SCLC and SNCC and CORE.

A month before the Meredith March, Stokeley Carmichael had become the new leader of

SNCC. Under his leadership, SNCC was to become increasingly radical. As the march made its way through Tennessee and Mississippi, two rival sets of slogans began

to be chanted. Followers of the SCLC maintained their call for ‘Freedom Now’, but increasingly, the shout of ‘Black Power’ could be heard from SNCC and CORE supporters.

The Meredith March therefore marked a shift from the non-violent tactics of Martin Luther

King to a more radical phase of action.

Violence in the cities By the mid-1960s, 70% of America’s black population lived in cities, mostly in the ghettos. They were subjected to poor housing conditions, chronic unemployment (or low wages where

there was employment) and inferior educational opportunities for their children. In the summers between 1965 and 1968, there was a wave of violence in over one hundred cities

across the north and west. Examples of these cities were: Watts (Los Angeles) and Chicago (1965); San Francisco and

New York (1966); Newark and Detroit (1967); Baltimore and Washington DC (1968). In these eight cities alone, 118 people died during the riots.

These riots were often triggered by an arrest, but the scale of rioting reflected the frustration of

the urban population with their conditions.

35

To deal with the violence in Detroit tanks and soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division were sent in. The streets of America looked like a war zone.

In the course of these four years, over two hundred people died, seven thousand were injured

and $200 million worth of property was destroyed. The Kerner Report An enquiry into the events was established by Johnson in 1967. The report of the National

Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (the Kerner Report) concluded that the rioting was the consequence of the socio-economic problems experienced in the ghettos combined with police brutality.

It recommended federal intervention to provide low cost quality housing, create employment

and end de facto segregation in schools. Johnson, conscious of the opposition of many whites to such investment, ignored the Kerner

Report’s recommendations. However, there was one further piece of legislation enacted during the Johnson Presidency that

aided black Americans. This was the 1968 Housing Act that banned, by stages, discrimination in the sale or rental of

housing carried out through an estate agent. Black Panthers This group was founded in Oakland, California in 1966 by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. They mixed two of the key elements that had underpinned Malcolm X’s thinking. They promoted black self-help programmes designed to improve ghetto life such as the

provision of free breakfasts for children and anti-drug and anti-crime campaigns. They gave firearm training and patrolled black neighbourhoods. They gained significant

publicity from their armed confrontations with the police. Despite the publicity that the group gained, they had only a limited influence. By the late 1960s,

27 of their members had been shot dead and more than 700 were in prison. Even at their height, their maximum membership had only been about 2,000. By the mid-1970s,

they had completely disbanded. Was Black Power significant in the development of civil rights? It increased black consciousness and added an extra dimension to the civil rights campaigns. It attracted people who had never before been involved and raised self –esteem by arguing that

black culture was as important as white. It led to black studies becoming important disciplines in US universities and challenged the

traditional interpretation of the place of the black man in the USA.

36

On the other hand Black Power meant different things to different people. To some, it was no more than a general

statement of identity. To others, it was a political agenda. The break away from the mainstream campaigns led to further splintering. Consequently. The

movement became weaker. The race riots of the mid-1960s did nobody any good, except encourage a white backlash in a

few cases. The Black Panthers had very few or no positive effects. Negatively, they attracted Stokeley

Carmichael, broke up the SNCC and with it the non-violent consensus in the campaign. Were the 1950s and 1960s a turning point in improving the lives of other minorities in the USA? Native Americans There were some legal victories against the erosion of rights to land, but there was little

evidence of real improvement. Life expectancy was less than two-thirds the national average. Suicide rates were well above the national average. The great majority of houses were of very poor quality usually without running water. Unemployment was often at more than 50% and most jobs were in low-paid seasonal

employment. To what extent had civil rights been achieved by 1968? The combination of Supreme Court rulings such as Brown v the Board of Education Topeka,

Browder v Gayle and Boynton v Virginia together with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Act and 1968 Housing Act meant that de jure segregation and discrimination had largely been brought to an end in the south.

As a result of the 1964 Twenty-fourth Amendment and the 1965 Voting Rights Act the numbers

of black Americans registered to vote had increased dramatically e.g. in Mississippi between 1964 and 1968.

The number registered to vote had risen from 6% to 59% of the black population. Across the

south as a whole, the number of black voters rose from 1 million to 3.1 million. The result of this increase in political participation was that the number of elected black officials

also began to rise more than quadrupling between 1965 and 1970.

37

Part of Johnson’s broader domestic programme had entailed a ‘war on poverty’ which he had started in 1964. This had some impact on black poverty. For example, in 1965, 43% of all black families had been below the poverty line; by 1968, this figure had virtually halved to 23%.

Why had these successes been achieved? Earl Warren was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court between 1954 and 1968. Under his

direction, legal challenges to segregation and discriminatory practices were upheld e.g. Brown v the Board of Education, Topeka.

The tactics of Martin Luther King and the SCLC were significant in explaining the successes of

the civil rights movement for a number of reasons: King united for a time a large part of the black community, especially in the south, behind the

policy of non-violence. This meant that mass demonstrations were possible, such as those in Montgomery, Birmingham and Selma.

The role of the media in relaying the brutality of southern white racists such Connor at

Birmingham and Clark at Selma was important in modifying public opinion and bringing it behind the civil rights movement.

King’s belief in a policy of integration attracted the support of a large number of northern white

liberals. The actions of the civil rights movement convinced firstly Kennedy and later Johnson that

federal intervention was necessary, whatever the political costs.

The role of Johnson was critical to the successes of the civil rights movement. His ability as a congressional manager was central to the passage of the legislation that put an end to de jure discrimination.

In what ways was success limited? Although de jure segregation and discrimination had come to an end, de facto discrimination

persisted. By the late 1960s, about half of black children in the south attended integrated schools. This

compared well to the north and west, where only about one-third attended integrated schools. Despite the political advances that had been made, blacks remained under-represented both in

voter registration and as elected officials. The low socio-economic status of blacks persisted. Levels of poverty were higher and standards

of living were lower among blacks than whites. Unemployment levels were higher and educational achievement levels were lower.

Why was success limited? Divisions had increasingly emerged within the black civil rights movement between the

integrationist views of King and the separatist views of Malcolm X. This meant that a united front could not be presented after the mid-1960s.

38

The violence in the northern cities between 1964 and 1968 alienated much of the hitherto sympathetic white support.

American involvement in the Vietnam War also hindered the further progress of civil rights in a

number of ways: Martin Luther King attacked American involvement in the Vietnam War and in the process

damaged his relationship with Johnson. The cost of the Vietnam War meant led Johnson to reduce expenditure in his ‘war on poverty’

and this meant that any improvements that were being made in the socio-economic position of black Americans were slowed down.

Many of those white liberals who had previously offered support to the civil rights movement

began to withdraw in the face of the urban violence and offered instead their support to the anti-war movement.

In the 1968 Presidential election, Richard Nixon, the Republican candidate, was able to

capitalise on the growing conservatism of the country to win the election from Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic candidate.

Nixon’s policy on civil rights as President was to be reactionary and to slow down as far as

possible the implementation of civil rights rulings. Such a policy was to find wide support among the southern white Democrats who still adhered

to their archaic view of race relations. How did the role of women change from the 1960s? August 26th 1970 was the 50th anniversary of women’s suffrage. This also marked the high-

point of US feminism – The Women’s Strike for Equality – ‘If the 1960’s belonged to the Blacks, the next ten years are ours’.

Two key figures were Betty Friedan (Ms Mag) and Gloria Steinem (NOW - National

Organisation for Women (1966)) as part of a boom in feminist literature (e.g. Feminist Mystique by Friedan, Sexual Politics by Kate Millett (1969)).

Another key organisation was the Women’s Equity Action League. Often these far-fetched liberationist ideas proved extreme, but the high profile associated with

this media-savvy movement meant that their demands simplified into one – equality. Women were campaigning for sexual equality in all facets of life, not a new demand (as early as

1923). They hoped for this to be achieved by an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) within the

Constitution 27th Amendment: ‘Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States on

account of sex’.

39

This coincided with the 1971 National Women’s Political Caucus, which aimed at promoting women to political office (e.g. Geraldine Ferraro elected to Congress in 1978, Bella Abzug - House of Reps from 1971 to 1977 –‘A woman’s place is in the house – the House of Representatives!’).

This proposal did pass through the House of Representatives (1971) and the Senate (1972), but

effectively lapsed due to a lack of State support. It was ratified within one year by 28 states, but, by 1982, remained un-ratified nationwide

(needed 38 to pass and only got 35). The Deep South states were the major opponents. The issue of ERA had considerable influence over the 1980 Presidential election, as it divided

Democrat support for Carter, further aiding the conservative stance of Reagan. However, many successes were gained in terms of legislation between 1972 and 1974 under Nixon. Extended Equal Pay Act Women’s Educational Equity Act Educational Amendment Act Tax deductions on childcare for middle class families in medical training programmes, if both

parents worked 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act – women could get credit cards and mortgages in their own

name and on basis of their own income. By 1970, the Labour Department was also issuing affirmative action guidelines to all federal

contractors (including universities). The Federal court decision that challenged sexual labelling of jobs was a success (v American

Telephone and Telegraph – out-of-court settlement). The Supreme Court also played its part, upholding the ban on references to sex in wanted ads,

as well a confirming equal benefits for all in the armed forces. The one setback was Nixon’s veto of the Comprehensive Child Development Bill, which would

have provided a national network of day-care centres (cost?). As well as these structural, legal changes, society itself made modifications – textbooks were re-

written, curricula were revised, a vocational revolution occurred as previously ‘men only’ jobs opened up (from bus drivers to bartenders, to lawyers to judges).

Abortion: Roe v Wade Perhaps the most prominent single issue that ‘advanced’ the cause of women was abortion, and

the ground-breaking Supreme Court case of Roe v Wade (1973), which effectively legalised abortion nationwide. Before this, only 12 states had allowed abortion.

40

Roe (concealed name) was Texan and a single woman who won her case for an abortion on 22nd Jan 1973 – ironically she now regrets her decision and campaigns for the law to be reversed.

It declared that State abortion laws were unconstitutional on the grounds that they invalidated

the right to privacy (medical issue not feminist terms). It also declared that by making abortion legal, fewer women would die from illegal operations. Abortion was therefore made available to all, not just as before in rape cases, incest cases, and if

the mother’s life was in danger. The issue of abortion also dominated the Reagan-Bush era as anti-abortionists (Pro-Life) battled

with pro-abortionists (Pro-Choice). Their conflict became increasingly bitter and emotional, with millions spent on publicity and on

bombarding politicians. Pro-Lifers gained increasing support from the religious Right. They often resorted to terror

tactics of picketing, besieging and even bombing abortion clinics. Pro-Choicers soon matched this coordinated approach (bar the violence) with lobbying and

mass demonstrations. This conflict reached a head in 1989, with the Supreme Court case Webster v Reproductive

Health Services, when Roe v Wade was not over-turned despite Bush’s hope that it would. Even so, the Court deemed that states should construct their own abortion laws, and upheld

statutes which limited the legality of abortion. Nonetheless, by 1992, with Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v Casey, the Supreme Court

reaffirmed that a woman’s basic right to choose an abortion was a ‘rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce’

With all these changes came a backlash from the conservative sections of American society. Perhaps most surprising was the opposition by women themselves to the feminist campaign. Midge Decter – she was a journalist but also a founder of the neo-conservative movement,

wrote a plethora of books attacking feminism – e.g. The New Chastity and other arguments against Women’s Liberation

Phyllis Schlafly – despite being both a successful career woman and at the same time raising 5

children, she strongly opposed ERA, fearing a ‘unisex’ society advocating the protection of traditional roles.

Her STOP ERA (Stop Taking Our Privileges) campaign is heralded as partly having

successfully blocked ERA in many states. Her most famous line, to bait feminists was ‘I’d like to thank my husband for letting me be here

tonight..’

41

Interestingly as well, many working class and black women were less than enthusiastic about the feminist movement, either for traditionalist reasons, or for religious ones.

What though were the results of these changes? In 1970, 44% of workforce was female but by 1980 it was 51%. However, with this liberation, birth rates fell, while divorce rates rose. Teenage pregnancies

rose to 1 in 6 births by the end of 1970’s. More female-headed families exist, but this has tended to be amongst lower income households. People now talk of the feminisation of poverty, with 66% of adults in poverty being women in

1980. Trade Unions since the 1950s After 1960, public sector unions grew rapidly and secured good wages and high pensions for

their members. While manufacturing and farming steadily declined, state and local government employment

quadrupled from 4 million workers in 1950 to 12 million in 1976 and 16.6 million in 2009. By the end of the century, 8.4 million government workers were represented by

unions, including 31% of federal workers, 35% of state workers and 46% of local workers. By the 1970s, a rapidly increasing flow of imports (such as automobiles, steel and electronics

from Germany and Japan, and clothing and shoes from Asia) undercut American producers. By the 1980s there was a large-scale shift in employment with fewer workers in high-wage

sectors and more in the low-wage sectors. Many companies closed or moved factories to Southern states (where unions were

weak), countered the threat of a strike by threatening to close or move a plant, or moved their factories offshore to low-wage countries.

The number of major strikes and lockouts fell by 97% from 381 in 1970 to 187 in 1980 to only

11 in 2000. Shrinking unions lost influence in the Democratic Party, and pro-Union liberal Republicans

faded away. Union membership among workers in private industry fell dramatically, though after 1970 there

was growth in employees unions of federal, state and local governments. The mood in the 1970s and 1980s favoured deregulation and free competition. Numerous industries were deregulated, including airlines, trucking, railroads and telephones,

over the objections of the unions involved. The climax came when President Ronald Reagan, a former union president, broke

the Professional Air Traffic Controllers’ Strike strike in 1981, dealing a major blow to unions.

42

Native Americans The population more than doubled between 1945 and 1980, and is now at nearly 2 million. The greatest concentrations can be found west of the Mississippi in Oklahoma, Arizona and

California. Previously a largely rural population, over a half now live in big conurbations or in towns close

to reservations. This rural to urban shift has been led by younger Indians, and this caused, from the 1960’s

onwards, a more aggressive and modern approach to campaigning for greater status. Urban Indians have too often struggled to adapt to ‘modern’ society, finding themselves

impoverished, exploited and discriminated against. Likewise, on the reservations, poverty, unemployment poor housing and education were rife,

even worse than conditions for Blacks by the 1960s. Unemployment ranged from 20% to 80%, and by the 1970’s life expectancy was 44 (v 64

national average), with TB still a big killer. Suicide rates were high, as Indians felt their culture was despised by Whites. In 1944, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) became the first pan-Indian

organisation, and by the 1960’s adopted the NAACP’s litigation policy to enact change. The NCAI though campaigned not for integration but for separation

They sued state and federal governments over discrimination in employment and education, and

for breaking long-standing treaties. The best example was Passamaquodoy v Morton (1972) where this tribe gained compensation

for the breaking of a 1790 treaty! By the 1960’s their actions were unsurprisingly more militant, with the target being the Bureau

of Indian Affairs, which dictatorially ruled the reservations. Red Power ‘Red Power’ was first coined in 1969, by Vine Deloria Jnr (author of ‘Custer died for your

sins’). In 1969 14 demonstrators occupied Alcatraz Island, offering to sell it for $24, the price the

Dutch paid for Manhattan in 1626. 10,000 Indians visited the island during the protest. In 1972 there was a march on Washington, leading to the occupation of the Bureau for Indian

Affairs. In 1973, members of the American Indian Movement (militant) staged an armed confrontation

with federal officials at Wounded Knee, South Dakota.

43

AIM was founded in the Indian ghetto in Minneapolis, and when they began monitoring police racism, the Indian jail population fell by 60%. AIM’s militancy was inspired by the African American model.

AIM tried to get improvements in housing, education and employment initially in urban

ghettoes but then on the reservations. They were the first group to actively challenge the label ‘Indian’, and preferred to be known as

Native Americans. Some of the North-Eastern tribes (NY, New England) launched law suits to recover ancestral

land. Many ordinary Americans expressed sympathy with Indian demands, but often felt anger at the

constant protesting of the 1960s and 70s. Hispanic and Asian Americans Mexican Americans traditionally remained largely ghettoised, either in rural or urban enclaves,

and tended to want little to do with federal government. However, in the 1960’s this began to change, following the black example reasserting their

cultural identity. By 1978 the Hispanic population had reached 7.2 million primarily located in the South West

(Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Texas = 1/6th of population). By 1970, 85% of Hispanics lived in cities, with over 1 million in LA alone. Many rejected the

term Mexican-American in favour of Chicanos, and made collective efforts to improve their political, social and economic status.

For example, voter registration drives in 1974 led to Chicanos being elected as governors of

New Mexico and Arizona, and locally in Texas.

Cesar Chavez set up a Mexican agricultural workers’ labour union (United Farm Workers) that became known as the Brown Berets, but was nothing like as active as the Back Panthers.

They campaigned for better pay and conditions, and Chavez led grape and lettuce boycotts

between 1965 and 1972, as well as a campaign for educational reform and desegregation Nonetheless, Hispanics were and still are severely under-represented in state and city

legislatures. This was largely because the Hispanic population remained apathetic to politics, except their

longstanding anger against the taking of the Far West from Mexico by the USA, and their own localised discrimination issues.

Hispanics though have, alongside blacks, continued to suffer economic racism, consistently

being amongst the poorest in America. The biggest issue has been that of immigration, and the US government have regularly battled

with this (border conflict between Mexico and the USA resulting in the Wall currently being

44

constructed, as well as the vigilante groups who patrol the US side – ‘we have lost control of our borders’ Reagan (1984).

Japanese and Chinese Americans, despite the racial prejudice and legal discrimination they had suffered (particularly during WW2), remained deliberately isolated from the political process, and interestingly have made the most significant advances economically of all the racial minorities.

Improvements and successes Even so, the response from governments varied but several examples can be referred to

positively. Both Johnson and Nixon advocated economic and political self-determination for ‘Indians’. Johnson’s War on Poverty helped Indians greatly although it did create dependency, particularly

in terms of jobs, with most newly created being federal schemes rather than private initiatives. Nixon appointed, in 1969, Louis R. Bruce (Mohawk-Sioux) as Commissioner for Indian

Affairs, and returned 48,000 acres of sacred land to the Taos Pueblo Indians. Nixon also promised the tribes greater autonomy, but not entirely cut off from federal support.

This led to the Indian Self-determination Act (1975) aimed at restoration of land to tribes. One of the greatest successes was the $800 million paid out by the Indian Claims Commission

between 1946 and 1978, although this was created by Congress independently of Indian activism.

Tourism, both a boon and a bonus, has economically helped the Indians in the last 25 years. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is now dominated by Indians, and has become an effective

lobbying group in Washington. But The issue of self-determination and self-government remains complex, with land ownership too

often at the heart of the continued white-red conflict. Even when self-determination has been practised (no state taxes, their own car license

plates…..), acting as ‘domestic, dependent nations’ (Supreme Court Justice Marshall 1831-32), later Court decisions have impinged.

For example, the Oliphant Decision (1978), and Duro v. Reina (1990) limited tribal authority

over non-Indians and other tribal Indians living on the reservations. Even though the Supreme Court declared that ‘the power to tax is an essential attribute of Indian

Sovereignty’ (Merrion 1982), some states like Oklahoma have challenged it over state cigarette taxation.

Whites have also clashed with Indians over gambling, water and fishing rights, and so tension

still persists today

45

Black Americans and civil rights since the 1960s

Despite the extraordinary successes of the 1950’s and 1960’s, the issue of race in relation to African Americans has certainly not gone away.

However, since the death of Martin Luther King and the crushing if the Black Panthers by the

FBI, civil rights have no longer been seen in the context of a national movement. Nonetheless, many of the intrinsic problems still exist, of poverty, deprivation, violence,

discrimination, and so on. What then has been done since 1968, by successive presidents, to address these issues? Nixon Negatives: ‘There has never in history been an adequate black nation and they are the only race of which

this is true’ (Nixon) He refused to meet black leaders or endorse a national holiday on MLK’s birthday; he crushed

the Black Panthers. He tried to revise the Voting Rights Act to get Southern votes. He appointed a Southern racist to the Supreme Court. He refused to back, in 1971, the Supreme Court which wanted to enforce fully school

desegregation. Positives: Despite Nixon’s conduct, the %age of black children still in segregated schools fell from 68% to

8% (1968-74). He set up the Office of Minority Business Enterprise to encourage black entrepreneurship; he

and the Supreme Court supported Affirmative Action, as he believed jobs would solve many of the problems.

This was best seen in the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and in Grigg v Duke Power

Company (1971). He battled against both Congress and Unions to ensure companies with federal contracts

employed a proportionate number of blacks. Conclusions: Perhaps in spite of Nixon’s personal views, his presidency did witness significant advances in

terms of desegregation, employment discrimination, and voting rights. Essentially, the courts, even Congress, and even the President enabled civil rights to further

improve.

46

Despite Nixon’s hatred of LBJ’s Great Society and its welfare provision, social security and

welfare payments doubled in his presidency, which directly raised black living standards, as ‘only’ 30% remained in poverty in 1974, compared to 50% in 1960.

Greater federal intervention was now the key, not direct action Carter As a Southerner, whose earlier political career hardly suggested a civil rights sympathiser,

Carter actually did a great deal for the black community. As Governor of Georgia he employed many black Americans; as president he appointed more

black Americans and Hispanics to the federal judiciary than any other president (%age rose from 4% (1977) to 8% (1981)).

He appointed black women to his cabinet; he made Andrew Young the US Ambassador to the

UN. He renewed the Voting Rights Acts; guaranteed that minority-owned companies got a fair share

of government contracts. He strengthened the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1964). He supported the Supreme Court in its support of Affirmative Action in Bakke v Regents of the

University of California (1978) Reagan Reagan’s earlier political career hardly made for encouraging reading for civil rights

campaigners, particularly his attacks on LBJ’s civil rights legislation and desegregation. Once elected, he also launched his own brand of supply-side economics (Reaganomics) which

focused on massive welfare cuts, since he rigidly believed that welfare created dependence, and this in turn caused poverty.

All poor people lost out under Reagan (the poorest found their earnings fell by 10% under

Reagan), and this included a significant minority of blacks. In 1982 he supported Bob Jones University (which had religiously inspired segregation) over

tax exemptions for segregated schools. He failed in his bid to oppose the Civil Rights Restoration Act (1988), which re-instated the full

powers of 4 major civil rights Acts that had been eroded over the years. Reagan epitomised the conservative 1980’s and its backlash against 1960s/1970s liberalism. Bush Like his predecessor, Bush is generally seen in a negative light when it comes to race relations.

47

He stands accused of using racially inflammatory content in his electoral campaign (the Willie Horton advert), which stirred up racial fears amongst white voters.

He vetoed the 1990 bill that countered Supreme Court rulings that made it difficult to prove job

discrimination based on race. He nominated conservative judges to the Supreme Court, and even his black appointment,

Clarence Thomas advocated self-help rather than Affirmative Action, and supported attacks on desegregation (e.g. 1995 Missouri v Jenkins).

Black Involvement in Politics Since its halcyon days of the 1960’s, the NAACP has seen its influence diminish. During the 1970’s it strongly supported the policy of bussing, but conversely attracted criticism

from within the black community for supporting a measure that undermined black cohesion. It has though successfully evolved into one of the many pressure groups that lobby in

Washington, effectively becoming part of the Establishment in the process. It has achieved notable successes in this role, usually in supporting further legislative changes,

for example in 1982 over the up-dated Voting Rights Act. Certainly increasing numbers of blacks have been able to serve in political, federal or state

office (see examples like Andrew Young being elected to Congress in 1972), although by 1980, only 1% of America’s elected officials was black.

More and more blacks have chosen to exercise their right to vote, although the increasingly

conservative nature of American politics has threatened this trend. Jesse Jackson, (until Barack Obama perhaps) has been the most high-profile black politician,

having worked with MLK in the 1960’s. He twice stood to be the Democratic presidential candidate, and despite losing in both 1984 and

1988, he increased his own support from white Democrats from 20% to 40%. Conclusions Since the 1970’s it has been more a battle fought in the courts, and of defending the legal

successes gained in the 1960’s, and this has seen both successes and failures. It has also been economics that have defined the debate, as the long-standing problems remain

the same; disproportionate poverty for the black population (blacks on average earn 56% less than whites).

Certainly Reagan’s policies can be partly to blame for the increasingly divergent distribution of

wealth in America, and this has led to (directly or indirectly?) the growth of black ghettoes, more one parent families, rising crime rates, and white fear.

Also, the black community has become much less homogenous, with 1/3 having become

‘middle-class’ by the 1980’s, and they in turn have adopted more conservative approaches to resolving the black poverty issue (see Clarence Thomas’ support of self-help).

48

All this has also been allied to increasing signs of a white backlash, often against Affirmative

Action, as witnessed by challenges like Bakke v University of California, and the fact that California effectively ended Affirmative Action in 1999.

The race riots in South Central Los Angeles highlighted on-going racial tension, both in terms

of the causes (ghettoisation) and results (a white jury exonerated the policemen seen killing Rodney King).

Racism still exists, despite legal and political equality, and voting patterns in the South reflect a

still-divided society, with blacks largely voting Democrat and Whites largely voting Republican The 1980s and 1990s saw a revival of KKK organisations, the most well-known being the

Aryan Nations who hoped for a ‘white homeland’ in the Northwest. America remains divided along racial lines, and some historians like Saunders believe that,

despite all the successes of the last 40 years, this split is growing even wider.