The Civil Rights Movement

Clarence Taylor, a professor at the City University of New York, puts forth a central opinion in his podcast that there were three or four phases of the Civil Rights Movement in America. He questions the ideas of popular historians and is not afraid to disagree and stray from normality. Clarence adds a controversial fourth phase to the movement, suggesting that it still has not ceased in modern times. Despite challenging common views, Taylor provides a step by step breakdown of each section of the civil rights movement and their contributions to the American society.

            At the start of his podcast, Taylor explains the “popular” or conventional view of the Civil Rights period. Moreover, that the first of two concepts involves the period in time that the movement took place, which is most often characterized as from 1954-1965. This conventional view contrasts with the sections of the movement we have discussed in class. Similarly to Taylor, we broke the movement up into three parts: desegregation from the 1930’s-1963, securing voting rights from 1963-1965, and improving urban conditions and economic equality from 1965-?1968. Professor Taylor is correct in the sense that there cannot be a label as to when the civil rights movement began; however, he is wrong in the area that this popular view applies to almost all documentaries, textbooks, and books. As evident in our class, the decade during civil rights that Taylor refers to is not the only decade studied in the “accepted” view of civil rights.  Documentaries and textbooks begin with the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education not because they believe that is when the push for civil rights started but because that was the major turning point in the fight for equality and desegregation. Professor Taylor asks “why 1954?” and it is because this was the first major victory for civil rights activists and the first step towards recognizing African-Americans in the American society. It is clear that the civil rights movement was occurring well before the 1954 Supreme Court case, but Clarence fails to mention the specific significance of the case.

Professor Taylor introduces James Lawson’s book Freedom then Freedom Now, and in the book, Lawson’s evaluation of the “popular” timeline of civil rights involves events in the struggle that are common because they make “America feel good.” Lawson suggests that most Americans only focus on occurrences such as sit-ins and freedom riders that are stories of blacks fighting back against segregation and succeeding. Furthermore, that these stories prove that America has come far from its terrible past, but they hide the appalling and hideous truth of America’s sins. Nonetheless, in class we have delved into all aspects of America’s horrid past through videos and readings such as about Emmett Till or the 16^th Baptist Church. This may be a small exception to Taylor’s theory, yet we have viewed the real resistance that the sit-in and freedom riders faced from groups such as the KKK or white mobs. Unlike the usual civil rights perceptions explained by Taylor and Lawson, we observe these bombings, murders, and beatings that are absent from familiar teachings. Also, we decide how far America has come from a terrible past rather than assuming.

            As the second concept in his popular view of the civil rights movement theory, Taylor explains that most people falsely believe that the movement took place particularly in the South and that the period of struggle was limited to one region. Furthermore, that these people believe that during the mid 1900’s everything in the North was “hunky dory.” The North clearly had its own issues with segregation, but Taylor stresses that most people do not realize the Northern troubles. This is mainly because the segregation in the North was completely legal; thus, there was no basis to fight for desegregation, causing the bulk of the civil rights movement to occur in the South. The Northern segregation was legal because it featured neighborhoods that were either predominantly white or black due to discrimination. Segregation was illegal, but because of the majority neighborhoods, the result was segregation without any unconstitutional actions or government force. Therefore, the majority of people are unaware of the struggles in the North because of de facto segregation due to the low publicity compared to the South in the mid 1900’s. Only in 1974, when segregation was forced upon Boston, was the attention drawn to the race-problematic North.

            Later on in his speech, Professor Taylor makes the bold declaration that the Cold War was the most important event of the 1900’s. Yet, when Taylor makes this assertion, he is probably referring to how the Cold War was very significant in shaping the civil rights movement. The fight for democracy over communism forced Americans to rethink the status of mid 1900’s America. To achieve full democracy and fully advocate their cause, people realized that the U.S. needed to advocate for the equality of all races and genders. This universal war against communism helped fuel civil rights. Though the Cold War was crucial in bringing America together, the claim that it is the most important event of the century is a little excessive. It was a critical time in U.S. history and it helped increase the true meaning of American nationalism.

            In his last statement, Professor Taylor stresses his unique idea that America is not in a post civil rights era. In his explanation, he disagrees with the opinion that legal discrimination was broken down by the civil rights movement. Taylor says that the economic component of blacks’ rights was brushed aside and ignored. Although it is true that America is dealing with black economic equality today, it has reached a post civil rights era where the nation is growing closer and closer to the true meaning of freedom and equality where “all men are created equal.” However, from 1965-1968, economic equality was the vocal point of the poor people’s campaign led by Dr. King. It was only after the assassinations of King and Kennedy that the movement fell apart.

Professor Taylor contradicts himself by saying there is a fourth and current phase of the civil rights movement at the beginning of his podcast, but then later Taylor explains that the movement has come and gone but the issues remain. As seen with busing Boston in 1974, Taylor is correct that the objectives of civil rights have not come and gone. Despite the low numbers of equal rights activists in the present American society, it is essential to finish what visionaries such as Martin Luther King Jr. helped to start.

The Significance of Reconstruction

      Eric Foner, a Columbia University professor, makes a strong argument in his podcast that reconstruction was one of the most significant periods in American history. He explains that the period in time was part of the many vicissitudes that America has experienced. Foner summarizes that essentially the laws for equality in America were present in the Old Constitution and its amendments; however, the civil rights act of 1866 and 14^th amendment were ignored and lacked the enforcement that was key to their effectiveness. In his detailed description, he concludes that despite failure, reconstruction was a noble effort to establish a racial democracy and cemented the foundation for future civil rights movements.

At the beginning of his speech, Professor Foner encourages the idea that reconstruction is a part of every-day Americans’ lives. Moreover, that the events and questions that face society today were the very same that faced the 19^th century American population. His statement is true in many aspects including that citizenship and terrorism are issues faced in both reconstruction and the present. On the other hand, each issue takes on a much different meaning in current society than it took in the 19^th century. For example, the KKK was American-born terrorism that was widely accepted by the South in the 19^th century. Even though their actions were clear terrorism, America was not united in shutting down the KKK until the mid-1900s. Alternatively, the U.S. as a whole has joined in an effort to combat modern-day terrorism. Modern-day terrorism involves foreign rebels committing acts of treachery against America. These attacks differ from the KKK in that they commit acts of violence against all Americans not just a specific race. In addition, the American citizenship debate has changed drastically in that it now involves illegal immigrants attempting to enter America rather than African –Americans already living in America. During reconstruction, the government was trying to build up black rights and citizenship whereas now the government is making qualifications for what it takes to become an American. One engrosses a specific race receiving equality, and the other is immigrants entering the country receiving equality. Foner was correct in that terrorism and citizenship were two problems that American society was engaged with during reconstruction and is now. Yet, the details of each issue vary greatly between times.

Another area Professor Foner covers with particular detail is the politics of history. He uses the negative views of Reconstruction during 50-60 years in the 20^th century to stress the realistic significance that the period holds. Ultimately, state-ways and the several laws passed were not able to change the prejudice and discriminative feelings towards blacks in the South. From the Southern point of view, they believed that it was a mistake to give blacks rights, that they needed to prevent the Republican North from taking control, and that the Northern outsiders misguided them with a poor understanding of southern life. Moreover, the KKK advocated for white supremacy and an end to reconstruction in the south. By providing the common beliefs of these early 20^th century historians, Foner is able to provide accurate reasoning of why reconstruction failed. For instance, it failed for the same reasons that these historians believed that the reconstruction period was a low-point in American democracy because it searched for black equality.

            An interesting statement that Foner makes in his podcast is that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was “one of the most important laws ever enacted in American history.” The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was essential in that it made all blacks U.S. citizens with equal rights as whites and paved the way for the 14^th Amendment. This bold assertion, however, is true only in that the concept of the law rather than the law itself is what was essential to U.S. history. The notion that an act of the government could be passed creating equal citizenship for all races was larger than the actual act itself. For example, the Civil Rights Act would be nullified less than 25 years later by the Slaughter House, Civil Rights, and Plessy v. Ferguson cases. Nevertheless, the concept of blacks gaining citizenship in America sparked the passing of the 14^th Amendment and led the way for future civil rights activists. Thus, Foner’s proclamation that the act was essential in U.S. history is not far off in that the act was a turning point for laws and rights in America.

            A final significant issue that Eric mentions is how the 14^th Amendment marks a change in the federal system and with the states in the U.S. He makes the excellent point that up until that point, the Bill of Rights and Constitution simply stated what Congress and the federal government could not do. The focus was to regulate the power of the federal government and quell people’s fears that it might become overly-powerful. Moreover, the major concern involved the ability of states to violate the regulations set forth in the Constitution such as establishing religion and disobeying free speech. Foner explains that the 14^th Amendment put the power of defense in the hands of the federal government, and it made them the protectors of equality and justice. This step was essential in American history because it identified the states as the violators. Unfortunately, after reconstruction the federal government would not be able to gain full control over state laws to administer equality and end segregation until a hundred years later.

To add a final point, Foner fails to mention that the reason few people know about reconstruction is because all of the black rights and equality progress made in this time were negated during the Jim Crowe era. Then again, he would probably argue with that statement, saying that reconstruction made governmental strides towards equality, passing the laws that would eventually destroy segregation and discrimination. This may be true, but Foner still doesn’t explain why so few Americans are educated on the reconstruction age.

War Between Neighbors: The Coming of the Civil War

       In his podcast, Edward Ayers proposes the idea of using social history when exploring the Civil War and advocates for his book In the Presence of Mine Enemies: War in the Heart of America. The book focuses on two cities, Stanton, Virginia and Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, when breaking down the events of 1859-1863. Ayer’s vocal point of his lecture is not on the specific events, causes, and effects of the Civil War, but rather on the people and their feelings, thoughts, and hardships. This innovative take on the war introduces new insight into Northerners, Southerners, and African Americans and their opinions toward each other and toward fighting. Ultimately, Ayers is able to take thousands of primary sources and mold them into his book as a unique look at the war.

            Ayers’ goal from the beginning is to take the lives of everyday people cities from the North and South and follow them on their journeys. This may work in depicting a realistic view of what war is like; however, at no point does Ayers take a step back and break down or comment on what is occurring and why. The essential issue is that most of the time, the everyday person just isn’t that interesting. Most of the accounts that Ayers presents in his lecture that are taken out of his book are all similar in that they showed struggle and exertion. Yet, Ayers explains himself that one of the accounts, with a soldier Henry and his wife Lisa, is downright boring. The story simply involves a young husband writing to his wife, sending money, and occasionally receiving packages. The dialogue in the letters shows first hand experiences of war, but it does not give much of a look into the real death and disaster of the Civil War. There may be Civil War primary sources that illustrate the trauma and burden of battle, but it probably won’t be found in a soldier outside of the action writing to his wife.

           Another issue that Ayers avoids a little more than he should is the question of how over a four month period, Virginia persuaded itself to secede from the Union. He emphasizes that in January of 1860, there were practically no votes in favor of secession in Virginia and secession was linked with treason. Then, by April, almost everyone in Virginia was voting for secession. Ayers supplies some of the Confederate justification of secession in presenting Psalm 23, suggesting that it was God’s will to secede. On the other hand, Ayers never actually explains what created such a sudden change of heart in Virginia, whether it was Lincoln’s inaugural address, slavery, or Southern persuasion. Either way, Ayers avoids going into depth about these and other points that involve the reasons and causes of events and occurrences that took place.

            When explaining why the war lasted longer than both sides expected, Professor Ayers refutes the common conception that the Civil War was a modern and industrial Northern society vs. a not modern and agricultural Southern society. He rationalizes that the South was very modern and very powerful, defending his statement with the fact that the South by itself had at the time the fourth largest economy in the world. Therefore, Ayers proposes that it wasn’t at all obvious that the North would win a swift and painless victory. Although it may have been true that the North victory would not be immediate, the North held a clear advantage over the South in many areas. Disregarding Ayers opinion for a moment, the statistics show that the North had the obvious lead in modernization and industrialization over the South. For example, the South had one-ninth the industrial capacity as the North, with around 20,000 factories compared to the Northern 120,000. Moreover, 94% of cloth, 97% of firearms, and over 90% of clothing were all manufactured in the North. The North also had around twice the man-power of the South and superior transportation (twice as much railroad). These statistics make it apparent that the South was nowhere near the industrialization of the North. The South was able to for a brief period maintain control of the Civil War. However, Ayers’ opinion is questionable because the Southern success was not due to a modern, industrial, and powerful Southern society, but instead to superior generals, strategy, and motivation.

            Later in Edward Ayers’ lecture, he refers to author Stephen Gould’s book on evolution and Gould’s ideas that any major change in the any step of the sequence of happenings and events alters the results. Gould uses the Civil War to back up his point, explaining that the South lost the war with a “relentless inevitability” once events occurred as they did. Ayers continues to express that if the Confederates had not obtained early victories, then their campaign would have failed. Thus, with no Emancipation Proclamation, slavery would have been drastically changed in history. Nevertheless, this view on the Civil War and its hypothetical effects could be applied to any situations in any other battles, wars, and major events in history. This “what-if” take on the Civil War simply explains what could have happened. If the colonists had lost the Battle of Saratoga then the British may have succeeded in suppressing the American Revolution. If the atomic bomb had not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then the war with Japan might not have ended for another year or so, extending American casualties. The “if… then” scenarios only create possible situations to inspect and discuss. As interesting as it is to imagine a quick end to the Civil War without the Emancipation Proclamation, this never happened and merely involves theoretical circumstances.

            Overall, Professor Ayers offers an innovative idea in describing the Civil War through first hand experiences. On the other hand, Ayers explains himself that before writing the book, he knew very little about the Civil War. Currently, Ayers is most likely well-educated and informed on the issues the war, but he avoids deep thinking in his lecture. Although his ideas, such as the Southern modernization, can be easily challenged, Ayers provides an inside look at the usually unnoticed struggles, hardships, and opinions of the American Civil War.