His campaigns in the North were far less successful and also help highlight the limitations of his philosophy. A good example is the Chicago Freedom Movement of 1966 as it resulted in an apparent failure that led to further criticism of his leadership and tactics. The first rally on the 10th of June 1966 produced far less support than he was expecting as 30,000 out of the 100,000 that King was expecting turned up and the threat of increased violence forced Mayor Daley to act. Perhaps the most significant mistake thought to be made by King was the obtainment of a court injunction severely restricting future marches. This changed the balance of power and at the negotiations King was forced to compromise. At the end of the campaign the Chicago Real Estate Board promised to respect the fair housing laws. Ignoring the criticism from the other civil rights organizations King respected this compromise as a victory. Following Daley’s re-election in 1967, promises of fair housing were ignored. Not only did this lead to further criticism towards King and his tactics but the campaign also highlighted the extent to which king had misjudged the situation. This is evident as King fails to gain the support from President Johnson who refuses to involve the federal government in the campaign. This is not surprising following King’s attack on the Vietnam War highlighting the misjudgment of the situation he found himself in.
The Presidents of this period also had a role to play in regards to their support/involvement in various campaigns and therefore the gains made as a result. President Eisenhower had a role to play in the Little Rock Campaign in the 1957 as he took the National Guard under presidential control and ordered them to protect the black students because Faubus used the National Guard to prevent the black students from entering Little Rock High school. In taking the National Guard under presidential control, the campaign gained the authority of the US president, in itself increasing the recognition and the success for campaign. Although he showed his support in the Little Rock Campaign, he was reluctant to help the civil rights movement as he felt that it wasn’t the government’s duty to improve conditions for black people and that it would improve over time.
Kennedy’s support for the movement was evident during the enrolment of James Meredith at the University of Mississippi. Following the violence Meredith faced as violent white protestors prevented him from entering the university, Kennedy sent federal troops to defend Meredith and ensure that he enrolled successfully, showing Kennedy’s sympathy for the civil right movement. His support was also evident during the Birmingham campaign. Kennedy was sickened by the images of police violence. This led to the media using the campaign as clear evidence of America’s Corruption and Soviet Superiority. Kennedy was therefore forced to act and show his support for a bill that would once and for all end segregation. This was vital as it demonstrated the President’s public commitment for a civil rights bill. President Kennedy also opposed the March on Washington because he was afraid that it would become violent and jeopardise support for civil rights legislation but the march remained peaceful showing support for the civil rights legislation. His support may not have been as strong as it could have been. He had promised in his campaign speeches to act swiftly if elected. The 1960 report by the Civil Rights Commission made it very plain in clear statistics just how bad discrimination had affected the African American community. Regardless of his promises, in 1961 Kennedy did nothing to help and push forward the civil rights issue. International factors meant that the president could never focus attention on domestic issues in that year. He also knew that there was no great public support for such legislation.
President Johnson was seen to mainly oppose the movement until the Civil Rights act of 1964 ended segregation once and for all. This is demonstrated through Johnson’s refusal to involve the government in the Chicago Freedom Movement as he was no longer willing to work with King following his attack on the Vietnam War. Also, the Poor People’s Campaign was misjudged by King as President Johnson made it clear that he didn’t support the plan due to the split views on the Vietnam War and the diverted resources the war created away from social projects designed to promote social justice. His support, however, was demonstrated through the passing of two acts, including the civil rights bill of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965. These acts were highly significant as segregation was finally thought to be over and all black citizens could vote ending disenfranchisement. De Facto change was finally secured. To conclude, The presidents as a whole played a vital role towards the gains made by the civil rights movement however it is clear that without the efforts made by the civil rights organisations to gain media attention and therefore increase the public support for the movement, the Presidents may also not have supported the movement and therefore we cannot come to the conclusion that the presidents had played the most important role in regards to the gains made by the movement as a whole.
Both Congress and The Supreme Court had a significant impact towards the gains made by the civil right movement. Congress’s support was essential for progress in terms of civil rights legislation. It was thought that this support would not be easy to obtain due to the overpowering voice of the southern states within congress. This is shown through the obstruction of civil rights legislation from 1945 through to 1960. However, we notice that Congress’s attitude towards civil rights legislation had changed. In 1964, 73 out of 100 senators and 289 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives voted in favour for the Civil Rights Act. This change has been thought to of occurred due to a number of different reasons. One of these reasons is that following the 1964 congressional elections, some conservative southern democrats were replaced by more liberal democrats that happened to be more sympathetic towards the movement. The Supreme Court also showed considerable leadership on civil rights issues. Eisenhower’s decision in 1953 to appoint Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was extremely important as he was more sympathetic to civil rights issues and used his authority to persuade other members of the Supreme Court that segregation in education could no longer be tolerated. The Supreme Court’s decisions in court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), Brown II (1955) and Browder v, Gayle (1956) picked apart the legal basis of segregation. These rulings were significant as they were used by civil rights activists to force changes in campaigns such as sit-ins across the southern states of America. Although these decisions were crucial in the fight for total racial equality and the gains made by the civil rights movement, the Supreme Court wouldn’t have been able to make these decisions without the fight from other organisations such as the N.A.A.C.P taking these cases to the court in the first place.
Civil rights organizations had the biggest role in being responsible for the gains made by the civil rights movement. Examples of these organisations include organisations such as the NAACP and CORE. Examples that show their significance include CORE’s organized Freedom Rides between Washington DC and New Orleans. These rides were aimed to test the rulings of desegregation on interstate buses and interstate transport facilities achieved after the De Jure victories of Morgan V. Virginia in 1946. The freedom riders expected to meet violent opposition and used this to gain media attention. The freedom riders achieved a significant victory by forcing Attorney General Robert Kennedy to enforce desegregation on interstate bus services. This shows just how vital it was for CORE to test the Supreme Court’s ruling and ensure De Facto desegregation was enforced. The NAACP played perhaps the most important role in terms of other civil rights organisations due to their vital legal work and involvement in campaigning. A good example to demonstrate the effective combination of direct action with a legal campaign that falls under this time period was the Bowder v. Gayle ruling of 1956. This case was put in place to build upon the previous Montgomery bus boycott and officially made the segregation of buses illegal. The combination of direct action with the court case was so vitally important for a number of different reasons. Firstly, the case indicated that it was possible to overturn the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson. Secondly, this combination led to the establishment of the SCLC which would soon become an important player in the civil rights movement. This shows that without the legal work of the NAACP being put in place, Martin Luther King would not have been able to make the progress he did as not only would he not of had the same level of media attention, but also the civil rights movement as a whole could only progress to a certain level without these court rulings.
To conclude, many historians and I believe that other organisations such as the NAACP played the most important role in regards to the gains made by the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King was highly charismatic and a gifted orator who could convey the injustices of segregation to a national audience. He was a leader. He was highly responsible for the media coverage and increase in public support for the movement. However, the fact that King was very highly criticized from all corners of the movement combined with failures such as The Albany Movement and bad decision making such as the highly significant tactical mistakes made throughout the Chicago Freedom Movement of 1966 leave us unable to consider him, or the SCLC, the main reason for the gains made by the movement in the years 1955 – 1968. It is clear that without the legal battles won by the NAACP, there would have been no chance of de facto change, which would have made it significantly harder for the movement to progress. This supports the point that although it may not be the direct reason for the gains made, the gains would not have been able to take place without the efforts of the NAACP combined with the rulings of the supreme court that eventually, led to real, de facto change within the civil rights movement.
by
kingstonbasketball4gmailcom (student)
