After the success of Montgomery, King was later announced the leader of the SCLC in 1958. However, success after Montgomery was limited for the SCLC; this was partly due to King and his ineffectiveness to gain some momentum after Montgomery which was a crucial moment in the civil rights campaign. In the sit-ins and freedom rides of 1960, SCLC and King supported in the sit-ins and the freedom rides. These tactics and protest were thought up by SNCC and CORE activists. However, it showed again how King could not lead a protest after Montgomery, the sit-ins and the freedom rides discredited the success and reputation that King had gained, because others, particular young blacks were protesting without the aid of the SCLC and King.
In Albany 1961, King again had been ‘invited’ rather than produced the Albany campaign. The campaign was to challenge Segregation laws in Albany. The campaign was a disaster, and once more discredited the role of King in the Civil rights campaign. In addition, King’s reputation and leadership qualities could not unite the 3 movements, SCLC, SNCC and the NAACP and this contributed to the failure.
However, King had learnt a valuable lesson in Albany. The SCLC needed a big victory in the civil rights campaign. Other organisation had overshadowed the reputation of King and the SCLC. King’s leadership role in leading non-violent campaign was also in doubt. In Birmingham 1963, King’s leadership showed a great success. He learnt, in previous campaigns, that the role of the media, and media coverage was crucial. In Birmingham he exploited the media coverage in showing how blacks were being treated in the south. Blacks being harassed by dogs, and being hosed upon brought national attention to the civil rights problem. Birmingham was a great success as it contributed in the civil rights legislations. However, the protest and marches were not all peaceful and there was violence between whites and blacks, this undermined Martin Luther King’s stance of non-violent protest and his job to lead non-violent protest, because his greatest victory had needed violence.
Unlike the success of Montgomery, King had gained far more momentum in the civil rights campaign after Birmingham. This was a great a leadership quality that King had gained after the events of Montgomery. Martin Luther King was involved in the march in Washington, where around two hundred thousand protesters had marched. One of the great successes for King in the march was his speech, the ‘I have a dream speech….’ Was incredibly symbolic to blacks. Again, it had showed King was an influential figure in the civil rights campaign.
However, one of the greatest weaknesses for King’s leadership was that of the problem of young militant blacks. Unlike southern blacks, Northern blacks faced different problem. There immediate problem was economic rather than social and political. Blacks in the north were living in ‘ghettos’ and this made them more militant and radical. This was huge problem for King, he could no longer appeal to the north and was only confined to the social and political problems of the south, because he was strictly non-violent and peaceful. Young blacks in the north thought of King as being too peaceful and not radical enough.
In conclusion, I think Kings effectiveness in the civil rights campaign was quite significant. Firstly we must understand that before King, there was no real leader in the Civil rights campaign. Therefore, him campaigning and bringing attention to the Civil rights issue, was a success in it self. However, at times it could be argued that King leadership was not really great because he had not seized the moment, especially after Montgomery. King was quite effective in bringing change in parts of the south, the first of that Montgomery, where he showed how his peaceful, non-violent methods were effective. Although his later success which involved Birmingham was in some ways violent, King’s role in Birmingham was always to encourage non-violence and peace, which contributed in the success. King effectiveness in the north can be debated, however, King was more of campaigner in Social change rather than economical. King non-violent campaign was clearly effective because it did bring change in America. As a leader King was very effective in the Civil rights campaign because he brought attention to the problem.
