Although it is certainly the case that the judiciary played a very important role in ending de jure segregation, Hamilton does seem to have forgotten that very often the Federal courts, and even the Supreme Court (which was after Brown seen as the main ally of civil rights in the government), had often given decisions which were in fact harmful to the advance of civil rights in the United States. One need not go back so far as Plessy vs. Ferguson to discover these sorts of verdicts being delivered. Walker vs. Birmingham in 1963 was decided against the civil rights groups, albeit by a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice Warren in dissent. Furthermore, many individual Federal judges were blatantly racist in the decisions they made, as even Hamilton admits, citing the examples of Cox and Clayton.
The federal judiciary, then, showed a mixed reaction to the civil rights movement, sometimes appearing to act in favour of it and sometimes appearing to support the segregationist opponents of civil rights. However, seminal decisions like Brown show that the Supreme Court, at least, was generally sympathetic. One further thing needs to be said regarding the role of the judiciary, which is that it is impossible for the judiciary alone to change anything. After the Supreme Court ruling in Brown, some states, notably Alabama and Mississippi, refused to acknowledge the decision, claiming that it was unconstitutional. The Courts were entirely dependent on the legislature to enact laws to support civil rights, and on the executive to take action to enforce the laws, by force if necessary.
The situation in Congress was inevitably more complicated than that in the Supreme Court. Naturally, many Congressmen were from the South and were in favour of segregation. Congress was therefore much less likely to be supportive of the civil rights movement, even if many of the Representatives and Senators were sympathetic to its cause. However, the support of Congress was vital if decisions like Brown were to take effect and be implemented in the South. As Woodward points out in The Strange Career of Jim Crow, by 1955 “there were as yet no ‘teeth’ in the Court’s decision against segregated schools”. This was because of a lack of Federal legislation to enforce the Court’s decision. In the absence of such legislation, individual States were keen to pass legislation of their own to effectively void the decision in the Brown case. Although individual cases against this State law could be brought before the Courts, Federal legislation was essential if the attempts to ignore Brown were to be defeated.
The initial hostility of Congress to the civil rights movement can be clearly seen. The Senate considered the possibility of nullifying several decisions made by the Supreme Court, and eventually decided against doing so by only eight votes. However, Congress did not maintain this hostility. By 1964, Congress was prepared to pass the Civil Rights Act, and by 1965 the Voting Rights Act. These two pieces of legislation put an end to de jure segregation, and also to various pieces of legislation passed by southern States with the intention of disenfranchising African-Americans. The reasons for this change of heart in Congress must be traced back to the citizen’s movements, and so will be examined later in the essay. However, it is clear that, whatever the cause of it, this federal legislation was a vital step forward in the battle for civil rights.
The Constitution dictates that “the Executive Power shall be vested in a President”, and so it is to the President that we must look to see the attitude of the executive branch. There has been a significant variation in the approach of Presidents to the issue of civil rights and racial politics. Eisenhower took a very conservative stance, declining to vigorously uphold the decision of the Supreme Court in Brown. “You cannot”, he said “change people’s hearts merely by law”. Furthermore, when the Brown ruling was put to the test in February 1956, Eisenhower expressed his hope that “we (i.e. the Federal government) could avoid any interference”. While this is hardly a sufficient basis to call Eisenhower a racist, it is evident that he was not committed to the cause of racial equality.
Presidents Kennedy and Johnson were much more supportive of the civil rights movement. Kennedy declared the decision in Brown to be “both morally and legally right”, and showed himself willing to use all the power of the Federal government to enforce the decision. In 1962, a force of 320 Federal marshals was used to enrol one man in a university, and thousands of Federal troops were deployed when this proved to be insufficient force. Johnson showed a similar commitment, pressurising Congress into passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and providing military escorts for civil rights marchers. Without this sort of Presidential commitment, it is difficult to see how the civil rights movement could have achieved its aims.
Of course, there is more to the Federal Executive than the President. It is essential also to examine the Federal bureaucracy and see how racism was dealt with at this level. Segregation was a reality in the bureaucracy from 1914 onwards, after a bill introduced in 1913 “to effect certain reforms in the civil service by segregating clerks and employees of the white race from those of African blood and descent”. Furthermore, African-Americans were largely confined to the lower grades within the bureaucracy. Desmond King claims that “for over half a century the Federal government played a significant role in shaping and reinforcing the system of race relations which disadvantaged Black American citizens”.
It is arguable, however, that the civil service simply reflected the rest of American society in its racist attitudes, and was less responsible for racism than responsive to the racism that already existed. In support of this contention, it is clear that conditions within the bureaucracy have improved for African Americans as they have improved in society, with a 9.2 per cent increase in the total number of African Americans in the civil service between 1961 and 1965, and a 171.7 per cent increase in the numbers of African Americans in the highest grades (12-6) over the same period. Arguably, then, the bureaucracy played little role in the advancement of civil rights, reacting rather than acting.
Having seen the important role played by the three branches of the Federal government in the civil rights movement, it is important to look at the mass movements of the era to see whether they could in fact have achieved their aims alone and without the support of the government. To begin, it will be necessary to ask what the goals of organisations like the N.A.A.C.P. were. Charles Hamilton believes that “the civil rights movement... was first and foremost a movement to end de jure segregation in the country”. This is certainly true, but it seems from the actions of some of the organisations that the ending of de facto segregation was also an aim.
De jure segregation could be ended either by the Federal government or by the State governments. There was no way for the civil rights campaigners to directly change the law in this way. However, the State governments were, on the whole, completely opposed to the civil rights movements, especially in the Deep South. The state governor in Alabama proudly declared in 1962 that he stood for “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”. It was the State governor of Mississippi who personally obstructed African-American students from registering at the State University. In these conditions, the Federal government was necessary. In Hamilton’s words, “at all times the focus was on getting the national government involved”.
De facto segregation is a different matter altogether. Arguably, Eisenhower was correct. One cannot change people’s hearts by law alone. It is here that the mass organisations came into their own. The March on Washington, the boycotts of bus services, the sit-ins were all tools to end de facto segregation, and to change people’s hearts. As Dr King said, the intention was to “wear you down by our capacity to suffer”. This process is ongoing, but could not even have begun without the support of the Federal government in ending the legalised segregation practised in the United States.
Bibliography:
Federal Law and the Courts in the Civil Rights Movement, Charles Hamilton
Race, Reform and Rebellion, Manning Marable
The Strange Career of Jim Crow, Comer Vann Woodward
Separate and Unequal, Desmond King
