More than 20 years earlier, in the Scottsborough Case of 1932 and 1935, the Supreme Court had shown its potential for advancing the cause of civil rights. Other examples of cases in which civil rights issues were being addresses in the courts prior to the 1950s can be seen in Gaines vs. Canada in 1938, Sweatt vs. Painter and McLaurin vs. Oklahoma in 1950, all of whom foreshadowed the Brown decision by addressing the issue of segregation in education. Furthermore in other cases between 1944 and 1948, the Supreme Court had addressed other forms of segregation; for example, Smith vs. Allwright struck down an all-white primary election in Texas, Morgan vs. Virginia declared segregation on interstate bus travel unconstitutional and Shelly vs. Kraemer ruled that exclusion of African Americans from segregated, white residential areas was unconstitutional. Even before the Brown ruling, therefore, it would seem that the Supreme Court had issued judgements favourable to civil rights in education, transport, electoral law, legal representation and housing. Nevertheless, regardless of the numerous occasions on which there had been rulings by the Supreme Court which would, at first glance, appear to be advancing the cause for African Americans, these rulings failed to provoke a civil rights movement which could be compared to the one which began in the 1950s. This would suggest that it was not due to the Brown decision per se, that the modern civil rights movement erupted during the 1950s; rather, there had to be other structural prerequisites in place which had not been present at the time of these other rulings. Adam Fairclough has argued that in order to understand why the modern civil rights movement began in the 1950s one needs to view it as a ‘two act play with the first act based on events before the mid 1950s’ (Cook, 1998, p.9). In order to fully understand what is meant by this one must examine the impact which the 1930s and the New Deal in particular had on African American life in America, therefore, it is to this which we must now turn.
Although the changing economic conditions during the Great Depression imperilled the livelihood of many black Americans, it could be argued that the New Deal which followed helped to create opportunities for African Americans. Arguably, this not only allowed them to make new political allies, perhaps helping them to ‘escape from their historic state of political influence’ (Heale, 2004, p.157), but also allowed them to gain a new, albeit low, level of economic independence as a result of various welfare schemes. Whilst it is perhaps true that the myriad of schemes under the New Deal did not necessarily go out of their way to aid blacks in the 1930s, the very fact that the black Americans were amongst the chief beneficiaries of the government welfare policies meant that they were attracted to the Democratic Party. Consequently, the blacks who possessed the vote proved increasingly willing to use their limited power to support the Democrats. Therefore, those African Americans who possessed the vote soon became an important element in the New Deal coalition and their political influence was greatly enhanced as a result (Cook, 1998, p.60). Furthermore, during the same period a growing number of blacks began to assume secondary positions within the federal bureaucracy. Indeed, by the middle of 1935, around 45 African Americans had been appointed to various posts within governmental departments. In 1936, this was followed by the creation of the Federal Council on Negro affairs that proved extremely successful in ensuring that public provisions were made for blacks. Indeed, their success in advancing the social position of blacks can be seen if one considers the fact that through their efforts, blacks came to occupy at least one third of all public housing units constructed by the Public Works Administration. If one accepts, therefore, that the political and economic advances made during the 1930s and early 1940s perhaps helped to set the stage for a civil rights movement, then it could be argued that it was the outbreak of the Second World War and even certain elements of the Cold War, which ‘heralded a discernable quickening in the pace of black protest’ (Cook, 1998, p.9). Therefore, it is this argument which must now be considered.
It has been argued by many that World War II was responsible for presaging major changes in the political consciousnesses of many African Americans. World War II provided new and unusual employment opportunities for African Americans, which was then sustained by post war growth. This meant that many African Americans were better placed to provide resources and leadership for organisations devoted to their cause (Heale, 2004, p.157). For example, in 1939 the NAACP only had 54 000 member, yet by 1945 this figure had grown to over 500 000 (Heale, 2004, p.160). At the same time these increases in industrial production created new job opportunities and between 1941 and 1946 over 1 million African Americans left the south for employment in the North. However, whilst it could be argued that this shift, in many ways simply mirrored that of the great migration of the First World War, the attitude of the black Americans to World War II was notably different and it is this change in attitude at a grassroots level which, perhaps, helps to explain why the civil right movement emerged in the 1950s, where it had failed to emerge in the past. In 1917, African Americans were mainly apathetic or at least supported America’s entry into the War; however their entry into the Second World War saw greater signs of black militancy (Verney, 2000, pp.32-3). This heightened black assertiveness was expressed in a variety of ways during the war, for example in the ‘Double v’ campaign waged against Hitler abroad and discrimination at home. Capitalising on this grass roots mood, A. P. Randolph launched the March on Washington Movement (MOWM) which, when threatened, led Franklin Roosevelt to issue executive order 8802 which established the Committee on Fair Employment Practices. This action marked the first time that collective non violent direct action on the part of the black community had led the federal government into taking affirmative action on a civil rights issue. In this case it was simply to ensure that any company seeking defence contracts included a clause which ensured that they did not discriminate. (Martin Riches, 1997, p.10) However, the precedent for collective non-violent direct action which it set in place cannot, perhaps be ignored.
From 1941 to 1945 over 2 million African Americans served in the American armed forces which provided situations which helped to contribute further to this growing grass roots consciousness held by black Americans (Verney, 2000, p.34). For example, in May of 1944 over 132 000 black Americans were stationed in the UK in the build up to D-Day. In comparison to the US south where Jim Crow was endemic, race relations in the UK were open and liberal. This, amongst other things, helped to heighten the expectations of black soldiers who then became unwilling to accept the re-imposition of the old oppressive order (Verney, 2000, p.35). In a wider context, the extremes of Nazi racism and a growing awareness of the Holocaust, discredited scientific racism and perhaps made some white Americans feel less at ease with the continued racial discrimination and segregation within the USA after 1945. Essentially then, it could be argued that the Social tensions of World War II transformed the U.S. racial landscape. This feeling was captured by the New York Times, who in 1946 stated that
this is a particularly good time to campaign against the evils of bigotry, prejudice, and trace hatred because we have witnessed the defeat of enemies who tried to found a mastery of the world upon such a cruel and fallacious policy (Tindall & Shi, 2004, p.1258).
Nevertheless, although World War II would appear to have had a positive impact in the campaign for civil rights, the modern civil rights movement still failed to fully emerge until the 1950s. Arguably the reason for this is that although the war jolted the ‘caste system that had held so many black Americans in place’ (Heale, 2004, p.161), it did not overthrow it. Indeed, it has been argued by a number of historians that World War II actually stifled black protest. Sitkoff tells us that although discrimination stimulated black militancy early in the war, such as with Rudolph and the MOWM, as the war continued this militant feeling was dampened. Sitkoff argues that winning the war became the most important feature of American social life and that few took kindly to anything which threatened that goal, including the civil rights movement. He goes on to show that after 1942 few black leaders flirted with any strategy which might detract from the war effort and some black leaders even pursued ‘good conduct campaigns’ to stifle any race riots. Indeed, by 1943, a poll showed that 71% of black Americans and every major civil rights paper were opposed to fresh calls from A. Rudolph to create civil disobedience against ‘Jim Crown’ in the form of a new march on Washington (Sitkoff, 1981, pp.12-13). Nonetheless, although in the short run it could, perhaps, be argued that World War II hampered the growth of the civil rights movement, the positive effects which World War II had on the civil rights movement do appear to have outweighed the negative. Indeed, few would disagree with the statement that World War II brought about ‘revolutionary changes that would eventually lead to a black campaign for racial justice’ (Sitkoff, 1981, p.13). However, the same cannot perhaps be said of the Cold War.
Historians have differed on their assessment of the relationship between anti communist feeling and the black civil rights movement. In some respects, it could be argued that the Cold war was a positive force. Indeed from 1947 until the late 1960s, successive presidents expressed concern at the negative international publicity that the US received as a result of the treatment of its own black citizens. Arguably, the post war confrontation with the Soviet Union also gave Americans an added incentive to improve race relations in the USA. Due to the ideological contest for influence in Africa, US diplomats were at a disadvantage as long as racial segregation continued in the US. Indeed, Soviet propaganda exploited this, often comparing segregation in the US south to the Nazi treatment of the Jews (Tindall & Shi, 2004, p.1258). Furthermore, the increasing pace of 3rd world de-colonisation was also felt within the USA and a growing number of black African students enrolled in US colleges and universities. These newcomers acted as a source of encouragement to African Americans in the pursuit of civil rights (Verney, 2000, p.41). Once again, the increasing political and social awareness from the black community at grass roots level was manifested nationally in the civil rights policies of the Truman administration between 1945 and 1953. These policies reflected these rising black expectations and heightened white uncertainty over the moral basis for segregation and discrimination (Verney, 2000, pp.37-38). Truman, who had shown little concern for Civil Rights in previous years, was forced to reassess his convictions as President. In late 1946 Truman hosted a delegation of civil rights activists who urged the president to issue a statement condemning the Ku Klux Klan and lynching. As a result, Truman appointed a committee of Civil Rights to investigate who recommended the creation of a fair employment practices committee (FEPC) and the creation of a permanent Civil Rights Commission. By July 1948, racial discrimination had been banned in the hiring of federal employees and Truman had also issued an executive order ending segregation in the armed forces (Tindall & Shi, 2004, p.1259). However, although the immediate post-war years were used by the civil right protesters in the USA as a form of embarrassing the federal government for the treatment of black Americans, by the end of the 1940s, the prevailing mood of anti-communism made such initiatives all but impossible (Verney, 2000, p.41).
During the latter half of the 1940s most Americans yearned for stability. Few had any tolerance for revolutionary proposals from any quarter; least of all on civil rights issues. During this period Sitkoff tells us that ‘white supremacists played on the obsessive fear of communism to discredit the civil rights cause’ (Sitkoff, 1981, p.17). During this period, leading spokesmen continually pointed to the history of communist support of civil rights which had their roots in the trade union links of the 1930’s. Such segregationalists missed no opportunity to link the black struggle for civil rights with the communist ideology of subversion. At the zenith of this red-baiting climate, these tactics had the desired effect and the majority of civil rights groups avoided direct action of any sort (Sitkoff, 1981, p.17). In an attempt to divert this concern many mainstream civil rights groups were often forced into siding with forces of repression during these McCarthy years. For example, in 1948 CORE decided to pass an anti communist resolution, and then in 1950 the NAACP launched its own internal investigations to purge the party of any communist presence. However, rather than strengthening their cause, these efforts to demonstrate patriotism by exploiting suspected communists, simply seemed to substantiate the original charges that civil rights movements were a source of communist infiltration (Verney, 2000, p.43). Indeed, it has been argued by some that ‘the domestic impact of the Cold War, more than any other single factor helps to explain why the civil rights movement in its most widely recognised form did not until the mid 1950s rather than in the late 1940s’ (Verney, 2000, p.43).
In conclusion, when considering why the civil rights campaign emerged in the 1950s one cannot, perhaps, simply look towards any single factor. To do so would ignore the previous decades during which concerted efforts were made to achieve an improvement in the civil rights of African Americans from both above and below. Arguably, had it not been for events such as the Cold War which, to go back to Fairclough’s metaphor, eventually ‘brought down the curtain on the first act of the drama’ (Cook, 1998, p.9), the modern civil rights movement may well have begun during the 1940s or earlier. It is in this context that one should view the part played by the Brown ruling as, arguably, the Brown ruling played the leading role in the second act of the civil rights movement. In that respect Brown can, perhaps, help to explain why the modern civil rights movement emerged in the 1950s. However, notwithstanding some of the setbacks created by the Cold War, the many changes to the economic and political position of blacks which occurred during the 1930s and 1940s; together with the numerous court rulings which ruled in favour of civil rights issues; as well as the part played by veterans who came back from World War II to demand their citizenship rights, collectively helped to provide the inspiration for those who carried forward the struggle during the 1950s. Nevertheless, whilst events like World War II and the Brown decision were clearly important, and perhaps go some way towards explaining why the civil rights movement emerged during the 1950s due to the new contexts and new possibilities which they helped to create; one cannot ignore that the existence of favourable conditions does not necessarily guarantee that collective action will materialise. Indeed, ‘whilst structural prerequisites may be conducive to collective action, without human agency such conditions will never be recognised, let alone exploited’ (Chafe, 2003, p.172). Arguably therefore, the thread that linked all of these conditions, which happened to be present during the mid 1950s and was, perhaps, revitalised by the Brown ruling, was an awareness of the need for and potential strength of, direct action at a grass-roots level in order to facilitate change.
Bibliography
Chafe, W.H. (2003) The Unfinished Journey – America Since World War II (New York: Oxford University Press)
Cook, R. (1998) Sweet Land of Liberty? (New York: Longman)
Heale, M.J. (2004) Twentieth Century America (London: Arnold)
Martin Riches, W.T. (1997) The Civil Rights Movement (New York: Palgrave)
Sitkoff, H. (1981) The Struggle for Black Equality 1954-1980 (New York: Hill and Wang)
Tindall, G.B. & Shi, D.E. (2004) America: A Narrative History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.)
Verney, K. (2000) Black Civil Rights in America (London: Routledge)
White, J. (1991) Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Civil Rights Movement in America (British Association for American Studies)
Morris, A.D. (1999) A Retrospective on the Civil Rights Movement in Annual Review of Sociology (1999, p.517)
Rathbone, M. (2004) The US Supreme Court and Civil Rights in History Review (March 2004, Issue 48, pp.41-46)
