Search Results

This chapter examines how the federal government and black protest organizations intervened in southern authoritarian enclaves, with a particular focus on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as well as the reform of the National Democratic Party during the period 1964–1972. It first considers state authorities' consensus preference for effecting a “harnessed revolution” before discussing the challenges posed by the Civil and Voting rights acts to southern enclaves. It then describes the degree to which outsiders interfered in enclaves' responses to these landmark statutes, including federal oversight of voting rights in the Deep South and deployments by black protest organizations. It concludes by analyzing the McGovern–Fraser national Democratic party reforms of 1968–1972.

This chapter examines the Civil Rights Act of 1875, also known as the Supplementary Civil Rights Act because it was intended as a supplement to the 1866 Civil Rights Act, from a human rights perspective. The 1875 act, grounded in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, was enacted as a culminating decree of slave emancipation and newly defined pleasurable liberties as affirmative rights. The supplement was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883 for encroaching on state sovereignty. This chapter considers the debate in Congress over the issue of human rights and argues that the Civil Rights Act of 1875—despite being aborted—represents a turning point in the abolition of slavery and the emergence of human rights.

This chapter centers on the people who crafted, debated, and made into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Of the various provisions in this landmark legislation, none was recognized as more important or more controversial at the time of passage than Title II, the section that prohibited racial discrimination in restaurants, hotels, and other public accommodations. The focus of this chapter is on a lesser-known element in the history of this famous piece of federal legislation: the role the constitutional questions that the sit-in movement raised about the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment played in the struggle for a federal public accommodations law. With the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Congress would do what the Supreme Court had not: provide a national remedy for the claim to nondiscriminatory treatment that the sit-in protesters had demanded four years earlier at lunch counters across the South. The chapter concludes by returning to the Supreme Court, where the justices considered constitutional challenges to the Civil Rights Act and the effect of the new law on the thousands of sit-ins cases that remained on appeal.

This chapter discusses how and why civil rights was a priority for President Johnson during his first two years in the White House. Within days of becoming president, after the shocking assassination of John F. Kennedy in Johnson's home state of Texas, LBJ signalled his overwhelming commitment to the civil rights cause. He met regularly with civil rights leaders to discuss legislative developments, the appointment of African Americans to key political positions, and the Great Society programs that benefited the African American community. The high point of his association with the civil rights movement came with the passage of two pieces of landmark legislation: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Chapter 4 discusses the part played by the Selma to Montgomery marches in Johnson's legislative plans and examines the high political cost of his commitment to civil rights after his overwhelming victory in the 1964 presidential election

The 1866 Act led directly to adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and provided the template for section 1 of that amendment, with its famous clauses granting citizenship, protecting privileges and immunities, guaranteeing equal protection, and providing for due process. The Fourteenth Amendment also granted Congress the power to enforce these provisions by appropriate legislation and it immediately exercised that power to reenact the 1866 Act, removing doubts about its constitutionality and also extending most provisions beyond citizens to aliens. Further civil rights acts modeled on the 1866 Act followed, among them the statute now known as section 1983, generally authorizing claims for denials of federal rights under color of state law, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875, prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations. The latter was soon struck down, but it anticipated major civil rights legislation in the twentieth century. In all of these respects, the 1866 Act showed itself to be an important source of civil rights law.

Despite the role that Congress would play in the eventual passage of legislation like the Civil Rights Act 1964 and the Voting Rights Act 1965, its role during the war has traditionally been overshadowed by a focus on the steps towards racial equality taken by the Supreme Court and the White House. The war years did not pave the way for those later developments but instead represented a period of conservative retrenchment in Congress. Southern Democrats tightened their grip on the reins of power during the war. Inside key committees, they crushed many nascent efforts at reform; in the House and Senate, they worked with conservative Republican allies to stop the rest. In the end, southern Democrats succeeded in stalling meaningful civil rights legislation. As a result, congressional conservatives emerged from the war more confident in their abilities to prevent change and more determined to use them to defend white supremacy in the postwar era. Yet there was one unexpected legacy of conservative defiance. Incoming young liberal Democrats learned the importance of controlling congressional machinery.

Journalist Steven A. Holmes suggested that there were “two George Bushes” in terms of civil rights. One was the one who advocated equality and attempted to terminate segregation as he hired the first black chairman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and donated to the United Negro College Fund. The other, however, featured racist Willie Horton advertisements, appointed a conservative to the Supreme Court, and constantly made threats towards the Civil Rights Act of 1991. As such, George Bush's presidency was often characterized with a dualism towards civil rights. It is important to note, though, that Bush's term began with high support from the African American community when compared to the support received for other Republican presidents. This chapter explores some of the complexities of Bush's administration in terms of civil rights.

This chapter picks up the narrative history regarding the three class action suits filed in the 1970s by the ACWA as disparate impact cases under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While Chapter 5 outlined the “political” mobilization around the lawsuits, Chapter 6 follows what happened in the courts. First, we expand on the activists’ jurisgenetic vision mobilizing disparate impact claims for radical challenges to institutional racism. Second, the chapter explores what happened to the three lawsuits in federal court, and especially to how the Wards Cove v Atonio case lost at trial, won on appeal several times, and ultimately was crushed in dismissive fashion by a five justice majority at the Supreme Court, illustrating our claim about the power of “racial innocence.” Third, we document the extra-judicial politics that shaped the court decision, Reagan administration legal policy, subsequent legislation to override the opinion, and special legislation that excluded the original Filipino plaintiffs from relief under the new 1991 Civil Rights Act. The chapter ends by invoking extant empirical studies about the dramatic impact on workers of the jurispathic ruling in Wards Cove and other lawsuits as well as neoliberal corporate strategies of co-opting civil rights.

Part 3 discusses the growth of basic legal rights. In the twenty-first century it can be hard to appreciate how remarkably welcoming the federal judiciary was to the claims of the civil rights movement. Part 3 includes chapter 7, “Access to Justice”; chapter 8, “Voting Rights and Political Representation”; chapter 9, “Public Accommodations”; chapter 10, “School Desegregation and Municipal Equalization”; and chapter 11, “Employment Discrimination.” Voting rights and political representation were key. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 opened the portals for dramatic increases in black voter registration. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated equal accommodation in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and other public places. Some applications of these rights were realized immediately, others not so much. This was the era in which the promise of the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decision became a reality in the Deep South. Desegregation suits proliferated. The Supreme Court dramatically increased the pace of desegregation. The varied forms of pushback were astonishing: the shutting down of a historic black high school lest white students have to attend (even at the expense of double sessions); the hiding of athletic trophies from the historic black high school upon merger; the suspension and expulsion of many black students at the moment of desegregation. The other major accomplishment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the ban on employment discrimination. At the time of its passage, job and labor union segregation were ubiquitous in the Deep South. This all changed.

Ezra Taft Benson brazenly asserted that Martin Luther King was a communist agent. Thus, Benson rejected the civil rights movement, claiming that it was an invitation to promote communist aims and organizations. In specific, Benson feared that the unrest unleashed by the “civil rights agitators,” as he called them, would lead to a revolution that would ultimately produce a worldwide depression and a catastrophic failure of money markets in the United States. For Benson, then, the civil rights movement was not about black rights but about communists using them as a pawn to undermine American institutions. This essay traces Benson’s views on civil rights, specifically Birch Society founder Robert Welch and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover’s influence on Benson’s racialist thinking.

On October 16, 1883, the Supreme Court ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional. Although the Act was never fully enforced, it protected all Americans, regardless of race, in their access to public accommodations and facilities such as restaurants, theaters, and trains and other public transportation and protected their right to serve on juries. This chapter presents Fortune's first editorial on the subject, which captures the feeling of much of the African American community whom he claimed felt as though they “had been baptized in ice water” and told they were “aliens in their own land.” The editorial also represents the beginning of Fortune's frustration with the political choices of the African American community and his push for independent politics.

This chapter discusses Johnson's shifting position on civil rights as his national profile grew and his political ambitions gathered steam. Despite being known as “Landslide Lyndon” because of his narrow and controversial victory in 1948, LBJ soon established himself in the Senate as an important southern Democrat whose racial views came under increasing scrutiny during the 1950s. Initially allying himself with conservatives who opposed civil rights change--notably in his relationship with the conservative senator from Georgia, Richard Russell--he soon distanced himself from segregationists in order to downplay his southern roots as his White House aspirations grew. This chapter addresses Johnson's response to the landmark 1954 Brown decision and the so-called Southern Manifesto that opposed it. As the civil rights movement grew in intensity and the nation witnessed the Montgomery bus boycott and the crisis at Little Rock, Johnson's decided to adopt an increasingly pro-civil rights position. Chapter 3 examines that choice and covers his decision to push Congress toward passage of the 1957 Civil Rights Act (the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction). The chapter ends with an examination of Johnson's position on civil rights leading up to the 1960 presidential election and his decision to accept the vice presidency.

The revival of the 1866 Act in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. had momentous implications. In theory, it made the whole range of rights protected by the act applicable to private discrimination, while in practice, it resulted in the deployment of common law remedies and in particular, damages to claims for employment discrimination. This seemingly technical innovation brought the litigation of these claims much closer to ordinary tort claims, with large monetary awards available to plaintiffs for the first time and compensation of their attorneys more closely resembling a contingent fee. The Supreme Court quickly realized the implications of the decision in Jones and sought to restrict the scope of the statute in various ways. Congress, however, stepped in at this point to confirm the broad scope of the act and to extend the remedy for damages to other claims of discrimination, based on religion, sex, and disability. In this manner, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 brought up to date the nation's earliest civil rights act.

This chapter examines the mass movement launched by African Americans in Memphis as part of their struggle for economic justice, racial equality, and respect following the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It discusses the coalescence of labor, politics, and the black freedom movement during this period, highlighted by Martin Luther King Jr.'s appearance at Mason Temple in 1968 to support the sanitation workers' strike. The chapter considers the intensification of black activism in the years after President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 as working-class African Americans issued a vigorous attempt to end “plantation mentality.” It also explores the “I AM a Man!” slogan used by striking sanitation workers in Memphis in the context of Black Power's rhetoric of masculinity and freedom. Finally, the chapter looks at the campaigns of black women in Memphis for welfare rights.

This chapter spans the period immediately following the assassination of President Kennedy to the riots in the Watts district of Los Angeles, which exploded in the summer of 1965. Although Lyndon Johnson was a familiar figure, it was difficult to tell whether he would champion Kennedy’s civil rights legislation, which was working its way through Congress at the time of the president’s death. Much to Wilkins’s relief Johnson proved to be his greatest political ally. Johnson made great efforts to court black leaders, particularly Wilkins and Whitney Young of the Urban League. The president frequently sought Wilkins’s counsel and advice on civil rights issues and, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law, his administration quickly drafted more legislation to secure voting rights. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, however, did little to quell the increasing frustration felt by African Americans marginalized in urban ghettoes, and just days after the bill was signed, violent riots broke out in Watts, warning Wilkins that much more still needed to be done. Frustration was also evident within the Association when a group called the Young Turks, board members dissatisfied with Wilkins’s leadership, challenged him to take more militant action.

As the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act were put into practice, legal equality was formally established among all American citizens. This, however, led to the black community contemplating how their politics should adapt to such crucial changes, the kind of relationships to be established, how religion could be integrated into their practices, and other such concerns. Politics refers not only to the creation of politics and politics itself, but also to the aspects which are seen as nonpolitical, prepolitical, and peripolitical because these are all based on the concept of a hierarchy that lives by a certain collection of norms or on the fusion of particular binaries. In other words, something “political” takes on a masculine character that displaces any confusion or discrimination around gender or sexuality.