Sunday, 28 July 2013

Feature: African American Civil Rights and the Presidents

In 1865, African Americans were newly emancipated from slavery, with freedom at last to move and worship and supposedly a wealth of new opportunities, yet still deemed socially inferior to the rest of society and thus heavily discriminated against. By the end of the 20th century/beginning of the 21st century, they were (legally at least) equal and had made gains in almost all societal spheres. But what role did the US Presidents play in this change? As a democratically elected leader the President was expected to do what was best for the people he governed over and oversee the other branches of the Federal government.



Presidential involvement in African American civil rights varied from actively preventing progress, through complete disinterest, lukewarm support, hollow promises, and culminated in occasional seemingly genuine help for the cause.

Racist Presidents naturally did nothing to help the cause: following the sympathetic actions of Lincoln in the mid 1800s, Johnson's outward dislike and refusal to help African Americans not only left them somewhat vulnerable to lynching -- with sudden freedom but no protection from bitter ex-slave owners -- but also justified a lapse back into racism and conservatism amongst all politicians. This kind of regression can be seen throughout the period. Ronald Reagan seemed extremely stubborn in comparison to the liberal Presidents before him and also appointed less blacks to his cabinet than any President since Eisenhower, thus severely weakening the political position of African Americans. Reagan can also be said to be responsible for creating a general feeling of apathy amongst the public towards civil rights when he implied that all civil rights were attained in the 1960s. Things only got worse when he and George Bush Snr criminalised African Americans by implication with the War on Drugs. They also suggested that African Americans depended on welfare -- a startling statement that set African Americans back socially and enforced negative stereotypes that still exist today. This kind of repellent reaction towards the black population harked back 100 years to the racist attitudes of President Wilson, who intentionally segregated the army in World War One and praised and admired the KKK.

When a President was not interested in civil rights or if civil rights was not a major issues of the time, nothing happened; when the Republicans dominated in the 1920s, no civil rights legislation was considered or passed. Sometimes this was beyond Presidential control, such as in the wartime periods. Apathy for certain issues across the entire period did not do much good; despite long-term campaigning for an anti-lynching bill, no President ever helped the case proactively enough for it to become Federal law.

Some Presidents harmed the cause simply by acting against those trying to further it. Reagan and Andrew Johnson both repeatedly vetoed any of Congress's civil rights bills, though Johnson -- in the context of a more racially embittered America -- was undoubtedly more successful at doing this, whilst Reagan's attempts were overturned several times. Nixon refused to work with black campaigners, which proved to be a regression from the co-operative policies of Kennedy and Johnson, as well as criminalising the activist group The Black Panthers.

Some Presidents indirectly helped African Americans through various reform programs. Kennedy's New Frontier, Johnson's Great Society (the umbrella under which the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act were passed) and the 1930s New Deal all included moves to improve the economic and social situation for all American citizens including African Americans. Whilst not perhaps motivated by a desire to see African Americans recognised as equal citizens, these acts generally sought to improve the lives of all Americans and so they can be seen as additional aid to the situation.

One of the ways in which Presidents sought to appear helpful towards the black population was through associating themselves with black icons. Many were seemingly willing to hear the complaints of African Americans by working alongside campaigners. Booker T Washington -- an accomodationist campaigner of the late 19th century -- worked with numerous Presidents including Taft and Theodore Roosevelt. This action, coming so soon in the decades after both the emancipation and the 1870 Fifteenth Amendment (which granted African Americans the right to vote) is often claimed to have been merely symbolic and used mainly to gain black support. This is largely supported by the fact that Washington achieved little for the black cause other than sponsorship for a small number of black institutions supported by himself. This was echoed later by Kennedy and Johnson's close work with Martin Luther King Jr in the 1960s, although in the latter case it could be said that more actual legislative change came about as a result, namely the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Regardless of how merely symbolic this may seem, it did at least recognise a need for cooperation in society. Other presidents similarly appointed black people to their governments, such as F.D. Roosevelt and and his 'black cabinet' and Nixon and his role in ensuring jobs in 300,000 industries for African Americans. Many campaigners and historians alike saw and still do see these actions as essentially hollow victories, usually performed through a motivation to gain the African American vote or to fulfil the public desire at the time (as with Nixon) to see some kind of civil rights change.

However, arguably some Presidents did care about the civil rights movement, enough to use their own power to see its progression. In order to gain the aforementioned job vacancies for African Americans, Nixon had to go against his own Congress, a controversial move for any president, but not an entirely isolated event: presidents often used their direct authority in this way to help African Americans. One way in which a President could really use his power was through the use of an executive order. F.D. Roosevelt used his in 1941 to ban racial discrimination in federal government and Truman used his twice to create and President's Committee on Civil Rights and to desegregate the armed forces. This absolute statement of power often ensured that they could not be undermined by the often contradictory Congress and Supreme Court. Some Presidents on the other hand worked side by side with their legislative and judicial branches, and sought to enforce their rulings. In order to enforce the Supreme Court's ruling on Brown vs The Board of Education (1954) and desegregate schools, Eisenhower used troops to protect black children at Little Rock School. This was despite Eisenhower's own personal reluctance to aid the ruling. There are similarities between this and Ulysses S Grant's utilisation of the army to protect African Americans against the KKK in the 1870s, and proved a popular choice of method as Kennedy also used the same tool to help desegregate universities and thus enforce the Gaines v Canada ruling.

So why were some Presidents seemingly entirely apathetic towards the African American Civil Rights movement whilst others sought to help it? It has to be remembered that no President resides in a vacuum. As a democratically elected leader they are expected to do what the majority wants, and in many cases they have no choice but to follow this objective in order to maintain support. In many cases, the general mood was not towards civil rights. Presidents such as Grover Cleveland, who for the most part did very little for blacks, were likely elected for the very purpose of achieving nothing for civil rights -- Cleveland may have been elected exactly because he was so careless when it came to this movement, elected at a time when they were not only bitterly opposed but also a low priority. Others may have wanted to do something but could not due to public opposition. President Carter, for example, was held back by the economic crisis marring his term. Many simply had bigger priorities -- wars, boom periods, recessions/depressions and international interests all frequently topped the list of priorities above civil rights. It is worth pointing out that the 1960s, today remembered generally as the peak of the civil rights movement, was a boom period for America after the Second World War in which hope for the future and increase in wealth and education created a demand for change. It is also worth remembering that a lot of what was good was a result of pressure from below. Often, in cases such as Eisenhower and Kennedy's interventions, actions are seemingly taken just to avoid public disorder in a time of crisis. A good example might be that Truman's wartime executive order was arguably a result of fear that A. Philip Randolph's threatened March to Washington would reveal America's hypocrisy at a time when their reputation of liberty mattered most. As such, the failure to help civil rights for African Americans cannot always be blamed on a President's lack of desire to help, just as much as their helpful actions cannot be viewed out of context of often years of campaigning from below.

Presidents certainly did play a key role in the civil rights movement for African Americans and in making it possible for them to gain what they have today. With some Presidents it is true to say that they did as much as they could. If 'helpful' is de jure legislation, then President Lyndon Johnson was perhaps the most helpful as he oversaw the passage of the CRA of 1964 and the VRA of 1965 (although this was arguably started by Kennedy before him). Others such as Kennedy and Nixon clearly desired to make huge changes too -- affirmative action and bussing, although bitterly opposed, were likely what Nixon thought was best. For those that did not help at all: was it really their fault? Fixing the entire issue of civil rights and all the public opposition that comes with it in a maximum 8 year term, as well as pleasing the population on other issues, being re-elected and often handling foreign policies too was often too much, and left civil rights (perhaps understandably) by the wayside. Presidents at least sometimes tried to be as helpful as possible when the popular consensus was right.

No comments:

Post a Comment