While the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Right Act were created to champion the rights of African Americans, many scholars believe that the these two laws made it more difficult for Black Americans to advance their struggle for freedom. This is because while the act gave the Blacks legal rights, many continued to suffer both public and private acts of discrimination. Several factors contributed greatly to the difficulty of African Americans to gain their rights and freedom despite of the passage of the law. This includes conservatism, unsupportive White politicians and government agencies, and the resistance of white community. Hence, these factors ultimately made it hard for blacks to get their rights.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is regarded as a landmark piece of legislation in the United States. Proposed by John F. Kennedy and signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson, this law ended the racial segregation and discrimination in the country. This includes outlawing racial discrimination in public facilities, public education, and equal employment opportunities for African Americans. In its first paragraph, the act states that its main objective is to “enforce the constitutional right to vote… and to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes”. The passage of the Civil Rights Act consequently paved the way for other laws such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Conservatism is seen as one of the reasons behind the negative effect of the Civil Rights Law. Rolph explains this by stating that the “Southern resistance during the civil rights movement has correctly identified a variety of factors that made the South a conservative stronghold” (Rolph 23). He further believes that the resistance was one of the crucial factors that contributed to the sustained opposition and failure of the civil rights legislation. According to historian Howard Zinn, Southerners in particular were actively involved in resisting the racial change brought about by the two legislations. In fact, until 1960, a political ideology regarding the opposition to racial change has been used by many white advocates. Three years prior to the passage of the law, Senator Harry Byrd, a Southern spokesman for segregation explained that his advocacy towards conservatism was largely because of his desire to preserve the fundamental principles of the government. He further explains that his conservatism was one of the main reasons why the United States became a strong and powerful nation in very short space of time (Rolph 30). He similarly pointed that centralization of the government could only come at the expense of states’ rights and individual freedoms which are the very foundation of American political theory.
The statement above by the southern leader articulated the sentiment of white Southerners who were resisting the racial policies. As such, a number of organized efforts were done by the supporters to segregation to resist the racial reform. Organizations such as the Citizen’s Council were formed and declared that they were proud of their heritage. Supporters of anti-integration similarly vowed to “stand fast and preserve an unsullied race” (Rolph 25). Accordingly, other leaders offered a detailed explanation of their conservative view on segregation. Conservatives recognize that “by virtue of evolutionary progress over centuries they have developed certain political and legal and economic institutions and they have served them very well. Conservatism have provided us with not only an element of progress but an element of stability in the society and therefore, should be preserved” (Rolph 30). The conservative advocacy led the members to participate in various activities which included creating racial disturbances throughout the South. In the same way, various propagandas which involve criticizing and debunking racial equality were launched. For instance, people were warned of “race-mixers” and “left-wing subversives” (Rolph 26).These anti-Civil Rights activities prevented many African Americans in the south from fully enjoying their new acquired rights. Rather than experiencing equality, they were met with such resistance and hostility largely because many of the Southerners were still resisting the change in racial policies. In other words, the conservatism of Southerners made it difficult for Blacks to gain their rights.
Apart from conservatism, many supporters of segregation also adopted several tactics of strategic delay that enabled them to thwart advances in civil rights. These delaying tactics were done by unsupportive white politicians. Long before the start of movements that toppled the Jim Crow, many senators already recognized that forces were already forming to advocate for social equality. And in order to lessen the pressure that are against them, politicians created various strategies as well as improved the nature of their argument to convince their colleagues to defend the “constitutional principles.” Southern senators, for example, blocked significant civil rights advances without considering the support of their northern colleagues. In addition, accounts indicate that Southern politicians routinely traded favors in exchange for support on preserving Jim Crow. As a result, Southern senators played an important role in obstructing substantive advances in the Civil Rights Act for decades. Senator Strom Thurmond, a well-known supporter of segregation expresses this by when he stated that “You can’t just pass a law” and that “racial violence is a natural consequence of the tolerance of the federal government had shown towards blacks” (Rolph 33). The White politicians acted as resistance philosophers who strongly believed in the sanctity of Jim Crow. What is even more interesting is the fact that they conveyed their beliefs about segregation in a manner that reflected the wishes of their constituents. And by influencing the beliefs of other Southerners, they thwarted the efforts to advancing the Black American’s struggle for freedom (Matusow 194).
When the bill was passed, majority of these politicians focused on some of the flaws of the bill. Similar to their slave-owning ancestors, many Southern senators took a paternalistic tone. They believed that African Americans were already content with their social status. Southern senators often depicted Blacks as inferiors with child-like mental abilities and had an innate predisposition to violence which means that they do not possess the attribute necessary for making them successful in American society. White supporters argued that they are “dealing with a different breed, a different sort of person” (Rolph 28). This indicates the Whites’ lack of confidence towards the Blacks. The passage pointed out the Black American’s incapacity to function without any guidance from the Whites. Hence, Southern senators theorized that African Americans desire to being in proximity with them throughout their life. For them the existing Jim Crow system is the only viable solution for creating social harmony in a region with two racial populations. Needless to say, white supremacy was a major factor that dominated that southern resistance against the Civil Rights Act (Matusow 195). The resistance has, in turn, made it extremely hard for the Blacks to achieve their rights.
Apart from the efforts of politicians to prevent the law from advancing, various institutions also played a role in preventing Civil Rights progress from taking place. By 1964, it was clear that the Civil Rights Act was a law that existed only on papers as it was not evident in practice. Years after the passage of law, only five percent of black students in various states were attending integrated schools. One of the main reasons for this lack of progress was the Pupil Placement Board. In theory, this institution could not assign students to a particular school or university on the basis of race or color. In actuality however, historians and scholars alike, assigned very few African American students to white schools. Although one of the main features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to provide equal educational opportunity for all races, institutions such as the Pupil Placement Boards silently resisted the integration. For example, such groups allowed a freedom-of-choice strategy which allowed students to select his or her university or school. Ideally, the plan meant that black students have the freedom to cross over a white school. This, however, was simply a device used by supporters of segregation to minimize integration. Although the plan seems democratic, only a few courageous blacks transferred to white schools in fear of carrying the burden of desegregation. Meanwhile, no white students chose to enroll in black schools. In fact, the rule on desegregation in public schools resulted in the flight of about ten percent of white students during its first year particularly in districts where Black population was relatively high. In the same way, supporters of segregation rallied to advance their cause. Local leaders as well as businessmen organized groups to block any advancement in integration particularly in public schools. Hence, the efforts of various institutions that were anti-blacks suggests that the law was only on paper. As a result, Blacks were unable to practice their freedom (Matusow 195).
Another factor that impeded the development of the Civil Rights Act, the resistance also rooted the community themselves. White supremacy groups such as the Ku Klux Klan opposed the new legislation vehemently. The passage of the Civil Rights Act has in fact, made their acts of violent even more pervasive. Members of the Klan would engage in killings and murders of blacks as well as burning of African American properties and houses. Other supporters of the white ideology similarly use their powers to suppress the newly acquired voting power of African Americans. According to Cobb, “black Southerners endured arrests and beatings in order to vote” (Cobb 18). He further explains violence using the story of Fannie Lou Hamer who attempted to vote in Sunflower County but was kicked off the land when the plantation owner found out that she tried to vote. Many of the members believed that the Civil Right Act was taking away the rights of white people. This ideology has therefore caused many whites to denounce the new law and instead participate in such violent acts. The violent acts prevented many Blacks from enjoying their newly found equality (Matusow 196).
Without a doubt, the Civil Rights Act has forever changed the way American society has lived and functioned. However, based on the points provided, it can be argued that the new legislation was not as effective because of several factors. Conservatism, opposition of politicians and institutions, as well as the ideology of White supremacy continued to dominate many parts of the country, particularly in the South. These factors prevented the advancement of the Civil Rights Act, and more importantly, it made African Americans’ struggle for freedom even more difficult and elusive.
Works Cited
Cobb, C. “Black people had the power to fix the problems in Ferguson before the Brown shooting. They failed. Washington Post, 18 September 2014
Matusow, A. The Unraveling of America, NY: Harper and Row, 1984
Rolph, S. Courting Conservatism: White Resistance and Ideology of Race in the 1960s. Ed.
Gillford, J. & Williams, D. The Right Side of Sixties. Reexamining Conservatism’s
Decade of Transformation. NY: McMillan, 2012