Examining Resistance to the Civil Rights Movement in 1950s Southern States
TITLE
Assess the reasons for the opposition to the Civil Rights movement in the Southern states of the US in the 1950s.
ESSAY
Opposition to the Civil Rights movement in the Southern states of the United States during the 1950s stemmed from a combination of historical, social, economic, and political factors deeply entrenched in the region. The legacy of white supremacy, dating back to the failure of Reconstruction in the 1870s, played a significant role in shaping the mindset of many Southerners. The gradual establishment of Jim Crow laws, which enforced segregation and restricted the rights of African Americans, further solidified racial discrimination in the South.
One of the key reasons for opposition to the Civil Rights movement was the perceived threat to the traditional way of life in the South. Many white Southerners viewed the push for desegregation and equal rights for African Americans as an attack on their social and economic status. The fear of losing control over the African American population, based on long-standing beliefs about racial inferiority and the supposed dangers of integration, fueled resistance to change.
The legal and political landscape in the South also contributed to opposition to Civil Rights. The lack of support for comprehensive civil rights legislation from both Congress and the Executive branch, as well as the reluctance of white juries to convict perpetrators of violence against African Americans, created a climate of impunity for those who resisted racial equality. Governors like George Wallace and Orval Faubus gained popularity by openly opposing desegregation efforts, reflecting the political power of those who stood against Civil Rights in the region.
Moreover, the role of organizations, from clandestine groups to more overtly racist entities like the Ku Klux Klan, in opposing Civil Rights cannot be overlooked. These groups represented a militant resistance to any form of racial equality, perpetuating a culture of violence and intimidation that hindered progress towards integration.
The Cold War context also played a role in shaping opposition to the Civil Rights movement. The need to present a united front against international criticism of the United States' treatment of its African American population led some Southern leaders to resist change in order to maintain a façade of unity and strength.
In conclusion, the opposition to the Civil Rights movement in the Southern states of the US in the 1950s was driven by a complex interplay of historical, social, economic, and political factors. The deep-rooted belief in white supremacy, coupled with fears of social and economic upheaval, underpinned resistance to racial equality. The legacy of discrimination, political power dynamics, and the influence of reactionary organizations all contributed to a sustained opposition to Civil Rights in the region.
SUBJECT
HISTORY
PAPER
A LEVEL
NOTES
Assess the reasons for the opposition to the Civil Rights movement in the Southern states of the US in the 1950s. Factors might include resentment at changes emanating from North and from protests in the South; concerns about social and economic status. Historic traditions should be considered.
White supremacy had a long history since the failure of Reconstruction in the 1870s and the gradual establishment of Jim Crow laws and restrictions on voting and political activity. The discrimination and racial control had the backing of the Supreme Court and there had been little support for comprehensive civil rights legislation from either Congress or the Executive. White juries in the South were unwilling to convict for acts of violence against African Americans and while organisations ranging from the clandestine to the more overt acted against change in the years after the Second World War. Governors like Wallace and Faubus won popularity by opposing desegregation. Civil Rights activists found the South a dangerous place and Southern Senators and Congressmen were a powerful lobby against change.
Reasons for this sustained opposition might be seen in terms of a reaction against developments which threatened change – the more active Civil Rights in the 1950s and the successes of the NAACP in mounting legal challenges against segregation; the pressure on governments to demonstrate during the Cold War that international criticisms of its own policy towards civil rights was flawed and the support of white liberals for moderate change. At root a minority of Southerners adopted a militant resistance to any change on the grounds that it threatened racial control. The deep-rooted view that without this control African Americans would be an economic, social and sexual threat went back to the 1860s or beyond. Years of unpunished violence, lynching and political discrimination in the form of ‘grandfather clauses’ which prevented black voting and the cooperation of courts, police and local government in abuse meant that there were high expectations that all change could be resisted successfully.
The pace of change in post-war America left many feeling insecure about traditional ways of life especially in rural areas and small towns in the South so that opposition to civil rights was a form of opposition to modernisation. The feeling that Northern influence was impinging on the South was an important motive for opposition. Fears that without social control African Americans might be competitors remained strong and were exploited by racist leaders. However, opposition could take other forms than militant action, violence and political opposition to change. A generalised concern that social norms were being eroded and a lack of willingness to oppose white opposition in the form of Citizens organisations or the Klan activities might be explained by social conservatism – dislike of old certainties such as segregation, the subservience of African Americans and the patronising use of first names or nicknames for local blacks. There was a distinction too between those who were opposed to all change and those who opposed civil rights movements being imported from the North and trying to drive the pace of reform too quickly.