The Civil Rights Movement When slavery ended in the U.S. following the Civil War, three constitutional amendments extended to African Americans the same rights enjoyed by white citizens. However, lax enforcement and culturally entrenched racism—especially in the South—resulted in far fewer rights for blacks than the Constitution intended, including strict segregation along racial lines. Some African Americans began to realize that in order to achieve legal and social equality, they had to take matters into their own hands and work together to bring attention to their struggle for civil rights. Various legislation and court rulings sometimes impeded their progress, but it mostly helped further the movement’s goals of desegregation, voting rights, and equality of opportunity in education, housing, and employment. Many leaders of the movement—as well as “regular folks” pushed into the spotlight simply for wanting to attend the same school or sit at the same lunch counter as whites—became widely known and respected figures even to those outside the movement. Decades of effort have brought about many positive changes in blacks’ civil rights, although even today complete equality has yet to be achieved.

Essential Questions What impact did the Dred Scott case and the Emancipation Proclamation have on the early struggle for civil rights? Why did the Supreme Court interpret early civil rights laws and the 14th Amendment narrowly in the late 19th century? What gains did the movement make in desegregating schools and public places in the mid-20th century? What other goals did the civil rights movement strive for in the middle and late 1960s? In what ways did the civil rights movement evolve in the late 1960s and early 1970s? What overall impact did the civil rights movement have?

The Dred Scott Case: Origins Slave whose master had moved him to free territory for several years Sued for his freedom Lost in state and federal courts Case appealed to U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 Dred Scott was a slave who lived in Missouri. When his first master died, an army surgeon named Dr. John Emerson took Scott first to Illinois, and later to the Wisconsin Territory. Neither Illinois or Wisconsin allowed slavery under the terms of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. After Emerson’s death, his widow farmed out Scott and his wife to another army captain who returned them to a slave state. Scott offered Mrs. Emerson $300 for his freedom, but she refused. Scott filed a lawsuit stating that since he had lived for several years where slavery wasn’t permitted, he should be granted his freedom. Historians are uncertain as to why Scott waited until he had again moved to slave territory to file his lawsuit, though some think he simply hadn’t known his rights at the time. Others suppose that Scott had been satisfied working for Dr. Emerson and did not consider suing for his freedom. In a lower court, Scott originally lost his case on a technicality: he couldn’t prove that he was legally owned by Dr. Emerson’s widow. However, he re-filed the lawsuit, and won. The Missouri Supreme Court subsequently overturned the verdict. Scott filed his suit in federal court, but the Missouri Supreme Court decision was upheld. Finally, Scott and his lawyers appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Dred Scott 3

The Dred Scott Case: Decision Majority opinion written by Chief Justice Taney Ruled that a slave wasn’t a citizen and couldn’t sue in court Also ruled the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional The resulting Supreme Court decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford became one of the Court’s most controversial rulings. Many historians and political scientists believe that the decision made the Civil War inevitable. In the 6–3 decision, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion: As a slave, Dred Scott did not have U.S. citizenship. Since he was not a citizen, Dred Scott had no right to sue in U.S. courts. Therefore, his lawsuit was invalid. If Taney had stopped there, the case would most likely have been forgotten. However, Taney, a strong supporter of slavery, added that under no circumstances could Congress prohibit slavery in a territory because to do so would violate the Fifth Amendment’s property clause. Therefore, all congressional attempts to limit slavery—including the Missouri Compromise—were unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed that the Constitution gave Congress the power to make rules to govern U.S. territories. As such, Congress did have the right to limit slavery. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution outlawed slavery in 1865, while the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all persons born in the United States—including former slaves—in 1868. Scott enjoyed neither protection, but shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision, his original masters bought his freedom, as well as that of his wife and children. Dred Scott died a few months later. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney 4

The Emancipation Proclamation Announced by Lincoln in 1862 after the Battle of Antietam Freed slaves only in “territories in rebellion,” not border states Signed on January 1, 1863 Essentially unenforceable The Civil War began badly for Union forces. While President Abraham Lincoln had consistently stated that the war was being fought to preserve the Union and not to end slavery, he became increasingly aware that keeping up Northern morale would require an even higher purpose to rally around. He decided to change his position and issue an edict emancipating the slaves. Lincoln felt that doing this after several defeats on the battlefield would make it seem like the last gasp of a defeated government. Announcing it after a victory, however, would be perceived as a humanitarian act by a strong nation. The Battle of Antietam (September, 1862) did not bring the North a decisive victory, but it carried enough weight for Lincoln to make his proclamation: the slaves of any states still in the Confederacy as of January 1, 1863 would be freed. However, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves. Lincoln never intended for it to apply to the border states that remained in the Union yet continued to allow slavery, or to Confederate territory under Union control. Moreover, any Confederate state returning to the Union would be allowed to keep its slaves. No Confederate states returned to the Union during the war; at any rate, the proclamation remained more or less unenforceable, except when Union forces freed slaves as they moved through an area. Therefore, the Emancipation Proclamation did in no sense abolish slavery. However, it did represent an important step towards ending involuntary servitude in the United States. President Abraham Lincoln reads the Emancipation Proclamation to his Cabinet 5

The “Civil War” Amendments 13th Amendment abolished slavery 14th Amendment granted ex-slaves citizenship; guaranteed equal protection, due process 15th Amendment gave African American men the right to vote Supreme Court ruled these only applied to the federal government A print celebrating the passage of the 15th Amendment In the period after the Civil War, the so-called “Radical Republicans” in Congress submitted three amendments to the United States Constitution, all of which were designed to guarantee equal rights for freed slaves: The 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, abolished all forms of involuntary servitude, except in cases where a person had been convicted of a crime In the early Reconstruction period, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act that guaranteed citizenship to all naturalized citizens or persons born in the U.S. Fearful that the Supreme Court would declare the act unconstitutional, Congress wove its principles into what became the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868). In addition, the amendment guaranteed ex-slaves equal protection under law, forbade compensation to former slave owners, and barred most former Confederates from holding federal office. The 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, extended the right to vote to all persons regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. However, as with whites, only males had the right to vote. While the amendments appeared to guarantee the rights of ex-slaves, a conservative Supreme Court limited their scope and interpretation. In one case, the Court ruled that the amendments applied only to the federal government, and that the states had no obligation to follow the same rules. 6

“Jim Crow” Laws Name came from a minstrel show character Mandated separate facilities for whites and blacks Black facilities usually worse One way that Southern states sought to maintain a distinction between African Americans and whites involved a series of laws nicknamed “Jim Crow” laws. Named for a popular song (“Jump Jim Crow”) about a minstrel show character, they evolved from the “black codes” established just after the Civil War meant to keep blacks and whites separate. Jim Crow laws forbade blacks to eat in the same restaurants as whites, stay in the same hotels, or even use the same restroom facilities. The laws commonly provided for separate sections for blacks and whites in theaters, buses, and trains as well. While Jim Crow laws mandated “equal” facilities for blacks, they frequently found their accommodations substandard. Several attempts to abolish Jim Crow laws through court decisions occurred in the late 19th century. However, most of these attempts ended in failure, and Jim Crow persisted well into the 20th century. Laws dictating separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks were commonplace in Southern states 7

Justice John Marshall Harlan Plessy v. Ferguson Case involved segregated train facilities in Louisiana Court ruled that “separate but equal” did not violate 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause Harlan only dissenting justice In 1896, the Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson tested the validity of Jim Crow laws. The case involved an incident in which Homer Plessy, who was part African American, refused to move from his first-class seat to a segregated section of a Louisiana passenger train. Authorities arrested him, charged him with violating the Louisiana law segregating trains, and convicted and sentenced him to 20 days in jail, or a fine of $25. Plessy, who believed that the 14th Amendment guaranteed him equal protection under law, appealed his conviction to the United States Supreme Court. The Plessy decision affirmed the “separate but equal” facilities rule of the Jim Crow laws. In the 8–1 decision, the Court noted that while the 14th Amendment may have been designed to “enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law,” it did not mandate social equality. The majority opinion went on to note that “laws permitting, and even requiring, [blacks’ and whites’] separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other.” Only Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented. In one memorable opinion, Harlan wrote, “But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens... Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.” Harlan’s dissent notwithstanding, the Plessy decision maintained the “separate but equal” doctrine of Jim Crow laws. For nearly a half-century, Southern states continued to discriminate against African Americans with the approval of the United States Supreme Court. Justice John Marshall Harlan 8

Washington vs. Du Bois Booker T. Washington: Believed that blacks should assimilate into the “world of work” by learning technical skills Established the Tuskegee Institute W.E.B. Du Bois: Contended that blacks should receive a liberal-arts education Co-founded the NAACP Booker T. Washington While Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois both were considered leaders in the late 19th-century civil rights movement, they disagreed with one another substantially on how African Americans could achieve racial equality. Washington, the founder of the Tuskegee Institute, believed that blacks needed to first acquire labor skills in order to become equal. In his words, “ No race can prosper until it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem.” Du Bois, the first black awarded a doctorate from Harvard University, strongly disagreed with Washington. He contended that blacks should seek a liberal arts education in order to cultivate a group of well-educated leaders (whom he labeled the “talented tenth”), a necessity for gaining acceptance into mainstream American life. In 1909, Du Bois became one of several national civil rights leaders who established the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). W.E.B. Du Bois 9

The New Deal and Civil Rights FDR’s commitment to civil rights lukewarm Several New Deal agencies discriminated against blacks Tenant farmers and sharecroppers protested Randolph proposed a “March on Washington” As president during the Great Depression and World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt cut a wide swath through the history of the period. However, FDR’s record regarding civil rights is at best mixed. He rarely supported civil rights legislation, especially laws that would have made lynching a federal crime. FDR did not support expansive civil rights legislation, primarily because he needed the votes of white Southern Democrats in order to maintain his New Deal Coalition. To push for civil rights for African Americans might have cost him support for New Deal legislation, or even the presidency. Several seminal New Deal agencies also tended to discriminate against blacks. New Deal “make work” programs tended to pay black laborers less, and also gave preferential treatment to white applicants. Tenant farmers and sharecroppers fought back by forming groups such as the Southern Tenant Farmers Union, which worked to protect rights of these groups. A. Philip Randolph, president of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, planned to highlight the lack of civil rights legislation with a march on Washington made up of various civil rights groups. Only after FDR promised to increase employment opportunities for minorities in wartime industrial plants did Randolph call off the march. A flyer for A. Philip Randolph’s proposed “March on Washington” 10