Aldon D. Morris: The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement

I am going to give you a birds eye account of Aldon D. Morris’ book, The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement so you can make your own mind up as to whether or not the Modern Civil Rights movement a success or a failure. I say that in the long-run due to the right-wing backlash that America is living in a pre-Civil Rights era, rather than a post-Civil Rights era. The post Civil Rights era was the time shortly after the reforms were made such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Both of these “legal” accomplishments are now in jeopardy of being harmed and repealed. The Voting Rights Act is set to expire in 2007. Many of the gains found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act are not being enforced by the Federal government nor right wing judicial activists and those who want more and more corporate power to re-oppress the classes of people which those in the power structure always wanted to do anyway. Dr. Martin King, Jr., was assassinated fighting for equal economic justice in America. White people saw him as a rabble rouser. In the 21st Century, right-wingers take what he said and stood for out of context for their own narrow reasons and justifications to remain bigots. The right wing have stacked the federal courts with right wing judges as part of the “Reagan plan” to not have to enforce those civil rights laws on the books. It was the administration of President Reagan which set out to destroy the gains made in the Civil Rights movement. I wonder when Reagan who often said the “I did not leave the Democratic party, but they left me,” was referring to their embrace of the “Modern” Civil Rights movement and Dr. King? The “Reagan plan” included appointing right wing justices to the bench for the purposes of right wing judicial activism so they could begin to dismantle every reform ever put into place by those who mobilized forces to fight against the political, economic, and social oppression foisted on the masses by the power structure and master elites.

One will need to get a background look at the “Modern” Civil Rights movement before one proceeds to the major question of whether the fight was successful or not. Thus, I provide a synopsis of the movement based on sociologist, Aldon Morris’ account of that time period. According to Aldon D. Morris the Civil Rights movement fit solidly into the tradition of social protest. The significant use of the black community to accomplish political goals relied heavily upon the church. The Black Church functioned as the institutional center of the Civil Rights movement. Churches provided the movement with an organized mass base; a leadership of clergymen largely economically independent of the larger white society and skilled in the act of managing people and resources; an institutionalized financial base through which protest was finances and meeting places where the masses planned tacrtics and strategies collectively, in committing themselves to the struggle. This movement was highly organized, and its significant use of the black religious community to accomplish political goals was hinged on the role of the Black church.

Morris uses the indigenous perspective to show how the modern Civil Rights movement transpired. He argued that it was within the indigenous model that the basic funding patterns, social resources, and organized masses were activated for protest. He also argued that pre-existing institutions, primarily the Black Church, rather than the previous held notion by many that it was a spontaneous explosion, or that it was a movement sponsored by the Federal government or the office of the President, or a sole effort led by Dr. Martin Luther King, but that it was a movement that was a by-product of skillfully organized efforts and pre-exiting institutions.

The Civil Rights movement was truly a grass-roots campaign as it for the first time mobilized large masses of black directly and confronted and effectively disrupted the normal functions of the white power stuctures and institutions thought to be responsible for their oppression. In this blacks accepted and adopted non-violent tactics as a mass technique to bring about social change. To fight back against racial oppression the elements of movement centers, strategic planning, organizing, charismatic leaders. and preexisting institutions were all key in the political scope of their social protests. It was the charisma and leadership qualities of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and others that were able to effect change in bringing the mobilization aspect of the movemet to the forefront. And it would be the black women of the Montgomery bus boycott who would serve as the catalysts within the "modern" Civil Rights Movement.

The Church was a place where blacks could participate and experience an ability to own an institution free of white control. It also filled a void and gave support to their oppression from white society, and through group acticity were able to defend and articulate their interests in a collective manner. The principal resource of the black Church was its mass base. It was within this mass base that its social power for social protest derived from. Although the collective activity of the activists in the church were organized, it still did not have the formalized power that white structures had.

The role of the church minister was very important to the direction of the mass movement in the social protest of the "modern" Civil Rights movement. The minister had a defining role in the structure of economic boycotts, street marches, the mass meetings, and going to jail. These tactics used were known as non-violent direct action. The ministers who came into the movement brought with them a great deal of experience, as most had grown up in the church and understood its inner-workings. These ministers knew that a successful minister needed to develop a strong personality that was capable of attracting and to be able to establish a loyal following. Charismatic leaders had already existed within the institution of the black church before the movement, and the movement allowed for this development of this pre-existing factor to take full form. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a charismatic leader who became very important to the Civil Rights movement. Growing up in a political church environment, he was the son of a minister and knew the inner-workings of the black community and the black church, that would serve well in dealing with political issues. As a trained orator and that he had been in oratorical competitions, he became skilled in agitating, fund raising, and organizing. He was skilful in the art of negotiation and able to form blocs searching for consensus. King masterful at call-and-response, was handsome and projected well in front of a camera, to get out his public message to the masses. He was highly educated and had a doctorate in theology. His roots also gave him the knowledge and ability to collect and manage resources through resource management.

The Resource mobilization model fits Morris' analysis that participants acted rationally to their circumstances and tended to be well integrated into black society through the churches. And that pre-existing social organizations and communication networks were also crucial, while the conditions of oppression contributed to the sustenance of the movement's development. In short, the approach of the mass mobilization efforts with this indigenous perspective focused on the emphasis of resources, development, and rational thinking. The indigenous perspective deals with the Movements waged against its dominant oppressors. It is with this perspective that shows how oppressed groups-blacks create the social conditions that allow them to engage in overt power struggles with its oppressors-the white establishment. This movement would need to have present basic resources, social activists with ties to strong-bases indigenous institutions, and tactics and strategies that can effectively be used against the white power structure in this case. Essentially, movements are developed by activists who seize the opportunities for protest. And historically the Black Church has provided the finances necessary to sustain the activities. It was in the church setting that oppression could be discussed freely and resources developed to organize collective resistance. Effective strategies are those used to effectively cause disruption of the existing status quo social order. It is here that the collective power of the masses is necessary to redistribute the power. When the oppressed group has pulled its resources, activists, tactics, strategies, for protest reason together, it has developed a local movement center.

The movement centers, were the dynamic forms of the social organization. of th were essential to the Civil Rights movement. By pulling all the necessary grass-roots elements together, it allows for further training and advancement of the movement to take place, It furthers the protest marches in local communities and sets the stage for easier insurgency to occur. One of the most important Two of the key organizations of the Civil Rights Movement were the Montgomery Improvement Association and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. One of the first important spin-of groups was the United Defense League, established at the time of the Baton Rouge Bus Boycott. From the indigenous perspective these groups were non-bureaucratic, but were formal organizations. These groups were able to foster mass participation, tactical innovations, and rapid decision-making. Leadership in these organizations was important. In bridging tensions where divisions may have occurred, pre-existed leaders were often chosen who were already soundly integrated in the black community but who were also relatively viewed as newcomers.

By the 1950's in post World War II America embarking upon the Cold War where the United States attempted to promote Democracy around the world in combating the spread of Soviet Communism, that the segregation laws and the era of Jim Crow would be challenged and that the cities in the south would be the testing grounds of democracy here in the United States. With the use of grass-roots maneuvers and strategies, the mobilization efforts through the Black Church would see its Movement spearheaded by the Baton Rouge Bus Boycott of 1953.

The Baton Rouge Bus Boycott in June of 1953 was to serve as the initial model of the "modern" Civil Rights Movement. Blacks provided for two-thirds of the bus revenues. when the mass mobilization of the bus boycott took place. The boycott galvanized the black community and nightly mass meetings were held led by Rev. Jemison. It was here that the "free car lift" strategy was launched to circumvent transportation issues that people would have in getting to work or the store. A highly dispatched communication center was established to aid in this endeavor. This movement clearly indicates that pre-existing structures do help in the organizing effort. Through the local black church the mobilization effort was launched. Rev. Jemison appealed to the wider black church where he did get support for the bus boycott and the request for the mass participation effort, to help in the cause. Out of the boycott evolved the United Defense League which served as a direct link to the mass boycott. The work of this newly formed independent group was able to work on issues related to social protest and appeal to the black community as a whole and prevented any infiltration into the bureaucratic institution of the church. Social protest has to be financed and the black church under the guise of Jemison did just that. Passing the hat was common place at the mass meetings and became the pulse of the movement. This procedure of collecting funds to support the indigenous black protest sustained itself throughout the Civil Rights Movement. In his leadership role, Jemison's "newcomer" status helped in a great way. He was active in the black community and these networks proved valuable in being relatively new to this church. However new, he was able to unite those in his congregation while, not being influenced by the white power structure. These elements mentioned are in-line with the importance of the role the black church had in mobilizing mass-action.

Through the idea of non-violent direct action, and conducive with mass protests the physical nature of blacks made them potential power instruments. In creating a non-violent social disruption they could organize together, boycott, crowd jails, and march. It was not until Montgomery that blacks became aware of this method. Workshops at the grass-roots level were run by Rev. Smiley and Bayard Rustin on non-violent direct action. The doctrine of the black church provided for this framework used. Preachers were now spreading this doctrine across the south and this was proof on the influence of the black church's on the civil rights movement. The Montgomery Bus Boycott is a good example of how the Civil Rights movement was not a spontaneous explosion put forward by many. Rosa Parks was deeply rooted in the black protest tradition of the south and had before her arrest on December 1, 1955, at other times refused to give up her seat. It was because she was an integral member of these organizations that were instrumental in mobilizing collective action that she refused to give up her seat. It was through the efforts of E. D. Nixon, who was not a minister, and Jo Anne Robinson of the Women's Political Council that were responsible for the boycott's success. The success of the UDL in Baton Rouge had served as a model to the transportation set-up devised by the MIA in Montgomery. It was through the black churches that the transportation system was set up. The importance of the MIA was that its organizational structure which grew from the UDL would be put into further use across the south. The visibility of Montgomery was wide. It had gained widespread support from the NAACP, northern blacks, and northern whites. Most of the money raised went into the transportation system to further the boycott. Robinson called for community action and distributed literature of Parks' arrest. The organizational forces of the black community began to mobilize in support of Parks and confidence in the mass movements in the black community started to gain ground, with the advent of Movement Centers in Montgomery, Tallahassee, and Birmingham. The arrest of Parks in Montgomery and two college students in Tallahassee and the outlawing of the NAACP in Birmingham created the needed elements for collective action and social protest against white domination.

The organizations founded had young ministers as its charismatic leaders and were offshoots of the United Defense League earlier established during the Baton Rouge bus boycott. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was President of the MIA, in Montgomery, Rev. Steele heading the ICC in Tallahassee, and Rev. Shuttlesworth of the ACMHR in Birmingham. These groups were able to deal with crisis situations, direct mass insurgency and to unify the black community. The young status of the three ministers heading these organizations allowed them to be effective leaders and free of white control. These organizations benefited from the Church culture in that they could draw on the congregation for mass support. The presentation of meeting in these organization was rooted in the tradition of the call-and-response sermons. The church structure was built into the program to assure familiarity and not to lose the interest of the masses. Disruptive tactics were used as methods in the economic boycotts, in its direct action approach. Without saying, the "modern" Civil Rights movement and direct action grew out of the bus boycotts. These massive bus boycotts disrupted the social strata in white society along with the economic structure, and the issue of discrimination now became a political issue also. As a result of mass action through collective cooperation, the boycotts in Tallahassee and Montgomery almost bankrupted the bus companies, who relied virtually on black women for its revenue. The significance of the success in Tallahassee and its pre-existing structure of the ICC clearly stated that a mobilized effort could succeed, even a small southern city. In response to the outlawing of the NAACP, Reverened Shuttlesworth had triggered direct action in Birmingham. He wanted to show that direct action could be organized to confront issues other than just bus segregation. In defying the white power structure Shuttlesworth was seen as a strong leader, who had no fear. The ACHMR criticized the tripartite system on allowing black police patrol the black communities, discrimination in hiring, segregation in schools, buses, and retail stores along with disenfranchisement at the polls. With these issues on board Rev. Shuttlesworth was able to mobilize the church population, and through indigenous resources served as the impetus of the movement. It was the efforts of Shuttleswoth that kept this bottom-up campaign moving along.

In order for the growth of the Civil Rights movement to continue, the local centers that developed with its collective action method had to be extended, but to remain autonomous of a bureaucratic-like structure. From its inception the SCLC was led by indigenous black leaders. The role of the bus grievances helped to establish the central organization of the SCLC. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference was a church-related protest organization that was formed by the need of local movements. Rooted in the church tradition, its leaders became symbols in the mass bus boycotts of the 1950's. The formation of the SCLC coincided with the non-violent disobedient strategy established by the black community when it came to the direct action organization, the church gave workshops on direct-action methods, to effect change. The SCLC was able to help other local movements already operating. The clergy and the black Church were the main instruments in the SCLC. The affiliation it had with the church enabled the SCLC to have a political end away from the control of the church.

The sit-ins of the 1950's and the 1960's put new life into the Civil Rights movement. This non-violent direct action at lunch counters where blacks were not served got substantial organizational support from the black church. It was a standard bearer in that disruptive politics often worked faster than legal decisions. As a result of the sit-ins sympathetic whites became interested. By the the summer of 1960 many lunch counters across the country were desegregated. The sit-in strategy was a tactical innovation in the movement.

The United States Supreme Court's favorable court ruling on November 13, 1956, that ruled Alabama's state and local laws on that required segregation were illegal, had proven to the mass movement of the black community that its discipline, organized movement had proven that this was successful because of the organized collective action. It gave rise to the power in numbers idea. The SCLC's goals in Birmingham put in motion the destruction of segregation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

With the combination of mass demonstrations, boycotts, sit-ins, through non-violent direct action, the Civil Rights Movement was able to effect change through grass-roots strategies, put in place by the local Black Church, in the South. The Civil Rights Movement of was a success in the South as it is no longer legally segregated. The many of symbols, the Confederate flag in Mississippi aside, no longer overtly exist. And by virtue of the efforts of the women in Montgomery, blacks no longer have to ride on the back of the bus. This is the apex of the changes. The Civil Rights Movement if it did nothing else for effective change, it was able to raise the consciousness. of true freedom and equality for all and put on a social trial, the values and the doctrine of Democracy, in America. It not only empowered black America but it also put white Americans on notice, and in many cases were supported by whites. The Civil Rights Movement helped to bring about the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Blacks are now able to vote. Although the Civil Rights Movement altered the tripartite system of economic, political, and personal oppression through white domination, it blacks in many respects are still victims in the white power structure, even in the 21st century. It was successful in that its own grass-roots strategies through its own organizational structure allowed them entry into the political arena as potent as a fastball thrown by Bob Gibson. The movement gave rise to other social movements like the women's movement of the 1970's and other movements since. It showed that non-traditional politics can serve as way to bring about change, aside from court rulings. There have been elected black politicians since the movement and have served more than capable in that capacity. But, however, the Civil Rights Movement did not totally change for the better the economic exploitation of blacks that still exists today. The oppressed blacks who helped build this nation as slaves have since their release as bonded men, never been adequately trained or educated by the same white power structure that denied its civil rights for so long, and in some cases, still exists today. Institutional racism and the fight against Affirmative Action is still alive today. The debate over states rights versus the federal government's power is still a hotly debated topic in the South. In sum, the economic conditions of blacks did not see significant changes because of the Civil Rights Movement. Although legally integrated into American society, I argue that blacks are still disproportionately segregated both in communities and economically. Thus, the modern Civil Rights Movement was, on paper, a legal and political success. But, in the short-term modern Civil Rights Movement was successful.

For argument’s sake, if one wants to take it one step further, the overall analysis of the modern Civil Rights movement was not necessarily a failure, but did not foment the efforts of the movement’s early leaders like Jo Ann Robinson, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and countless others, who wanted freedom, liberty, and justice for all black Americans. Therefore, it could be said that the Civil Rights Movement was not a total success, nor a total failure, but rather a compromise within the present capitalist democratic system, in the United States. The Civil Rights movement exposed the inefficiencies and inequities of American society, and openly questioned equality and freedom. For many black Americans, in the fight for equal rights, it has been the “have-nots”, who have been exploited and are still under represented in the system. Despite the end of the Jim Crow laws, oppression still exists as it did before Montgomery. In the wake of the President Ronald Reagan administration in the 1980’s, and the redefining of the Federalism debate, America has seen a deeper divide between Black and White America. Now more than ever, Black Americans are faced with a system that endears them to economic segregation. I argue that the success of the Civil Rights Movement proved that Blacks could effectively organize as a collective unit, and were able to overcome major obstacles against some of the most unfavorable odds, and against some of the most brutal people and oppressed situations that a people, in the history of mankind, has had to fight. As will be shown, the failure of the Civil Rights Movement towards economic advancement, was due to a lack of continued vision after Martin Luther King’s death, and by a white power structure that is resistant to improved economic conditions for blacks. Furthermore, the white power structure, in many cases has denied equal access under the law, even after the language was written down, on paper. In a nation where African-Americans fought and died in World War II, in the name of freedom and justice for all, but came back to a Democracy after the war, to be denied its guaranteed rights under the Constitution, in a land of segregated schools and buses, was a domestic civil war waiting to happen. The storm that came put the calm of American democracy on a legal, social, moral, political, and economic trial, in America and internationally.

On May 17, 1954, the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education, of Topeka, Kansas, was decided that in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” had no place, and the distinction of race alone did violate the “separate but equal”, clause in the Plessy vs. Ferguson case, thereby reversing, the 1896 ruling. The Supreme Court ruled that separate educational facilities were unequal. This ruling reversed the 1896, Plessy vs. Ferguson, ruling that established the “separate but equal” doctrine, ruling that said state laws that mandated separate facilities for African-Americans did not violate the equal protection provision in the of the fourteenth amendment, to the United States Constitution. In 1883, in response to the first Reconstruction Acts that called into question whether blacks had adequate access to public facilities, that was supposedly a guarantee for all citizens, led to the Plessy vs. Ferguson ruling, in 1896. The ruling stipulated that as long as the accommodations were “substantially equal” under state laws that provided separate facilities, then the fourteenth amendment was not being violated. The Brown vs. Board of Education, decision was supposed to bring equality to Black Americans, but they were met with resistance from the start. This decision ended the legal war between the NAACP and the defenders of racial inequality. After some favorable court rulings with higher education the NAACP set out to test the separate but equal doctrine in primary and secondary schools, in public education. Despite the plausible ruling, the Supreme Court asked the attorney generals’ of the representing states to prepare arguments to implement the means in order to institute the laws of desegregation. On May 31, 1955, the Supreme Court handed down its decision to the lower courts, with a plan that was to be followed to administer desegregation. What was known to be the Brown II decision, the Supreme Court ruled that southern states did not have to act immediately to implement the desegregation laws. In effect, this ruling allowed southern states to continue on the course of segregation.

Both the Brown I and the Brown II decisions, led to the fierce debate over states rights versus the federal government rights and the ensuing conflict of Federalism was born in the South. The white political leadership used the doctrine of interposition to fight back against the federal government’s mandate. Interposition declares that a state may reject any federal mandate if that state thinks the ruling is encroaching on the rights of that state. The actions of Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, Alabama Governor George Wallace, and Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett proved themselves to be defiant of the United States Supreme Court-ordered ruling that declared segregation illegal, which ordered the desegregation of high schools and state universities. In 1956, less than a week before school was to begin, an Arkansas state court ordered Little Rock not to initiate the desegregation plan. Despite the Federal court ruling that ordered the Little Rock nine, (9 black children), to enter the school, Governor Faubus ordered the state’s national guard to deny entry to the high school. Before the national media the defiance of the federal government by the state of Arkansas pushed the administration of President Dwight B. Eisenhower to assist in the defense of the civil rights of Black Americans. Eisenhower called in the United States Army to enforce the peace over Little Rock and to ease the tension of hostile whites. It would not be until August of 1959, before Black Americans actually attended the high school in Little Rock. The Little Rock, Arkansas situation was a display of the state government in Arkansas rejecting the authority of the federal government. The segregation of schools was not the only fight African-Americans would wage.

On May 21, 1954, four days after the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, Jo Ann Robinson of the Women’s Political Council that spearheaded the Montgomery Bus Boycott started to mobilize the effort, by sending a letter to Montgomery Mayor W. A. Gayle about the bus abuses that blacks were experiencing on the segregated buses, in Montgomery. Robinson reminded him that a boycott would be imminent if the conditions did not improve on the buses, as blacks made up three-fourths of the bus revenues. The mayor responded to Robinson that the city was only upholding the law, of segregation.

Rosa Parks was arrested on December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama. Her arrest spurned the modern Civil Rights movement into action. She refused to give up her seat on the bus and the Women’s Political Council led by Joanne Robinson started to mobilize a mass collective effort to boycott the buses on the following Monday, December 5, 1955. With the success of the one-day boycott and the leadership of E. D. Nixon, of the Montgomery Improvement Association and the collective effort by the congregation at the Holt Street Church led by Martin Luther King, Jr., the agreement was to continue the boycott until significant change was made. The boycott in Montgomery was a success, and hurt the city economically shut down the buses incurring financial loss on the bus company along with area merchants whom relied on blacks for business. The buses were shut down on December 22, 1955. and the financial burden grew on the white power structure resulting in layoffs. On Tuesday February 21, 1956 a grand jury ruled that the boycott was illegal. This led to the arrests of King, Jo Ann Robinson, and many others in the movement. It was at this time that blacks ceased being scared and were ready to fight for their liberty. On January 31, 1956, prominent attorney Fred Gray filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court contesting the city’s segregation laws. In June of 1956, a three-judge Federal District Court voted that the bus segregation laws were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the decision on December 20, 1956, to the chagrin of the city commissioners, in Montgomery, Alabama. It was at this time that the white man had to recognize the legitimacy of blacks citizenship through the legal system.

The fight for equal justice and the defeat of segregation was a collective victory from the efforts put forth by those courageous freedom fighters in Montgomery. In waging a passive, non-violent, resistance movement, the black activists left their white oppressors in a state of puzzlement. This effort proved that blacks could indeed organize in masses, while disproving the stereotypical notion that blacks were lazy, complacent, or could not act as a cohesive group. When Rosa Parks accepted her duty to be arrested on behalf of a greater cause, the battle for Civil Rights was born.

The sit-ins of the 1950’s and the 1960’s put new life into the Civil Rights Movement and received additional support from the black church. This disruptive and non -violent action seemed to work faster than the often awaited legal decisions desired by black activists. As a result of these sit-ins, the attention of sympathetic whites grew stronger. By the summer of 1960, many lunch counters were desegregated across the country. This strategy was innovative and seemed to be a success. The success in Montgomery, gave rise to other local movements as well, like the Southern Christian Leadership Conference that resulted was led by indigenous black leaders. The bus grievances gave a direct reason for the need of this new structure. The SCLC was a church-related protest organization that advocated non-violent resistance. The SCLC’s action in Birmingham and Selma put in motion the destruction of segregation and the advent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The movement was successful in that its grass-roots strategies expedited many legal decisions, into the political arena in rapid speed, that might otherwise not have happened. What this showed was that non-traditional politics can serve as a way to bring about change, with or without court rulings. And that economics does in fact have a strong bearing on court decisions.

It was Martin Luther King, Jr., who regarded education, religion, legislation, court action, and interracial alliances as the necessary means to non-violent direct action. In 1966, the realization came that black people did not have the economic power to take full advantage of the gains that were made through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. By 1966, as a result of the criticisms King was getting he began to advocate economic justice for blacks, in the years from 1966-68, focusing on economic issues. King realized that crime, poverty, family disorganization, illegitimacy, and other social problems were due to segregation and racism and thought the federal government was needed to assist with these problems He wanted to use the south as the ground to launch this movement, into a practical reality, for black people equating it to the promised land, in biblical times. King and the people in the mass movements fought for social change through social protest in Montgomery, Selma, Memphis, and Birmingham to fight against legal segregation and the overwhelming deprivation that blacks suffered in the system. With the new legal decisions, King saw that previous stereotypes against Negroes were no longer valid, and force whites to say yes when they wanted to say no.

King became one of the fiercest civil rights leaders for this change, in regard to federal support for housing, improved educational opportunities, affordable housing, healthcare. His involvement for economic justice endeared him to bring about a radical restructuring of the American economy. As King became more aware of the relationship between racial oppression, class exploitation, and militarism, he started to advocate for basic structural changes within the system. By the time King was assassinated he moved beyond the dream of integrated buses, schools and lunch counters, in the south, and envisioned a true democratic society for all people without racism, economic exploitation, or wars of aggression.

After the death of King, and the shifts among the black political elite, hope that institutional racism would dismantle under capitalism seemed unlikely. Liberal whites and blacks no longer seemed to oppose the right by the time Reagan was President. The divide within the black community with the black elite and the black majority had been the fait accompli, within the black community and had been the causation for the ideological and political differences. The consciousness that the Civil Rights leaders wanted to bestow on the masses at the Holt Street Church, in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955, seemed to be lost with the consciousness of the black elite. The reminder that the “have-nots” still existed in the social and economic orders of Black America or that family or friends might be on welfare is not something the black elite wants to deal with. Many in the black elite perceive pimps or prostitutes, as the result of the problems in black economic America, rather than seeing it as the and cause of the problem.

In the second Reconstruction period during the Montgomery Bus Boycott the theme was equality. But equality meant parity in the positions of political, social, economic, and privilege in America. The biggest challenge in the equation was to overcome institutional racism, that would level off racial parity. Did the court decisions destroy the class divisions based on real equality and racial equality? Despite the court rulings, did not violence and oppression, still occur? Despite the reality of oppression blacks still had a vision of a democratic social order that would afford them access to political, economic, and social rights regardless of race gender, or class, that was “the eyes of the prize” called freedom. The Civil Rights Movement and the Black Power Movement’s were fundamentally working class and people movements. The acceleration of unemployment and underemployment, and the many civil rights leaders ascendancy toward the right, along with the demise of the militant working class, and the growing number of the black population on public assistance programs, was the end result of black oppression.

The credibility of the United States of America was very much in question with racial segregation in the South, forcing the administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson to deal with racism. In 1960, Martin Luther King Jr., was arrested in Atlanta during a non-resistance sit-in and protest, and was given a four-month sentence. Kennedy strategically worked with his brother Robert Kennedy to secure King’s release. This action paid dividends in the 1960 election as he gained the Black vote, with overwhelming numbers defeating Nixon with two-thirds of less than one per cent of the vote.

The federal government would again intervene in a slow manner, in the case of James Meredith and the desegregation issue at the University of Mississippi. Meredith’s denial of admission to the University of Mississippi, is one of personal struggle, personal triumph, and a nation’s disgrace. In January of 1961, Meredith was denied admission to the University, in a school that was still segregated. Meredith with the help of the NAACP filed suit in the U.S. court of federal appeals, and won his case, and Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black ordered the state of Mississippi to allow for his admission. On September 25, 1962, Barnett himself blocked Meredith’s entry, using the doctrine of interposition. On October 1, 1962, Kennedy had federal marshals escort Meredith to the University and had him enrolled. The marshals were violently attacked, with among other things guns. On the night of October 1, 1962, Kennedy had to order in the over one thousand army troops to restore order and by the nest morning over two thousand troops were deployed there. Meredith was finally allowed to attend the school. In the aftermath of the situation, two people were killed, 166 marshals were injured and 210 student dissenters were hurt. To the racist whites of Mississippi, this was another case where the federal government interfered and the debate over Federalism continued. On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy went on national television after two weeks of protest in Birmingham, Alabama, to discuss his decision to intervene at the University of Alabama. Governor George Wallace had tried to block two black students from enrolling at the University of Alabama, despite a federal court order to allow entry. Kennedy then deployed the National Guard so the two students could be admitted, in the attempt to desegregate, the school. The culmination of the civil rights protests, in Birmingham, were very influential in Kennedy’s support and praised those in the movement’s struggle.

It was in the world view of defending democracy that Kennedy had to support civil rights in American when pictures of black children who were beaten up could only tarnish the image of the United States in its ideological and Cold War, with the Soviet Union. It seemed hypocritical that the United States was promoting democracy geopolitically around the world while the Constitution of the United States allowed racial apartheid to exist in America.

The Civil Rights Movement challenged the idea of equal opportunity and forced Presidents like Kennedy to act At this time the American government was asking other country’s to embrace democratic ideals, while at the same time it was denying its own people its of human, and civil, rights. The failure of the movement was evident in the immediacy of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 outlawed the Jim Crow segregation laws in public accommodations of every kind in every city and state. Before this bill blacks were restricted from public parks, swimming pools, theaters, lunch counters, and white public high schools.

The immediate ramifications of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill saw an increase in institutional, political and vigilante violence against Blacks across the South. Politically speaking, white southern Democrats abandoned the party after this decision. Despite the initiative that was passed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, it served to quell racial suppression but it did not change the racist political economy in America.

Until 1965, the Civil Rights Movement focused mainly on undoing discriminatory practices and attaining integration for employment, law, political representation, and social life. With some favorable court rulings by the United States Supreme Court that favored integration, freedom through integration was heightened. The work of King with white politicians to get his agenda through seemed to be working as well as the hard fought marches from Selma to Montgomery, and the many deaths that were incurred. Ultimately the federal government intervened with favorable legislation.

On August 6, 1965, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed and in no small part, due to the events, that transpired in Selma, Alabama. This bill had a greater purpose. The Federal examiners were sent into the South to ensure that registration and voting by blacks was to be applied. With the passage of this bill, it satisfied the white liberals who fulfilled their campaign promises. It also placated blacks who were now perceived as less of a threat as far as demonstrating and the concern of disruption or resistance seemed to be of less concern to those in the white community. To many white liberals the Voting Rights Act seemed to indicate that the fight for black civil rights was over and no more problems existed.

In the overall analysis, Jim Crow was dead. The Congress had fulfilled its role in passing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 Bill, and the Courts were also now absolved. And the Executive branch now could say it was the one who directed this initiative and leadership. Did blacks at this time acquire the necessary elements of human rights with adequate economic security, housing, medical care, child care, and living free from fear?

In Selma, Alabama, in 1965, three weeks before he was assassinated Malcolm X, who was committed to a strong black consciousness realized a true collective effort was needed among the black masses and that divisions in the black community were not good for the success of a productive movement. He compared the house Negro in slavery times to the black elite of the 1960’s. He also equated the field Negro to the black majority of blacks living in America, with not a lot of resources. Malcolm X pointed out the discrepancies in Black America. He thought the black elite caved in to the white power structure in favor of a better economic life, although they were still being institutionally discriminated against. Malcolm X rejected the notion of black integration, while attributing the plight of American Blacks, in the context that Capitalism was exploiting blacks, and that was the central reason for the “inferior” status of blacks. The only time that Blacks would be free or liberated from white oppression and economic exploitation to Malcolm X, was when the destruction of Capitalism came about, in America. He argued that blacks did not need to prove themselves to its white oppressors and should therefore not attempt to integrate into a society that through its racist/capitalist structure was inherently exploiting blacks. He believed that Islam was the appropriate religion for blacks and that Christianity was a religion that was given to the Negro by the white man. Malcolm X believed that Black Nationalism should be used to fight class oppression and exploitation and that only a revolutionary nationalist movement could ever bring this change about. Malcolm X advocated radical change in uprooting the economy and society in order to liberate the blacks and the poor, in the United States.

The Watts’ riots in Los Angeles, and other riots in Philadelphia and Chicago, was the setting in America after the assassination of Malcolm X. After 1965, attention to the freedom movement had developed in northern cities also. By the middle of 1966, the culmination against the product of what was fear in the state of Mississippi had come. James Meredith an unsung Civil Rights hero in the fight for integration decided to take a solidarity march through the state of Mississippi. The objective of Meredith’s march was to prove that Blacks no longer had to be afraid of white violence. Meredith was shot from fifty feet away but survived and agreed the march should continue without him. Despite the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the deep-rooted structure of racism and racial inferiority were still large issues in black society. After the shooting of Meredith, many leaders in the struggle did not continue onward. Its concern was with the future and immediate cause of the struggle and not wanting to place any possible advances in jeopardy, the role or response of their white allies, or issues that directly dealt with the federal government.

With the combined forces of SNCC, CORE, SCLC, the march still developed. Stokely Carmichael, who was elected as President of SNCC in May of 1966 carried the march forward. He thought the movement up to 1966 had been one solely geared to white liberals and that none of the leaders could go into any rioting community and be listened to. He blamed the media for the riots in Watts, Harlem, Chicago, Cleveland and Ohio. To Carmichael, when the people in these cities saw that nothing was being done by the government to offset the violence done to four girls bombed to death and Martin Luther King’s being slapped, rage set in. To Carmichael the issues that needed to be addressed were the problems of being black, being black and poor, and being black and lacking education. He thought it was essential that if racism was to end, these issues had to be dealt with. Carmichael called for radical change. At this time many did not think interracial alliances with whites would continue to work.

At this point, in 1966, Rev. King had taken his message that was effective in the South, to the North. Taking his message to the black communities in Chicago, King confronted a problem wherein blacks did not have a sense of black consciousness or a sense of a need to change or commit to any freedom struggle. King was faced with a strong political machine and Chicago Boss Richard Daley, in a system that was embedded in paternalism and the good ole (white) boys network. In short, as King found out, the methods he used in bringing some change to Montgomery, was met with resistance in white communities in the North and by apathy in many black communities.

Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated on April 4, 1968,  in Memphis, Tennessee. He was killed in an attempt to assist Black sanitation workers of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, in the goal for peace, economic democracy, and a viable black working class. Louis Stokes, speaking before the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, believed that King was murdered because he was alerting poor whites and poor blacks of the economic exploitation in America. Here, King was seeking the fundamental change that would be necessary to bring an equal and egalitarian society to America.

By the time the 1980’s came many of the reforms of the Civil Rights movement started to unravel. President Ronald Wilson Reagan was opposed to political reforms like affirmative action and was successful in eliminating specific federal agencies that were created to carry out the implementation of Civil Rights laws and equal opportunity standards. In 1983, Reagan dismissed three members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The agency was pronouncing Reagan’s opposition to school desegregation and discounting the use of goals or timetables for hiring women or minorities. Reagan also opposed minority economic set asides, the enforcement of equal opportunity, and employment regulations.

As Manning Marable points out, Reagan used negative racial stereotypes and images like “welfare mothers” who he accused of abusing food stamps and other public assistance programs. With the recession of the 1970’s, the energy crisis, and major corporation’s falling profits, all led to the coming of Reagan as President. With Reagan’s Presidency, the liberal welfare state became non-existent and heavily de-emphasized. In the summer of 1981, the Reagan administration had started to draft language that would take the pressure off white-dominated college institutions to hire black faculty. Included were measures that called for improvements in the facilities with an eighty million dollar package to improve academic programs at black universities. This amounted to was a easing-up on the conditions called for by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in Title VI. The Reagan administration failed to enforce the 1964 Civil Right Act and resulted in compromising the law that barred racial discrimination. The North Carolina agreement on July 10, 1981, was a return to the days of the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision, in the quest for desegregation. The North Carolina plan kept the dual educational system intact and did not include any provisions that would upgrade master’s or doctoral programs at black universities. It also did not honor quotas and the hiring of minorities at white-dominated schools.

Reagan made massive cuts in social programs for the poor, black and white, and on October 1, 1981, more than 400,000 families were removed from federal and state welfare rolls. Federal housing allocations came to a halt under Reagan, and fell from 30 billion in aid down to 8 billion in aid within five years from the time of Carter’s departure as President to 1986, under Reagan. The enormous cuts in human needs spending went into defense spending for nuclear weapons. The failure of the Civil Rights struggle was seen with the candidacy of President Reagan. as some of King’s former lieutenants in the black clergy like Reverend Ralph Abernathy, Hosea Williams, Charles Evers, all endorsed Reagan. These men placed their own individual economic interests first, and abandoned the fight of the black working class.

The racist nature of the Reagan administration was in the area of public policy with massive spending cuts, having a more disproportionate effect upon blacks than whites. With the passage of the 1977 Food Stamp Act, the Bureau of Census reported in 1979 that 5.9 households received food stamps. The ratio between whites and blacks was not equally distributed. White families on food stamps was at sixty-three per cent, and blacks made up thirty-five per cent of people on food stamps. The public housing act passed in 1937 by Congress to remedy unsafe and unsanitary conditions for families of low income, saw in 1979 that almost half of the families living in federally subsidized housing was at about three per cent. Living under the poverty lines at about, $5,000.00 dollars, fifty-nine per cent of whites at 1.5 per cent of the total rate, while the per cent of blacks was at thirty-nine per cent at 1.0 million households. The federal government in 1965 instituted Medicaid to assist needy families with dependent children, and people of age, the blind or the permanently disabled, who did not have adequate financial resources to attain medical services. In the 1979 United States Census data, whites benefited more at 68 per cent, blacks were at 30 per cent.

The “logic pursued” by King, is lost in favor of a man like Reagan who turned the accomplishments of the Civil Rights movement in the opposite direction. As scholar Manning Marable points out, the goals of the Civil Rights movement that promoted social reforms have been abandoned by the black elite. The individualistic nature of the black elite completely abandoned asking any questions that could help change the economic status of the Black working class or poor. In dealing with the white power structure and wanting integration many blacks have opted to become accommodationists and conservatives. Conservative Blacks usually cooperate to suppress blacks by cooperating with whites. Accomodationists are usually insecure about their status and usually only attain short-term gains.

Two Scholars Analysis of the Civil Rights Movement:

I will analyze the main thesis of both Morris and the Marable but not without showing who has the more realistic way for change under the present political system in the United States, not that one or the other would not work if tried. In many ways, Marable’s analysis suits the underclass in a much better way than Morris’ but, however, a disproportionate power elite at the top will always use clever methods to start a backlash movement against any reforms or improvements to an unbalanced system. The power elite actually view things as all being equal but, which are not. I do think overall that Marable argues in his book a more convincing and analytical argument than Morris as to who has the better method to uplift African-Americans the second class status which they have had to the present day. One only needs to look at America’s crack versus powder cocaine sentencing laws or the unequal educational system still prevalent in predominant black areas to know that blacks are still being used as targets by the white power elites. The No Child Left Behind is not only a right wing strategy designated at showing the “failures” of the public education seen as too liberal by many in the conservative GOP, but also a code racist set-up to deny an equal education under the law. Martin Luther King, Jr. must be rolling in his grave as well as the late Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall.

According to the thesis of Aldon D. Morris’, in his book, “The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement“, the movement could be seen in the tradition of social protest, and the significant use of the black community to accomplish these goals, relied heavily upon the black church. The Black Church functioned at the institutional center of the Civil Rights movement. Churches provided the movement with an organized mass base, and a structure they independently owned exclusively free of white control, in committing themselves to the struggle. The movement was highly organized and its significant use of both the black religious community and the black church to accomplish its political goals.

Morris demonstrated support for his argument by clearly showing the inner-workings of the black church and the black community and how in tandem they worked with each other, including the creation of the United Defense League in Tennessee, the Montgomery Improvement Association, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. To accomplish these political goals in regard to the mass movements, the black church adopted a strategy that mobilized the community in a grass-roots, bottom-up strategy.

Morris used the indigenous perspective to show how the modern Civil Rights movement transpired, and through this model the basic funding patterns, social resources, and organized masses were activated for protest. He dispelled the notion that it was a spontaneous movement or that it was a movement that was sanctioned by the federal government, or that it was the sole effort of Martin Luther King, Jr. He maintained that through the pre-existing institutions of the Black Church, that gave momentum to its success. Morris argued that the movement was a grass-roots effort as for the first time was able to mobilize large masses of black people to directly confront and disrupt the normal functioning of white establishments.

Furthermore, according to Morris, blacks were able to adopt and implement non-violent tactics to bring about social change. As Morris also stated, it was the church leaders, most notably the church minister who led the masses in the direction for social protest. The strategy was key and that was never more evident when the bus boycotts not only in Montgomery, but also in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, that caused the depletion in bus revenues. In short, the economic strategy in shutting down the buses did work and was effective as it was in Montgomery in which an influence in a court decisions was apparent, in November of 1956.

As Manning Marable so eloquently points out in his social analysis “How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America”, using the Reagan Presidency to reflect the images, of the racial and economic dilemma of blacks and the poor, and how various racist undertones of conservatism structurally exists in the United States, since slavery. He goes on to point out the differences and similarities, of conservatives and liberals, alike. Through the black economy he reconstructs the political, economic, and social factors, emphasizing, class above race, as the real or imagined problems. The central objective of Marable’s book was to present a critique of the strengths and contradictions, that comprise black American labor and life, with the purpose of destroying the process of underdevelopment, which to Marable imprisoned blacks for four centuries. He remains convinced that black people as a group will never achieve the historical objective of their long struggle for freedom in the political economy of capitalism. To Marable, the force of capitalism has been an oppressive agent in the exploitation of white labor power against blacks. As far as he is concerned, it will take fundamental change that would require a massive democratic resistance movement largely from below, to transcend the working classes and the oppressed minority groups, for true reform. Furthermore Marable asserts, wherever there is oppression, resistance will occur, and the lessons of the struggle will bring hope for a better life. And if a resistance does occur, the construction that would be needed for a new world free from hunger, poverty, and racial hatred would then begin to be realized. It would be how the struggle of the oppressed in making a new society, into a new history, that would be left to bring in a new structure.

Marable’s argues in his thesis, on page 256, in comparison to Walter Rodney‘s, “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa“, in “How Capitalism Underdevloped Black America”, that development change is possible when a radical break with the exploitive capitalist system that has been responsible for black underdevelopment. The development of strategy and tactics, are essential in uprooting the hegemony of capitalism to build a construct for a new structure. In Marable’s view, political leadership is linked to ideology. According to Marable, the African-American elite has no long-term solutions to the growth of the urban poor, and he also says that the black middle class has failed with its ideology, and has fallen into an individualistic style that is accommodationist, in white society. According to Marable the real problem lies in the exploitive practices of the capitalist ruling classes as the wealthiest top one per cent of the entire power elite in America who earn a greater net wealth than, the bottom of ninety-five per cent, of all U.S. households.

According to Marable the biggest social division within the black community was the black worker majority and the black elite. The ending of the underdevelopment of Black Amercia, can only occur when every aspect of the capitalist civil society is undermined like the educational institutions, the church, the media, social organizations, and cultural organizations. Ideally speaking to Marable, it would take the comprising of Blacks, Hispanics, trade unions, social groups, cultural groups, and others to formulate the necessary elements in beginning a revolutionary bloc that could transform the system. Within this bloc it would have a majoritarian mandate to wage a war with the objective of overturning the state. The result would be a new structure in the form of a new development in a socialist society. The working class would become the dominant class. The immediate reforms that would transcend this new society would be the equal rights amendment, anti-discriminatory legislation, job training programs, universal health care provisos, and a mass mobilization effort that would combine these legislative decisions as an alternative to the presently exist as a coercive state apparatus. According to Marable, racism and patriarchy are both pre-capitalist.

Marable contends that the racist/capitalist ruling elite in America does “whatever is necessary to stay in power”. It doesn’t matter if it divides or polarizes people, blacks or whites. The capitalist system suppresses others to promote a patriarchal society as its modus operandi for the capitalistic state’s survival, and destroys unions, while relocating factories elsewhere for cheaper labor costs, as in the 1980‘s. It de-emphasizes unions and lower classes, and in turn, coercion continues. In practice and in theory, he thinks. as with the U.S. Constitution, Americans must overturn racism. Through the doctrine of Marxism, he believes in freedom, equality and democracy. Marable thinks that capitalism has kept blacks oppressed and it now is the divide between the black middle classes and the black majority from the black elite. As a result, throughout history blacks have become the victims of slavery, sharecropping, rape, lynchings, capital punishment, and imprisonment. To Marable, the only way to overturn oppression is to fight for racial equality the same way that the abolitionist John Brown fought, for freedom.

In direct response to the Civil Rights Movement, Manning Marable offers great insight into the Civil Rights Movement, on page 257, of the 1950’s and 1960’s in America as he discusses rebellions. He admits that battles against coercive agencies like the state are going to be unavoidable. But he admits that in the United States as it is presently structured only temporary wins are attainable. Perhaps, the strategy to defeat the oppressive nature of the racist/capitalist state can win a few just to show that the United States is democratic and that capitalism is fair, equal, and just, however, the working and poor classes would never be able to defeat a coercive capitalist state, as it is in the United States. In sum, successful reforms and rebellions are more compromises than changes in the systematic structure of a political, social, and economic capitalistic democracy.

In comparing Manning Marable, to Aldon D. Morris, regarding which author provides the most convincing argument to uplift African-Americans from their second-class status, I would have to say that Marable presents a more incisive analytical argument, while I think Morris provides a more practical solution, to a very complicated and ingrained problem, as Marable would agree with. In sum, the strategy of Aldon D. Morris is the road I would take to uplift African-Americans from their second-class status.

In an ideal society Marable’s argument to uproot the system in its structure would be a plausible solution. Perhaps, he is correct that capitalism is an oppressive system that exploits those not in the top one per cent. But Marxism has elites also. Karl Marx was in the intellectual elite intelligentsia and so too, was I.V. Lenin in the Soviet Union, adopting Marxist ideology. Elites are in every socioeconomic system. Marable is taking a typical Marxist view and applying it to the underclass of Black America, with old-age remedies to fix the inequities of capitalism. He is right that the system would need to be totally changed if blacks were to be equals as it stands now. He is also correct that if a successful revolution did take place it might create a new oppressed class of people. I do agree with Marable that many reforms in the movement just may have been to restore calm rather than to change the system for more viable long-term improvements. I also agree with Marable that the black elite have forgotten about the black majority and that a divide in the Black community does exist. I do believe that elements of Socialism are necessary to advance the plight of any underclass, in any society. Therefore, when King urged the federal government to intercede in helping blacks with employment, housing, and with the sanitation workers in Memphis, before he was assassinated, these were elements of a social democracy, at work. I could not disagree with Marable, that oppression and freedom are not present in Black America, and that the only possible way for a change to occur would be a total overhaul of the capitalistic system. Under the present situation however, integration into the system is the more practical solution. Although in political theory and in the ideal sense that I agree with Marable’s interpretations, it is here that I depart from his remedy.

In short, Morris’ argument is more practical and more realistic. In some instances Morris’ thesis has already had some success. It did and still would no matter how one looks for a successful movement in the Black community, for a collective mass mobilization effort if change is going to be made. As with the election of President Kennedy in 1960, African-Americans have impacted the system in great ways already by turning out in large numbers. The mass marches, the boycotts and other forms of social protest were effective ways in bringing about change. The Black Church was at the center of the movement. Through this mobilization effort in the 1950’s and the 1960’s African-Americans proved its detractor wrong about a so-called inability to organize as a group of people. One of the major reasons for the success of the Civil Rights movement was the fact that the Black Church was free of white control and that it was able to establish decentralized organs of the church like the Montgomery Improvement Association and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The movement effected change through a collective effort and forced the federal government to act, even when it did not want to. This factor can not simply be overlooked. The other factor that must be mentioned as to why the movement was successful, and Morris brings this out is that the ministers of the Black Church were able to work with the Black community , organizing the struggle at the grass-roots level.

This is where I so strongly agree with Morris. A grass-roots organization from the bottom-up can be successful and it was in the mass boycotts, freedom rides, and the boycotts. It did effect change with the legal decisions in the U.S. Supreme Court and the Civil Rights bills. These decisions did allow for legal integration of African-Americans into the system, resulting form the collective efforts of the Black community. It is so clear that a movement with any measure of success has to be organized and that spontaneous explosions don’t often happen in anything but anarchy type situations.

The movement lost its biggest human resource with the assassination of Dr. King. The Black elite swayed from the Civil Rights struggle. For the black community to fight against racial and economic oppression and uplift itself from their second class status, it will require the black elite and the black majority, to come together as a united front and to collectively organize in the same manner that Jo Ann Robinson, an educator from Alabama State College, was able to help organize the beginning of a movement that included the masses of African-Americans, in fighting against the segregation laws. And it will also need another independent Black institution, free of any white influence if any movement in the interests of African-Americans is to be successful. Here again, I would concur with the method of Morris. In short, Morris’ method has already had some success, while on a smaller scale with social reforms, Marable’s philosophy has also been inclusive. Marable’s philosophy has been a mix of success and failure seeing at times partial inclusion of people and groups as it relates to things like abortion rights, gay marriage in Vermont (success), and the fight to abolish the death penalty (success recently in Illinois), wherein in some states, it already has been abolished.

In conclusion, African-Americans did achieve legislative victories. But that legislation was unable to legislate the morality of those decisions, by individuals who exercised power in the white power structure. Whether it was Governor Barnett of Mississippi exercising the law of interposition in denying Meredith’s entry to the University, or President Kennedy’s decision to intervene in Atlanta in obtaining King’s release from jail, with domestic political concerns at hand, or getting the two students admitted to the University of Alabama in 1963, more because of Cold War ideology, rather than true idealism, are evidentiary structural problems that African-Americans have had to confront during the height of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s’s, and to a large degree still have to contend with, in the 21st century. In closing, whether they are heroes like King, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, or unsung heroes like James Meredith or Stokely Carmichael, it will take a continued effort among the masses of African-Americans to make sure the laws that are guaranteed under the United States Constitution, are not compromised. Unfortunately with the assassination of Dr. King and his unfinished business, regarding the impoverished economic problems of poor blacks and poor whites, and subsequently since his passing, the economic situation in black communities across the nation has not improved, substantially. With the election of Ronald Reagan and his de-emphasis on civil rights, along with the welfare bill signed by President William J. Clinton, in 1996, all but assured that King’s vision, was a dead letter.