Civil Rights In The 1960s

John Andrews identifies the changing attitudes of the white Americans as the main reason the civil rights in the 1960s did not progress. He claims that as the cause started shifting from civil rights to race, the white Americans began to become more fearful and therefore began to oppose the measures being taken. The loss of support is evident as in February 1964, the Gallup poll showed that 61% of the public favoured the passage of the civil rights bill . But, by 1966, 90% opposed new civil rights legislations with 88% of white Americans calling for ‘black self-improvement, more education and harder work, rather than government help’ . This break down in the civil rights consensus would have had a negative impact on Johnson civil rights record
because it meant that it would have been harder for him to help the Black Americans without alienating some of his white supporters. This is emphasised by the fact Johnson, in the 1967 State of Union Message, had to change his proposed enforcement strategies from involving the courts to allowing ‘the secretary of housing and urban development hold administrative hearings and issue cease and desist orders’ .
This implies that the growing opposition failed to allow stronger legislations to be passed. Furthermore, the white backlash led to the 89th Congress – who passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts - rejecting the civil right bill in 1966. The bill aimed to deal with the issue of racial preference including housing, education and employment. This highlights the fact the white Americans were not willing to support the legislations which they felt would attack their own individual rights. Doris Kearns stresses this when she states that ‘Once it became apparent that more jobs for blacks meant less jobs for white….that welfare reform meant redistributing income.’ , people became less willing to cooperate. This indicates that the white opposition harmed the civil rights efforts because Johnson would have not been able to pass affirmative actions to close the gap between the black and white Americans without facing a huge
backlash.
In addition to this, Andrew mentions the impact Moynihan report had despite its controversy. This is because the report had blamed the ‘deterioration of the Negro family’ for the social problems the blacks faced. This had a negative impact on Johnson’s future civil rights efforts because it concluded that solving the discrimination would not result in racial equality./This undermined Johnson’s work because it essentially said that all his efforts would come to waste. Andrew adds to this point by claiming that Johnson’s legislations (civil rights act and voting rights act) had failed to deal with the issue of racial preference. Hence, supports Harvey’s conclusion that Johnson’s civil rights record was not good because it didn’t deal with the problems faced by all black Americans.
Nonetheless, Andrews believes that Johnson’s legislations were effective especially the Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act aimed to close the loopholes which enabled the South to stop the black Americans from registering to vote. It was able to do this by making the use of literacy tests or other devices that may have been used. Alongside with this, it enabled the Attorney general to place federal voting examiners in areas where less than 50% of its voting-age populations were registered to vote or actually able to vote. This was significant in helping the civil rights effort because it gave the black Americans the real political power. Andrew describes the 1964 Civil Rights Act as ‘the most effective countermeasure to Southern resistance to integration’ because it was able to abolish the Jim Crow laws. This was important because it meant that by law, blacks and white Americans were equal. The passages of both Acts were important because they had ‘open[ed] the gates of opportunity’ for black Americans. However, he – to some extent – then questions the impact they had as he mentions that the Acts were criticised by civil rights activists for not being revolutionary. This was due to the fact, they only reinforced the laws passed in the 14th Amendments and in the Bill of
Rights.
Andrew disagrees with Lawson’s statement that Johnson didn’t have any political motivations behind his legislations. He mentions that Johnson may have only passed the Voting Rights Act because he was worried about the future of the Democratic Party. Thanks to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the political landscape of the South had changed. This was because white Southerners were turning to the Republican Party. This was evident in the 1964 elections as the Democrats had managed to lose a lot of the support of the Southern voters to the Republican party and the areas where Johnson had won was largely due to the black votes. This implies that the Voting Right bill may have been used for this reason because it meant that the Democrats now needed the black votes in order to retain control of the presidential power in that region. Andrew emphasises this idea by stating that two weeks after the elections, the Democratic National committee had outlined ‘Operation Dixie’ which aimed to introduce new voter registration legislation and increase the number of blacks registered in the states which Goldwater had carried. This suggests that Johnson was using the black Americans for personal gains. Andrew further highlights the fact Johnson had no genuine care for the cause when he mentions that Johnson was reluctant to introduce the voting right bill because it ‘would endanger other pieces of his Great Society’ and that after passing the Voting Rights, Johnson was planning on push civil rights off the agenda as he felt that the ‘burning issues’ had been dealt with and wanted to focus on the War on Poverty. This indicates that Johnson had no vested interest in civil rights as Andrews indicates that Johnson wanted to remove the problem as quickly as possible.