When examining the significance of federal action in the progress of African-American civil rights, it is important to acknowledge that this is not a narrative which climbed inexorably upward. As well as great instances of advancement, there were times when the lot of
When examining the significance of federal action in the progress of African-American civil rights, it is important to acknowledge that this is not a narrative which climbed inexorably upward. As well as great instances of advancement, there were times when the lot of African-Americans deteriorated, or when progress was lessened, by the actions of the federal government. Similarly, it is also vital to remember that said government consists of three branches: Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court, and that this means talking of the federal government as a unitary authority presents a lack of both understanding and nuance.
The end of Reconstruction is greatly significant in determining the effect of federal authority on the struggle for civil rights; this view is afforded more credibility when considering the verdict of Manning Marable, who suggested in his How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America: Problems in Race, Political Economy, and Society that Reconstruction ‘did not usher in a new period of Black economic expansion’. This, when taken with the assessment of Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom – who wrote that ‘Basic civil rights were enforced in that brief period known as Reconstruction, but the effort to remake the South failed’ – suggests that the advances of the Reconstruction era were fragile. In one sense, this information would greatly increase the extent to which the federal government could be to blame for the decline in black civil rights in the immediate aftermath of the end of Reconstruction; after all, that the gains achieved in that transient period of civil rights advancement were small does not diminish the culpability of those who prevent further advancement from occurring. (That many American politicians, both local and national, felt the continuation of Reconstruction to be unmanageable does diminish the strength of this criticism somewhat; but it must not be forgot that the end of that era must be seen largely as a betrayal of African Americans – especially in the South – who were sometimes abandoned wholesale by their supposed allies in the federal government.)
It could be argued that the knowledge of Reconstruction’s failures or shortcomings may make actions of the federal government appear less severe as regards the apparent betrayal mentioned above. If Reconstruction was doomed to fail – or so the argument goes – abandoning it does not seem to have been the proximate cause of its failure; rather, this was merely prudent – if abhorrent – policy. And there is some sense that historical figures must not be viewed solely through the prism of latter-day morality. (For one thing, such analysis often denigrates or traduces those who were radical in their own times – and made great strides in the direction of progress – but whose opinions or actions would seem entirely unpleasant to a more modern audience. Lincoln exhibited racist attitudes in private; Jefferson owned slaves. But it could not be argued that the impact they had is in some way tarnished in every respect. These things are not black and while.)
That being said, however, it is clear that the negative effects of this stance were very great. They are evidenced by the fact that Reconstruction proved to be mere temporary respite for many Southern African-Americans, representing a brief interjection into a long history of disadvantage and oppression. Adam Fairclough (in his thoroughly impressive book Better Day Coming) writes that ‘[the Democrats] looked forward to the day when they could suppress the black vote entirely’. He also notes, however, that they initially moved slowly, ‘fearing federal intervention’. The implication of this is that, at least for a time, the federal government was seen as a bulwark against the erosion of black liberty. The end of Reconstruction, though, was dramatically to limit those fears, allowing the Southern Democrats and others more freedom over the running of their own states. The freedom granted to Southern states allowed Southerners once again to pass laws which were detrimental to black civil rights. (And the heritage of the repressive actions and attitudes of these states can be seen in the fact that for many black Americans, there remains the constant threat in some Southern states of voting rights being rescinded or in some way attacked by otherwise anodyne legislation.)
There are further implications of the end of Reconstruction: if the federal government had extended Reconstruction, for one, could the nature of advancements in black civil rights have been sustained? Fairclough agrees with this sentiment; he states that ‘Johnson restored self-government to the South with indecent haste’. This suggests that the role of the federal authorities – in this case the Presidency specifically – was great both in the failure and the eventual end of Reconstruction.
Later on, things got a more violent and more overt; in allowing the KKK to continue its existence by overturning the federal law which banned it, the Supreme Court hindered the cause of civil rights by ceasing federal opposition to one of the most violent racist organisations in the country. The KKK continued to kill and harass African-Americans, and their liber