« Department of Understated Headlines | Main | The Good Kind of Contrarianism » Malcolm X: JFK's a Trickster12 Nov 2007 08:44 am This is pretty random, but Hugo Pottisch left a link to this video in comments on an unrelated post and it's pretty impressive: Meanwhile, I'm reading David Nichols' book A Matter of Justice: Eisenhower and the Beginning of the Civil Rights Movement which makes the case that too little attention has been paid to Ike's progressive record in this regard and that one shouldn't regard things like the appointment of Earl Warren and other pro-civil rights judges as an accident. Comments (25)
one shouldn't regard things like the appointment of Earl Warren and other pro-civil rights judges as an accident. Wasn't Ike the one who said "nominating Warren for the Chief Justice seat was 'the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made'"? 
one shouldn't regard things like the appointment of Earl Warren and other pro-civil rights judges as an accident I haven't read the book, but does Nichols explain just what Ike meant when he declared Warren's appointment "the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made"? (I'm not just being snarky--I'm genuinely asking: is that actually a misrepresented quotation? Was it not, as most assume it to be, a reflection of Ike's feelings about Brown v. BOE?) I'm open to the idea that Eisenhower may have been more sympathetic to the Civil Rights cause than he is typically portrayed, but I'm generally suspicious of historians using a Presidential synthesis to explain "the Beginnings of the Civil Rights Movement." The role of the executive in the Civil Rights Movement was primarily reactive rather than active. The Movement began in living rooms, in union halls, in churches, on army training grounds, in barbershops, in lunch counters, on buses, and on city streets. Of course the perspective of the Oval Office matters, but it's not a good place to locate yourself if you're interested in "Beginnings." Yes, I'm sure Nichols isn't crediting the Eisenhower adminstration with the start of the Movement, but I find presidential history to be such an unappealing way to look at vast social movements. Who cares if Eisenhower wasn't as conservative as we might have thought? What does it matter if he might have had some quiet sympathies? The Movement wasn't about him. Given how much power he actually had, he did precious little to end segregation.
Eisenhower's record on this issue includes one of the most extraordinary actions in U.S. history. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme court ruled in Brown vs. Board of Education that segregation in schools was unconstitutional. Three years later, nine African-American students tried to make the ruling a reality by attending Little Rock Central High School... On Sept. 23, the students tried to go to school, but Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus had the Arkansas National Guard stationed at the school to prevent the students from entering. President Eisenhower federalized Arkansas National Guard’s 153rd Infantry and deployed the 1st Airborne Battle Group, 327th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division to escort the students to school. (Army Public Affairs) Try to imagine a contemporary president sending an airborne unit to an American city to enforce a Supreme Court decision upholding civil rights.
Yeah, sending an airborne division to enforce the law is not exactly nothing. Actually, another Republican president, Grant, is more greatly underrated, primarily due to inadequate credit being given to his civil rights record. If Grant's reconstruction policies had been maintained, there's a decent chance the 1964 Civil Rights Bill would never had been needed. Of course, Grant's poor delegation skills had something to with his reconstruction policies not being continued, but he understood the issue better than most of his contemporaries.
Not only did Eisenhower call the appointment of Warren a mistake, nobody at the time thought that Earl Warren was going to be progressive. His record on race relations as governor of California, especially during Japanese internment, was bad. The lawyers at the NAACP representing the plaintiffs in Brown were extremely nervous about the new Chief Justice. Like Drew, I also think the role of the federal government in the movement was more reactive than active, with the exception of Brown vs. BOE (which, the evidence suggests, can only be credited to Eisenhower for unknowingly appointing an integrationist to the Supreme Court). However, Eisenhower deserves large credit for enforcing the decision. But labeling him integral to the origin of the Civil Rights movement is stupid. It assumes that had Adlai Stephenson or anyone else been President, Brown vs. BOE wouldn't have happened. If you're going to credit a President, which I think is a bad idea, give kudos to Harry Truman for initially sending what became the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act to Congress, and for running on a party-splitting platform that supported civil rights (in a highly contested race).
The "mistake" remark about Warren is one of those "possibly apocryphal" thingies. Meanwhile, the Eisenhower administration submitted a brief during the Brown case arguing that the court should rule segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The administration also acted before Brown to desegregate military base schools, and post-Brown got the DC schools desegregated much faster than happened anywhere else in the South. If Ike did come to regard the Warren appointment as a mistake, it wasn't because of disagreement about the core civil rights issue.
Cheers to Will Allen for, firstly, remembering Reconstruction, and, secondly, for also remembering that during that time we had a valuable opportunity to have become and remained a multi-racial democracy over half a century before that goal was re-achieved.
Thanks, Matt for clarifying the "mistake" remark. To Will and Bill: again, by overvaluing Presidential action, you've overlooked the real catalysts of historical change. Gosh, it was swell that Eisenhower showed some respect for the rule of law. But the story of desegregation of Southern schools begins with a handful of black families in Topeka, Kansas who were sick and tired of seeing their children trek long distances to lousy school. I don't necessarily disagree with a book that clarifies Eisenhower's position on this issue. It may well have been far better than imagined. But I'm questioning the knee-jerk assumption that many have that the political history of the United States always begins and ends in Washington.
"Trickster" seems like a rather mild term for one's political opponents. In fact, it almost strikes me as a term of affection, although Malcolm X clearly didn't intend it that way. Perhaps the politics of the 21st century have left me so jaded to vicious personal attacks that the more mild attack politics of the early 60s just seem tame by comparison?
Yes, the Eisenhower administration did have a fairly decent civil rights record. But two contextual factors were at work: 1) As others have suggested above, the White House was re-acting to increased pressure from the newly energized civil rights movement. I think it's generally the case in almost all cases of social change in modern democracies, it's grass-roots social movements that lead the way and politicians react to that. Unfortunately, the writing of history is still heavily top-down and White House focused. 2) The Cold War context is important. The 1950s were the years when Asia and Africa were gaining their independence. The aparteid system that governed the South was the biggest mark against America in the eyes of the newly indepdenent countries. The communist countries were able to secure many propaganda victories by keeping the plight of blacks in America visible. Therefore, the Eisenhower administration felt compelled for national security reasons to push civil rights forward. The point of these two contextual factors is that presidents react to the world around them. Trying to discover Eisenhower's (or Reagan's) view of race is a bit irrelevant. What is important is what they did and the factors that pushed them.
Well, Drew, all I did was note that sending an airborne division to enforce a Supreme Court decision is a significant act. If that constitutes "overvaluing" so be it. I don't think I ever argued that Eisenhower was the catalyst.
all I did was note that sending an airborne division to enforce a Supreme Court decision is a significant act Indeed. Doesn't anyone remember "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it"?
Drew: "the story of desegregation of Southern schools begins with a handful of black families in Topeka, Kansas who were sick and tired of seeing their children trek long distances to lousy school." No argument from me here. "Gosh, it was swell that Eisenhower showed some respect for the rule of law." I think the sarcasm is misplaced. More to the point, I do not think that pointing out Eisenhower's contribution diminishes the achievement of the Topeka families.
One ought to look at Scott Lemieux's post on this subject over at LGM - http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/11/eisenhower-and-race.html
I never realized how well Denzel *nailed* Malcolm's voice in the movie. Just, wow.
Mort Sahl joked about the great gap between Eisenhower and Stevenson, one of whom wanted to integrate "gradually" and the other "moderately."
I never realized how well Denzel *nailed* Malcolm's voice in the movie. Just, wow. I was going to make a joke about 'how did Malcolm X get Denzel Washington's voice so right' earlier, but I didn't. It is impressive.
Malcolm equated, provocatively, JFK's death with a case of "the chickens coming home to roost". Ironically - Malcolm was scolded for that by the Nation of Islam and had to leave. In the end it was his critique of liberals that labeled him an extremist but also drew the secret masses to him. Neither liberal Christians nor his own Islamic friends where too happy about his "effect"? Here some more clips from the first Denzel. Back then it was Malcolm who was feared by white Americans who preferred the message of hope of MLK. It is funny that so many are now eager to see the X in Obama come out (he has it both)? These days people are more honest about what works and what does not? Here some famous Malcolm quotes: In this deceitful American game of power politics, the Negroes (i.e., the race problem, the integration and civil rights issues) are nothing but tools, used by one group of whites called Liberals against another group of whites called Conservatives, either to get into power or to remain in power. It is a pity that Malcolm could not give his speech in Washington because he was censored by Kennedy. I know how he would have started it: "I had a nightmare..."
If Ike did come to regard the Warren appointment as a mistake, it wasn't because of disagreement about the core civil rights issue. Matt, perhaps you're right or could it have been that Ike was a state's rights fella? There were many more then who subscribed to allowing individual states their own say in their own affairs... I was very young during the Ike admin, so I can't speak to the times as well as later times. I do know that government per sae was much smaller in those days than now.
Just a thought...they times they were very different back then.
In Perlstein's Before the Storm, he mentions that the GOP's 1960 civil rights platform was more progressive than the Democrats. I'm not sure how Ike fits into this picture, if at all, but it is well documented that some Replublicans circa 1960 embraced robust civil rights legislation.
"There were many more then who subscribed to allowing individual states their own say in their own affairs"
Do states' rights include the right to tyrannize their own people? If you believe they do, then it makes sense that you would take the position that you cannot intervene in state affairsusing the powers of the federal government, even when a state engages in tyranny against its own citizens. However, if you don't believe that states' rights include the right to tyrannize their own citizens, then it makes sense to use the powers of the federal government to prevent this injustice. Therefore, it is a mistake to take the states' rights argument used by segregationists at face value. What appears at first to be a principled criticism of constitutional overreach by the federal government, is in reality a rather disingenous defense of constitutional overreach by the Jim Crow state governments of the South.
eltoro-I'm not advocating anything. I'm simply suggesting what Ike's perspective may have been. This all happened back then when things were very much different than they are now. I lived through that time and can tell you first hand that every social and political more was being challenged. Whether the pass off of letting the states decide for themselves is right or wrong in today's prism is not relevant or useful. It was what it was back then. Try to envision that.
Well, there is real difference between the Federal government prohibiting a state or local government from subjecting some of it's citizens to race based discrimination or tyranny, and the Federal government prohibiting a citizen from engaging in raced based discrimination or bigotry in the operation of a diner. Now, if the Civil War Amendments had been properly enforced by the Federal Government in the decades following the Civil War, the South may have changed sufficiently to render such private bigotry a far more minor issue by the 2nd half of the 20th century, thus making such an expansion of Federal power in policing the behavior of citizens less desired. As is often the case, however, failure to fufill responsibilities eventually leads to overstepping boundaries in the opposite direction.
"Whether the pass off of letting the states decide for themselves is right or wrong in today's prism is not relevant or useful." G Davis, Obviously, it wasn't just wrong in today's prism; it was also wrong in the prism of that time. That's why the people of that time ultimately decided that the federal government needed to intervene against the tyranny of the Jim Crow South. There wasn't universal agreement on the extent to which the federal government's powers should be used, but outside of the Jim Crow South, there was a consensus that something had to be done to fight such tyranny (the notable exception to this were the Goldwaterites). To Eisenhower's credit, he was on the right side of this issue, and when he realized he needed to exercise leadership on issues of civil rights, he stepped up to the plate like the great man he was. Yes, one wishes he had exercised more vigorous leadership on civil rigths much sooner, like Truman did back in the 1940s, but to Ike's credit his incremental approach resulted in concrete gains for the civil rights movement. So regardless of whether you judge Ike by the standards of his time or by the standards of our time, his record on civil rights deserves far greater praise and respect than it has gotten so far. Ike's record overall was certainly better than that of his successor, JFK. (It was Robert Kennedy, not Jack, who displayed civil rights leadership, and that was mostly in the context of LBJ's administration, not JFK's.) Moreover, in the context of his time, the presidential leadership Ike displayed on civil rights was far bolder than that of any of his Republican successors (and most of his Democratic ones as well.)
Comments closed November 26, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
How much credit, if any, does Kennedy deserve for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Posted by Rich | November 12, 2007 9:20 AM