Reconstruction Versus The Civil Rights Movement

Immediately following the Civil War, the South went through a period aptly called Reconstruction. One of the main goals of this period was the enfranchisement of southern blacks. The reasoning behind this was multifaceted – blacks voting would mean added votes for the Republicans in the south, to some extent offsetting the Democratic dominance in that area. Others pushing for Reconstruction probably did so for purely ideological reasons.

Whatever the reasoning however, Reconstruction eventually failed. Continuing violence, the belief that federal troops would have to remain in the South indefinitely – the growing unpopularity of reconstruction in the North in general – led to Reconstruction eventually falling apart. The withdrawal of federal troops and the declining power of the Radical Republicans effectively disenfranchised southern blacks once again. However nearly one hundred years later, the Civil Rights Movement would blossom, and this time the results were more far-reaching and permanent. There were a variety of factors – chiefly among them the location of blacks and their economic and political clout at the time – that made the Civil Rights Movement a success where Reconstruction was not.

After the end of the Civil War, the South was an area of high tensions. Federal troops were stationed throughout the South, ex-Confederates were barred from governments, etcetera. Blacks were summarily given citizenship, exempt from discrimination, and given the right to vote through the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, respectively. They voted, they ran for office, they held office. However blacks during Reconstruction did not move. They were freed from slavery, but oftentimes they remained in the rural south. After Reconstruction began to falter, there were laws created which further restricted blacks’ employment opportunities, but even during the height of Reconstruction there were not many alternatives but to continue to work on the same farms they were on before the Civil War. They were paid only marginal wages, which usually went towards food, shelter and clothing. Although they were not slaves per se, blacks’ economic position in society did not improve dramatically during Reconstruction.

They also continued to live in the same geographic setting they had been – throughout the rural south. This made it hard for blacks to collectively work together for whatever purpose. One also has to take into consideration that, although slavery was shot down, the attitudes which were cultured for more than a hundred years were still around and quite dominate.

So although blacks could vote and run for office during Reconstruction, they were still limited: politically, socially and economically. Their enfranchisement was wholly dependent on the presence of federal troops, the disenfranchisement of high-ranking Confederates and Republican control of the federal government.

Republicans toned down their commitment to civil rights as their northern support for it began to wain. The reason why that support began to diminish is numerous, but many believed at the time that the essentially martial law situation in the South might have to become permanent to keep blacks enfranchised. This was something most Republicans were not willing to accept. Slowly from state to state Republicans had to make concessions, to not deploy federal troops where they might be needed. Democrats gained power once again – both in the South and on a national level – and they were able to successfully disenfranchise blacks through a mixture of legislation and intimidation.

Flash forward almost one hundred years later. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement hits full swing. Legislation is passed, Jim Crow is thrown out. Blacks are enfranchised again throughout the nation, and anti-discrimination laws finally have teeth. Yet as meaningful gains are made, the party pushing for civil rights (which, in a dramatic turn of events, is now the Democratic Party) becomes fearful that their fight for equality will cost them white voters. Public opinion on the Civil Rights Movement indeed changed radically during the 60s, as the television changed from images of peaceful protestors being sprayed with hoses and beaten, to images of race riots. The Democratic leadership became worried that their association with the Civil Rights Movement would become harmful in elections, so they began to cut ties, until finally in 1992, candidate Clinton used the execution of a mentally-retarded black inmate as a chance to earn political capital.

However, the Civil Rights Movement did not go the way that Reconstruction did after losing the support of a political party. This is due to a variety of factors, but they all boiled down to a common theme – the increased weight blacks held in society at the time. Between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Movement, blacks moved in two large migrations from the rural south to urban areas. These two migrations were during the two world wars, when factory labor was at a premium. Factory work in the cities wasn’t great pay, but it was still a considerable step up compared to the pittance blacks were paid in agriculture.

The improvement of blacks’ economic status was an important difference between the two time periods. Similarly important was the geographic location of blacks in the 60s. As I already mentioned, there was massive immigration in-between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Movement, of blacks from the rural south to urban centers (in both the south and north). The benefits of this immigration were various. Blacks came into contact with whites they otherwise wouldn’t have been. Simple interaction in and of itself has benefits – in helping to destroy assumptions and prejudices. However perhaps the more important result of movement to cities, was that it made organizing blacks that much easier. Following the fall of Reconstruction, blacks were unable to defend the progress they had made – partly because they were so spread out, it made organizing impossible.

Perhaps the Civil Rights Movement itself was more of a grassroots effort from the beginning than Reconstruction was. This is certainly a plausible explanation for why one succeeded where the other didn’t. The government did not willingly bring racial issues to the forefront in the 60s – it was the agitation of the demonstrators and activists that brought the issue up. This is contrasted to Reconstruction, which amounted to the federal government chastising and trying to correct long-standing southern ills.

This difference makes a lot of sense, and I’m inclined to side with it, however we must bear in mind that it’s not a root cause. The southern black population of the 1860s and 70s were not able to organize in the way the Civil Rights Movement did – the principle reasons already stated earlier in this paper (their low economic status and location in sparsely populated rural areas being primary factors). But the civil rights activists used these more favorable conditions, which in and of themselves wouldn’t have changed as much so quickly, to their advantage. And with the actual people on the ground effecting change, they were much less likely to just “give up” when it became politically expedient.

There were quite a few other factors of varying importance. Popular support – at least at the outset – of the Civil Rights Movement was greater than during Reconstruction. The media of the times played a role; seeing the Jim Crow South on the television was a more visceral experience than reading about injustices in a paper. Finally, there was the pressure of the international community to right the wrongs occurring in the South. This in turn led to top government officials and elites being (initially) more agreeable towards the Civil Rights Movement than they had been towards Reconstruction.

All of these factors came together in a favorable fashion. Some were interconnected – blacks’ economic status and location – while others weren’t. Ultimately, the Civil Rights Movement succeeded where Reconstruction didn’t because the primary force behind it was the people. The timing was beneficial, but if it didn’t happen then, it would have happened eventually.