The importance of litigation and political action, in the process of securing racial change in the United States has varied overtime, often, both litigation and political action worked in tandem to affect positive change in America. Most notably, during World War II and the Cold War political action and litigation worked in tandem. At this time President Truman and other political leaders were invested in ending black unrest by ending segregation. The National Urban League, during this time, stated that the color line was being erased everywhere except for Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and the United States of America. (Douglass, p.222) Furthermore black people were against fighting in the war, some people stated that they wanted the
…show more content…
Board of Education. Brown convinced Congress to take action against racial discrimination by enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1957. (Klarman, From Jim Crow to Civil Rights p.366) The litigation in Brown led to heightened attention to race and both Northerners (both black and white) and Liberals (in both political parties) demanded and endorsed civil rights legislation. (Id.) Furthermore, the Brown decision forced whites to pick a side: either they were an integrationist or a segregationist. …show more content…
During the bus boycotts and sit-ins of the 1950s and 1960s local political action was what civil right activist relied on. Convincing local governments to end segregation in their cities and municipalities by garnishing support from the North and by effecting local business. Also in the 1890s there was almost no political support for black civil rights and the litigation at that time failed starting with Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 where the court held that the 14th Amendment did not bar racial segregation. (Klarman, White Supremacy Ascendant, p. 82) Following Plessy there were other cases (Williams v. Mississippi and Giles v. Harris) that also denied racial equality and civil rights through litigation. (Id.) Furthermore, even if the courts holdings were a more progressive stance on racial segregation there would have been little to no enforcement of the courts ruling in the South. (Klarman, p. 87) Coercion from the federal government is the only way that the court could enforce a progressive stance on racial segregation and the federal government was unlikely to intervene because Congress and the President generally reflected the predominate view of the public. (Id.) The general public at this time did not support racial integration, black suffrage, or equal funding of black school education and therefore Congress and the President would not have enforced such holdings. (Klarman p.88) During this time political
Board of Education. Brown convinced Congress to take action against racial discrimination by enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1957. (Klarman, From Jim Crow to Civil Rights p.366) The litigation in Brown led to heightened attention to race and both Northerners (both black and white) and Liberals (in both political parties) demanded and endorsed civil rights legislation. (Id.) Furthermore, the Brown decision forced whites to pick a side: either they were an integrationist or a segregationist. …show more content…
During the bus boycotts and sit-ins of the 1950s and 1960s local political action was what civil right activist relied on. Convincing local governments to end segregation in their cities and municipalities by garnishing support from the North and by effecting local business. Also in the 1890s there was almost no political support for black civil rights and the litigation at that time failed starting with Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 where the court held that the 14th Amendment did not bar racial segregation. (Klarman, White Supremacy Ascendant, p. 82) Following Plessy there were other cases (Williams v. Mississippi and Giles v. Harris) that also denied racial equality and civil rights through litigation. (Id.) Furthermore, even if the courts holdings were a more progressive stance on racial segregation there would have been little to no enforcement of the courts ruling in the South. (Klarman, p. 87) Coercion from the federal government is the only way that the court could enforce a progressive stance on racial segregation and the federal government was unlikely to intervene because Congress and the President generally reflected the predominate view of the public. (Id.) The general public at this time did not support racial integration, black suffrage, or equal funding of black school education and therefore Congress and the President would not have enforced such holdings. (Klarman p.88) During this time political