To what extent was war the main reason why civil rights advanced between 1861 and 1965 modified

Daniel Swain-Kirkwood

History Coursework

‘To what Extent Was War the Main Reason Why Civil Rights Advanced
Between 1861 and 1965?’
War was one of many key factors in the advancement of civil rights between the years 1861 to 1965.
The path to universal civil rights was characterized by long periods of stagnation between the civil
war, WW1 and WW2 and the ongoing conflict with the USSR afterwards. Every major leap was
achieved due to the societal upheaval and disparate necessities brought about by war. This begins
most dramatically during the civil war as Foner remarks:
“The transformation of blacks’ role within American society began during the Civil War.”
(Foner, 1987)
/> />The environment of desperation which war provided over the years naturally led to change as it
positioned the leading executives in desperate situations which eventually led to key legislation. For
many blacks “…the war held out the hope of a radical change in American race relations” (Foner,
1987) as black soldiers realised their worth and strive to gain the acknowledgement that they
deserved however during the period of reconstruction after the war the strangle hold of Plessy vs.
Ferguson (1896), which created precedence and stated that blacks and whites should be kept
‘separate but equal’ allows us to ignore almost 60 years as little to no change in the state of civil
rights was achieved.
The impact of war must be further evaluated by comparing and contrasting with other important
factors such as the underlying motivation of the executive. The impact of crucial legislative reform
handed down by executives must be further evaluated against significant war events at the time and
the media representation of civil rights as this could be the turning point behind the executives’
decisions, making it so it was not done for reasons of morality, but rather out of necessity or to quell
the dissenting voice of the media.
The beginning of civil rights for the black community, without a doubt, began during the American
Civil war with the president Lincoln’s resolve to ‘free’ the slaves of a set of given states in America.
The Emancipation Proclamation freed nearly 4 million slaves in secessionist confederate states.
Although it led to major legislative change, the societal change was quite minimal as it required

enslaved blacks to first escape captivity either by crossing union lines or through the advancement of
union troops. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued on the 1st of January 1863 and claimed
that:
"… all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, … shall be then,
thenceforward, and forever free…”
(Proclamation 95, 1863)
The significance of this presidential directive towards the advancement of civil rights, cannot be
disregarded as it directly addresses the issue of slavery head on without the need to abstract. The
language utilized is clear in its objective, words such as ‘forever’ and ‘free’ illustrate a clear intention
behind the document; that being, the freedom of African Americans within the US. Nonetheless,


Daniel Swain-Kirkwood

History Coursework

Lincoln’s intention in implementing such a change, was not “sincerely believed to be an act of
justice”, but a political masterstroke that he saw as a ‘military necessity’ towards winning the war.

Oliver Evans Woods (1863)
/>Amongst Lincoln’s motivation were foreign affairs between the confederacy and the European
powerhouses of Britain and France who held sympathy for the southern states during the war and
were also looking to expand influence over the western hemisphere, with French emperor eager to
expand his empire to Mexico. The cartoon above depicts a union soldier fighting Jefferson Davis
president of the confederate states, behind him we see representations of both Napoleon III and
John Bull jeering and egging the southern states on. Napoleon III is saying “Whip him, … when I get
Mexico, I'll help you whip him again.” Indeed, Britain was already aiding the confederacy as
historian Tom Bingham displays in his article that the ships known as “CSS Florida, the CSS Alabama,
the CSS Georgia, and the CSS Shenandoah” were built by British manufacturers for the sake of
sustaining the confederate forces and the cartoon shows two burning ships in the background and

John Bull is eagerly saying “…burn his Ships--destroy his Commerce--England has plenty more such
clubs for you.” Indicating Britain’s eagerness to continue providing both armaments and ships. To
prevent other nations from assisting the south or even joining the war the Emancipation
Proclamation would rephrase the war as a fight for freedom for the oppressed slaves. Britain and
France therefore faced a dilemma upon the release of the Emancipation Proclamation as they had
already abolished slavery and would find it uncomfortable to oppose the individual who was
attempting to free slaves.



Causing disruption in confederate states as freed slaves fight to leave the territory, are no
longer available for the war effort and cripple the southern economy.

Additionally, President Lincoln justified that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the
following states: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Arkansas, and North
Carolina. Coincidentally, all the states named were in fact states in rebellion and the abolition of
slavery did not apply to any of the states under Union control. This factor, once again, reinforces the
idea that the legislative document was only created for the sake of achieving victory by undermining


Daniel Swain-Kirkwood

History Coursework

and crippling the confederacy from the inside as it was a well-known fact that southern slaves were
utilized to support their armies on the field, and they were also known to manage the home front so
more men could be sent to war. Not only this, but the slave trade was a major investment in
southern culture as the southern states were incredibly rich and their source of wealth was centred
around the slave trade and cotton farming which was usually traded with neighbouring nations such
as Britain and France. President Lincoln shrewdly justified the EP as a fit and necessary war measure

in order to create chaos and halt the confederacy’s use of slaves and therefore stopping they’re use
in the war effort whilst equally sabotaging the confederacy’s main source of income.
To add


EP states the freed slaves can join the army bolstering his troops and providing soldiers who
must win the war to maintain their freedom.

While Lincoln had provided the grassroots for the development of civil rights the reality of the
situation was lacklustre and following the Emancipation Proclamation little to no change was
achieved during the following 70 years. The plight of African American and other minority groups
was put under further strain by the premature ending of Reconstruction under Rutherford B. Hayes
who upon his election in 1877 ended reconstruction to help deal his way into the White House by
gaining support from southern states. The conclusion of Reconstruction made all the progress
achieved by Lincoln redundant in the Southern states as the removal of an effective force allowed
southern leaders to create their own laws to prevent the advancement of civil Rights. Due to this
development, ‘Jim Crow’ laws and racially motivated groups like the Ku Klux Klan started to rise in
prevalence due to the inherent racist attitudes within the southern states. As an article published by
the Associated Press outlines:

“Hideous things happened in the decades after the Civil War. Freed slaves who tried to vote
were beaten, jailed, lynched. Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan stopped thousands from
registering [to vote].”
Katherine Rizzo, AP, 2005
The landmark moment during this 70-year period was Plessy vs. Ferguson (PvF.). The supreme
court decided in favour of Ferguson enshrining into law the doctrine “… ‘separate but equal’ as a
constitutional justification for segregation, ensuring the survival of the Jim Crow South for the
next half-century.” (History.com Plessy v. Ferguson, 2023) Effectively creating precedence that
allowed states to impose racial segregation widely and laws over which the subsequent
executive would have little sway even in times of war and gave the executive the ability to

essentially ignore the plight of certain racial minorities in the United States. For instance,
President Grover Cleveland despite being a reformer who won the support of many new ‘white’
immigrants to the U.S.
“On the issue of race, he agreed with white southerners in their reluctance to treat African
Americans as social and political equals…”
(Henry F. Graff – millercenter.org – 2022)


Daniel Swain-Kirkwood

History Coursework

On the issue of suffrage for African American voters he was vocal in his belief that it was a ‘social
issue’ (Graff, H, 2022) and not a problem for central government essentially relying on PvF. to
redeem him of responsibility in this important issue.

Briefly outline the failings of the executive in those years…
Hayes – premature end of reconstruction
Plessy v Ferguson – Supreme Court – civil rights a state issue
Woodrow Wilson—miller centre University of Virginia
Grover Cleveland – Downright racist


Daniel Swain-Kirkwood

History Coursework

Executive Franklin D Roosevelt should not be ignored when regarding the advancement of civil
rights; as he made some incredible legislative remarks such as executive order 8802 and the civil
right act of 1964 which, pushed the civil rights agenda forward. However, Roosevelt’s actions, much

like Lincoln’s, are not always driven by their own conscience but forced by pressure from a third
party. In Roosevelt’s case these pressures derive from the need for factory workers to manufacture
the machinery of war particularly in the case of executive order 8802 and by the threat of a mass
march on Washington in support of civil and worker rights.

Despite the United States claims of neutrality and reluctance to be drawn into another war in
Europe, as early as September 1940 FDR declared a national state of emergency and authorised the
‘Selective Training and Service Act’ (1940). These actions clearly demonstrated his intentions to be
ready for war when it became necessary to join. Given that WWII revolutionised warfare making
forces heavily reliant on modern machinery such as Tanks, Planes and Automatic weaponry there
would have been concern about being able to provide a sufficient work force to be able to sustain
the factories that would be required to mass produce armaments. It is perhaps not a coincidence
then that FDR chose to issue ‘Executive Order 8802’ in June of 1941 as this would help him to recruit
from the disenfranchised massively unemployed black community.
Executive Order 8802 stated the following:
“…there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defence
industries and in Government, because of race, creed, color, or national origin.”
(Executive

Order

8802,

1941)
The goal was, to put an end to any practise of discrimination in federal agencies and all unions and
companies which were engaged in war-related works. It enabled African American individuals to get
jobs which previously were only available to white citizens or to reduce fears they may have had
regarding the working environment. Therefore, the order pushed civil rights forward and created
some level of equality within the defence industry. The main way in which this was accomplished,
was through the creation of the Fair Employment Practise Committee (FEPC) who’s overall purpose

was to investigate complaints of racial discrimination and take action against perpetrators of
workplace racism. Although the scope of this committee was quite limited due to their lack of
enforcement power, the committee symbolized FDR’s attempts at forwarding the civil rights agenda
albeit indirectly. It also added to the ‘Great Migration’ of black Americans from the Southern states
towards the north highlighting the willingness of African Americans to relocate away from the Jim
Crow south and making the plight of this community a wider national issue. This is particularly
significant when we consider that the advancement of civil rights had mostly stagnated during the
previous 70 years.

Roosevelt’s decision to endorse civil rights protections in the defence industry clearly shows that war
was a significant driving factor behind this important moment in the advancement of rights for
ethnic minority groups in the USA. However, there is another factor which pressured him to provide
these protections and that came from the African American leader A. Philip Randolph who was head
of the notorious Brotherhood of Sleeping car Porters a worker’s union. During 1941 the ‘Black
Worker’ journal published an article ‘Call to Negro America to March on Washington for Jobs and


Daniel Swain-Kirkwood

History Coursework

Equal Participation in National Defense’. This publication and the threat of a mass march of up to
100,000 blacks on Washington caused intense media scrutiny and pressure on FDR to provide a
solution. Randolph’s timing was critical as he realised that as the USA ramped up for war this would
be an ideal time to seek the furtherment of his civil-rights agenda.

A particularly poignant incident in September 1957 highlights the state of civil rights in the southern
state of Arkansas. The incident had begun when nine young African American students had enrolled
in Little Rock high school, formerly an all-white school but as a response to the U.S. supreme court
decision of Brown vs Board of Education three years prior. In which segregated schools had been

found to be unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment was forced to allow registration of
black students.

The interactions between Governor Orval Faubus and President Eisenhower are revealed in no
uncertain terms by Harry Ashmore a Arkansas Gazette Journalist who won a Pulitzer prize for his
coverage of the incident. They reveal the popular sentiments of the Southern state of Arkansas and
highlight the gradualist inclinations of Eisenhower. Faubus’ actions clearly demonstrate his
unwillingness to fulfil federal law and allow entrance to the black students as despite arguing that
the
“National Guard would protect the right of the nine enrolled Negro children to enter the high
school without interference”.
(Ashmore,

Harry

September

1957,

Arkansas

Gazette)
In contrast, when the time came for the students to enter the school Lt. Colonel Marion Johnson
informed them:
“…on orders of Governor Faubus, the students are not to be permitted to enter the school”
(Dwight Eisenhower and the Central High Crisis, 2022, nps.gov)
His actions on the day seem to have been an effort to appeal to a small minority of influential white
voters and the anti-integration protestors at the school which brings to the fore the fact that the
southern states were still very much struggling with the gradual erosion of Jim crow laws brought
about by supreme court decisions to uphold the fourteenth amendment over the “separate but

equal” policies favoured by some southern states.
On involving the national guard Faubus made the incident at Little Rock High School a federal issue.
On September 7th Eisenhower made it clear that perhaps considering his gradualist view of the civil
rights agenda that he saw the issue not as a civil rights violation but as a question of state vs federal
governance. As the integration of schools had been ordered by the Supreme court it was the
president’s obligation and mission to uphold and enforce these changes. In a telegram to Faubus he
states:
“… that the Federal Constitution will be upheld by me by every legal means at my command.”
And later in his personal diary he restated that:


Daniel Swain-Kirkwood

History Coursework

“… where the Federal government had assumed jurisdiction and this was upheld by the
Supreme Court, there could be only one outcome – that is, the State would lose…”
Furthermore, Eisenhower chose to deploy 1200 armed U.S. Airmen in a clear show of force against
the governor and the white protestors and supporters of segregation in Arkansas and other
Southern states. One could argue that Eisenhower’s willingness to utilize the armed forces to defuse
a potentially harmful and dangerous situation emphasises his agenda to make the US a freer and
safer environment to peoples of all ethnicities. The significance of his actions in this instance cannot
be ignored as it could be argued that this event displays Eisenhower’s will to enforce the ideology of
“the free world” that the U.S. espouses to be. The use of trained soldiers to defend these students is
Eisenhower’s way of setting an example to the rest of his nation on how individuals of colour are to
be treated. Arguably this can be seen as changing the course of civil rights setting an example and
demonstrating the way in which the executive can use power to enforce fair treatment in America’s
education system the restrictions imposed by PvF having been removed. Perhaps though his
motivations stem from the media pressure, remembering that at this time the global image that the
U.S. wants to project during the challenges of the cold war and its ongoing rivalry with the USSR.

The importance of media coverage of the Little Rock incident is particularly emphasized by the image
of Elizabeth Eckford (below) and her stoic show of courage in the face of discrimination and the
sentiments of white protestors and the lack of support for her shown by the soldiers:

Despite the US’ attempt to portray itself as a bastion of freedom and democracy giving it the right to
act as ‘world police’, this powerful image seeks to destroy their credibility by highlighting the
hypocrisy of the plight of African Americans in the Jim Crow South. As highlighted by Ibram X. Kendi
“With the globally circulating sights and sounds of Government troops defending howling
segregationist mobs, Little Rock harmed the American freedom brand.”
(Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning)
The U.S. tried to present its soldiers as peacekeepers with the ability to bring and uphold freedom
for oppressed people around the world particularly in its fight against the ‘tyrannical’ USSR.


Daniel Swain-Kirkwood

History Coursework

However, in this image the soldiers in the background of the picture seem disinterested and
unsupportive for the lone Elizabeth Eckford as she is oppressed by the crowd, far from protecting
this innocent girl from the crowd they stand amongst them and seem to be doing very little.

Furthermore, the vitriolic scream of the woman behind Elizabeth and the apparent disgust from the
women to her right coupled with the composed and stoic expression of the courageous young girl
make this image incredibly impactful. It stands in stark contrast to the description of black Americans
espoused by the white community for decades. Instead of a monstrous, murdering rapists from
which upstanding white citizens need protection by lynch mobs hanging them from trees. The
reverse is shown a ‘proper’ young lady, notebook in hand, seeking an education only to be attacked,
spat at and stopped by the baying uncontrolled mob mentality of the white South. For years the
justification for lynching and segregation laws protecting the white citizens from ‘monsters’

evaporates as a lie. Given the fact that this took place during the cold war, the underlying threat of
embarrassment from their nemesis the USSR may actually have been what drove Eisenhower and
not the executive’s moral crusade driven by conscience. During this time, Russian backed media was
more than happy to try and humiliate the United States by pointing out inadequacies in her social
cohesion.

This point is further reinforced by historian Mary Dudziak who states in her book ‘Cold War Civil
Rights’ that “Early on in the Cold War, there was a recognition that the U.S. couldn’t lead the world if
it was seen as repressing people of color” and the factor of media helped to bring this to life; and,
therefore, the only reason why Eisenhower was eventually forced to react accordingly is simply due
to the wider context of the cold war as this period of time was dominated by clashing ideologies of
communism and Capitalism and an event such as this one spreading worldwide could have
potentially led to the downfall of the US. This, in seeing this confrontation of hatred, many other
nations might choose the USSR and communism as a source of aid instead of the US due to the
undeniable hatred harvested and practised in their nation.

The factor of media has significant value as the advancement of technology in the 1950s allowed the
spread of media representation and this image in particular, to other nations within the global
community. The USSR was adept at picking up images such as this one and using them to embarrass
the US, as popular Russian newspaper agencies took advantage of the incident to create further
hatred for the US alongside criticising US ideologies and pointing out how communism is more
abstract and safer than the US’ way of life. As appointed by the article written by the ‘Atlantic’ the
Soviets took full advantage of this opportunity and did so by creating statements about the incident
in their most popular newspaper sources such as the Komsomolskaya Pravda which was a
newspaper company ran by communist youth organisations and they ran a story on the incident at
Little Rock which displayed the images of the events alongside the caption “Troops Advance Against
Children!”. The story went on:
The patrons of Governor Faubus ... who dream of nooses and dynamite for persons with
different-colored skins, advocates of hooliganism who throw rocks at defenseless Negro
children—these gentlemen have the audacity to talk about “democracy” and speak as

supporters of “freedom.”


Daniel Swain-Kirkwood

History Coursework

(Komsomolskaya Pravda, 1957)
This further spread the issue around the globe forcing the eventual and necessary interruption of the
executive to attempt to defuse the situation and resolve the anger. The significance of war once
again undermines Eisenhower’s commitment as he had to prevent the USSR from besmirching his
country’s reputation and ridiculing their ideals, which in turn might have made the idea of
communism more appealing to other nations.
Eisenhower’s true priorities in little rock are highlighted when analysing the speech he directed on
the 24th of September (the same day in which he took action regarding the incident at little rock). In
the source ‘Eisenhower’s address to the Nation on Desegregation in Little Rock, Eisenhower discusses
the upheaval that occurred at little rock in an attempt to diffuse the situation with the hope that no
further incidents will occur. Interestingly, throughout the speech, Eisenhower consistently reiterates
the fact that it was a simple misrepresentation and that his so called ‘enemies’ are incorrect in their
assumption. In the speech Eisenhower states the following:
‘Our enemies are gloating over this incident and using it everywhere to misrepresent our
whole nation. We are portrayed as a violator of those standards of conduct which the
peoples of the world united to proclaim in  the Charter of the United Nations.’
(‘Eisenhower’s address to the Nation on Desegregation in Little Rock, 1957)
The source holds great significance given that the language and expressions used by Eisenhower
because seem to convey that his resolve at little rock was indeed a war measure. Eisenhower’s tone
and specific use of words seems to suggest that his actions at little rock were simply made to restore
the US’ international reputation. Given these events took part during the cold war, and the fact that
Eisenhower was devoted to the idea of containment, he had to take drastic measures as an event
like this which spread globally might cause nations to become wary of the US and decide to join their

rivals/ communist side. Eisenhower, due to his policies against the spread of communism, could not
allow this to happen and so he attempted to restore the US’ global influence through the actions he
took at little rock and clarified them when he gave the statement.


Daniel Swain-Kirkwood

History Coursework

Executive/Federal government – Lincoln tells us his intentions are driven by other
factors.
This relationship between war and the executive was demonstrated again by
Roosevelt in the 1940s.
Context – significance of Roosevelt’s 8802 - is that it moved the civil rights
agenda forward for the first time in 70 yrs, demonstrating the limitations of the
executive in its own right..
Briefly outline the failings of the executive in those years…
Hayes – premature end of reconstruction
Plessy v Ferguson – Supreme Court – civil rights a state issue
Woodrow Wilson—miller centre University of Virginia
Grover Cleveland – Downright racist

The African American leader A. Philip Randolph who was head of the notorious Brotherhood of
Sleeping car Porters, had long fought for African American rights when it came to the issue of black
employment. Randolph had previously tried to persuade executive Roosevelt to end discrimination
in the working environments once the probability that the USA would join the second world war
started to rise. This request was utterly ignored by the likes of Roosevelt given that he evicted more
interest in the war itself than anything regarding civil rights. Roosevelts ignorance led Randolph to
threaten Roosevelt with a march on Washington if he did not abide his request and eventually

Daniel Swain-Kirkwood

History Coursework

Randolph garnered masses of support from fellow African Americans which could be argued was the
reason behind Roosevelts legislative decision.
In May Randolph issued a “Call to Negro America to March on Washington” and spread support of
his peaceful protest through the use of media to enable its full capabilities. Randolph’s media piece
told the following message:
Even though Randolph’s aspirations behind the march did not reach their full potential, it can be
argued that the events definitely succeeded in forcing Roosevelt into making the Executive Order by
threatening him with a march which could only be viewed as chaotic for the government. the usage
of media holds significant value in this instance as it led the march to spread all across the nation
which, in turn, garnered the support of 10,000 African Americans who had promised to join the
march alongside Randolph. Overtime, the popularity and spread of the march increased to the point
where Randolph was claiming that there would be 100,000 protesters or more which were going to
show up. Roosevelt acknowledged that 100,000 protester marching in the capital city would be
nothing less than embarrassing and chaotic for the government itself and would more than likely
distract attention from the main source of concern at the time. In order to appease the protesters,
and especially Randolph, Roosevelt agreed to respond accordingly to their complaints. Conveniently
enough, among all the different matters which Randolph’s source pointed out the only one which
Roosevelt was willing to comply with was the one concerning employment issues. One might argue
that this was probably due to the fact that he saw potential in this specific complaint as he would
also be able to capitalise off of it as there would more likely be more individuals helping the
government in their, soon to be, war efforts. Following the Executive Order, Randolph discontinued
the march as he found Roosevelts decision a good step towards civil rights improvement and so
decided not to pressure him anymore; with the Executive order passed only a couple days prior to
when the march was to take place.
And so, the reason behind the Executive Order was simply a combination of applied media pressure

by an African American civil rights leader as he threatened him with a situation which, if carried
forward, could only be viewed as embarrassing for the government; alongside the upcoming war
which saw an increase in job positions within the defence industry. This created a chance for
Roosevelt to succeed in preparing for the war at a faster paste.