OCR Specification focus:
‘Pro- and anti–civil rights groups contested aims, tactics and law.’
The battle for civil rights in the USA saw influential pro- and anti-rights groups shape progress, resist change, and transform legal and social landscapes through activism and opposition.
Pro–Civil Rights Groups: Campaigners for Equality
Early Organisations and Grassroots Efforts
After emancipation in 1865, African Americans faced entrenched discrimination. Early pro–civil rights groups emerged to protect rights, challenge segregation, and fight for equality.
Freedmen’s Bureau (1865–1872): Provided assistance to formerly enslaved people, establishing schools and helping negotiate labour contracts.
African American churches became community centres for political organisation and social support, fostering leadership and resistance to racial injustice.
NAACP and Legal Challenges
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), founded in 1909, became the most significant civil rights organisation of the early 20th century.
NAACP: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, formed to secure political, educational, social, and economic equality for African Americans through legal action and public advocacy.
Key features of the NAACP’s approach included:
Legal challenges: Targeting discriminatory laws in courts, including landmark victories such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which overturned segregation in schools.
Public awareness: Campaigning against lynching and exposing racial violence to a national audience.
Political lobbying: Pressuring federal government to pass civil rights legislation.
SCLC and Non-Violent Direct Action
The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), established in 1957 and led by Martin Luther King Jr., embodied non-violent protest as a means of securing rights.
Organised iconic campaigns such as the Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–56) and Birmingham Campaign (1963).
Used moral authority and media attention to expose the brutality of segregation.
Played a central role in the March on Washington (1963), where King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.
Crowds surround the Reflecting Pool during the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. The image illustrates the mass, interracial coalition that pro–civil rights groups mobilised to pressure Congress. Extra visual detail beyond the syllabus includes the full expanse of the National Mall to convey scale. Source
SNCC and Grassroots Activism
The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), formed in 1960, harnessed the energy of young activists and pushed for deeper change.
Led sit-ins, Freedom Rides, and voter registration drives in the Deep South.
Advocated participatory democracy, emphasising local empowerment and challenging federal inaction.
Initially non-violent, some factions grew more radical by the mid-1960s as frustration with slow progress mounted.
CORE and Interracial Cooperation
The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), founded in 1942, played a vital role in challenging segregation through direct action.
Organised the Freedom Rides (1961) to test desegregation in interstate transport.
Helped plan the Freedom Summer (1964) to register Black voters in Mississippi.
Worked with both white and Black activists, demonstrating the power of interracial alliances.
Black Power and Militant Approaches
By the late 1960s, some activists grew disillusioned with non-violent tactics and turned towards self-defence and Black empowerment.
Black Panther Party (founded 1966): Advocated self-defence, community programmes, and radical political change.
Promoted Black pride and challenged systemic racism in policing and housing.
Provided social programmes like free breakfast schemes and medical clinics, linking civil rights to economic and social justice.
A 1970 flyer announces a new site for the Black Panther Party’s Free Breakfast for Children programme in Washington, D.C. It exemplifies Black Power’s strategy of combining community survival programmes with political education. Extra detail beyond the syllabus is the specific street addresses, which help contextualise the programme’s local reach. Source
Anti–Civil Rights Groups: Defenders of Segregation and White Supremacy
White Supremacist Organisations
Violent opposition came from groups determined to maintain white dominance.
Ku Klux Klan (KKK): A white supremacist organisation founded in 1865 that used terror, violence, and intimidation to uphold segregation and suppress Black civil rights.
Targeted African Americans and civil rights activists with lynchings, bombings, and threats.
Experienced multiple revivals, notably in the 1910s–20s and 1950s–60s, often coinciding with advances in Black civil rights.
Sought to undermine Reconstruction, resist desegregation, and preserve Jim Crow laws.
Political Opposition and State Resistance
Resistance was not limited to extremist groups. Many state governments and political leaders actively opposed civil rights reforms.
Southern Manifesto (1956): A declaration signed by over 100 Southern congressmen condemning the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education and pledging to resist integration.
State legislatures passed laws to evade desegregation orders, including the creation of “segregation academies”.
Governors such as George Wallace (Alabama) and Orval Faubus (Arkansas) openly defied federal rulings, using state power to obstruct integration efforts.
Citizens’ Councils and Economic Pressure
The White Citizens’ Councils, established in the 1950s, represented a more ‘respectable’ form of opposition than the KKK but were equally committed to segregation.
Used economic intimidation—such as job loss, credit denial, and eviction—to punish civil rights activists and discourage participation.
Campaigned to preserve Jim Crow laws through political lobbying and legal action.
Acted as a bridge between mainstream Southern society and extremist white supremacists.
Opposition to Federal Civil Rights Legislation
As the civil rights movement gained momentum, organised political opposition intensified at the national level.
Southern Democrats in Congress used the filibuster to block civil rights bills.
Opposition to the Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965) centred on arguments about states’ rights and federal overreach.
Conservative groups portrayed civil rights activism as a threat to social order and traditional values.
Tensions Between Pro- and Anti–Civil Rights Forces
Conflicting Aims and Tactics
The struggle over civil rights was characterised by intense conflict between those seeking equality and integration and those determined to preserve segregation.
Pro–civil rights groups aimed to dismantle discriminatory laws, secure political representation, and challenge systemic racism.
Anti–civil rights forces sought to defend existing hierarchies, often invoking constitutional arguments about states’ rights while employing violence and intimidation.
Legal and Legislative Battles
The courts and legislatures became crucial arenas of conflict.
Pro–civil rights groups used litigation and federal intervention to overturn segregation and secure voting rights.
Anti–rights forces responded with legal manoeuvres, resistance to enforcement, and attempts to reinterpret rulings to limit their impact.
Public Opinion and Media Influence
The battle for civil rights also played out in the public sphere.
Televised coverage of violent suppression of peaceful protests swayed national opinion and increased pressure for federal action.
Anti–civil rights groups tried to portray activists as extremists and communists to undermine public support.
Legacy and Impact
The contest between pro- and anti–civil rights groups profoundly shaped the trajectory of American society. While pro–civil rights activism dismantled many legal barriers and expanded democratic participation, persistent resistance slowed progress and left enduring legacies of inequality. The dynamic between these opposing forces defined the pace and nature of change, ensuring that the struggle for civil rights remained a central theme of American history throughout the period.
FAQ
Churches were more than gathering points; they were central to the civil rights movement’s infrastructure. Ministers like Martin Luther King Jr. used their pulpits to rally support and spread messages of non-violence and justice.
Churches raised funds for bail and legal fees, organised transportation for boycotts and marches, and provided safe havens during violent backlash. They also offered moral legitimacy, presenting civil rights as a moral and spiritual cause, which helped sway public opinion and attract media attention.
The NAACP focused primarily on legal strategies, working through the courts to overturn segregation and secure constitutional protections. It pursued incremental change and often sought alliances with white liberals and political leaders.
The Black Panthers, by contrast, rejected gradualism and emphasised self-defence, community empowerment, and systemic change. They patrolled neighbourhoods to monitor police activity and ran social programmes like free breakfasts and medical clinics, aiming to directly improve Black communities’ conditions while challenging state power.
Media played a crucial role in shaping public perception. Televised footage of peaceful protestors being attacked by police dogs or blasted with fire hoses shocked viewers across the United States and abroad.
This coverage increased sympathy for civil rights activists and pressured politicians to act. It also helped counter anti–civil rights propaganda that painted activists as extremists by visually demonstrating their commitment to non-violence in the face of aggression.
Some white Americans were motivated by religious convictions, believing racial equality was a moral imperative. Others were influenced by Cold War politics: segregation damaged the United States’ global image as a democracy, prompting support for reform.
Additionally, interracial organisations like CORE created space for white activists to contribute directly to campaigns. Many saw participation as part of a broader struggle for justice and democracy, aligning civil rights with wider human rights principles.
After landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, anti–civil rights groups shifted from overt violence to more subtle forms of resistance.
Political lobbying: They worked to influence local and state policies to limit enforcement.
Legal obstruction: Segregationists used legal loopholes, such as closing public schools, to delay integration.
Economic and social pressure: Activists faced job loss or eviction, deterring others from involvement.
This evolution allowed opponents to maintain segregationist practices even as federal law changed, prolonging inequality well into the 1970s.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Name two pro–civil rights organisations active in the USA during the mid-twentieth century.
Mark scheme (2 marks):
1 mark for each correctly identified organisation.
Accept any two of the following:
NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)
SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference)
SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee)
CORE (Congress of Racial Equality)
Black Panther Party
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain two ways in which anti–civil rights groups sought to resist the civil rights movement in the USA.
Mark scheme (6 marks):
Up to 3 marks per explanation.
1 mark for identifying a valid way anti–civil rights groups resisted.
1 mark for providing additional detail or context about that resistance.
1 mark for explaining how or why this method was significant or effective.
Examples of acceptable points:
Violence and intimidation: Groups like the Ku Klux Klan used lynchings, bombings, and threats to intimidate activists and suppress support for civil rights. This created fear and discouraged participation in protests or voter registration.
Political and legal obstruction: State governments and segregationist politicians used legal manoeuvres such as passing segregationist laws or signing the Southern Manifesto to resist Supreme Court rulings like Brown v. Board of Education. This slowed the implementation of desegregation.
Economic pressure: White Citizens’ Councils used tactics such as job loss, eviction, and credit denial against civil rights supporters, discouraging activism and isolating campaigners from their communities.
