OCR Specification focus:
‘Presidents, Congress, Supreme Court and States varied in policy and attitude.’
Between c.1875 and c.1895, government policies and attitudes towards civil rights reflected deep divisions, alternating between limited support and active obstruction, shaping opportunities and inequalities across groups.
Federal Government and Civil Rights Policy, c.1875–c.1895
The period known as the ‘Gilded Age’ (c.1875–c.1895) saw significant economic growth and industrialisation in the United States, but progress in civil rights was uneven. Federal institutions — the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court — often prioritised economic development, laissez-faire principles, and sectional reconciliation over civil rights. State governments, particularly in the South, frequently resisted racial equality and reinforced discrimination. Across the country, attitudes towards African Americans, Native Americans, women, and workers were shaped by prevailing ideologies of race, gender, and class.
Presidential Attitudes and Actions
Limited Executive Intervention
Presidents during the Gilded Age generally adopted laissez-faire approaches and avoided intervention in civil rights matters, focusing instead on economic growth and national unity after the Civil War.
Ulysses S. Grant (1869–1877): His administration supported Reconstruction policies and enforced the 15th Amendment (1870), which granted African American men the vote. However, by the mid-1870s, his willingness to use federal power to protect African Americans declined, reflecting Northern fatigue with Reconstruction.
Rutherford B. Hayes (1877–1881): The Compromise of 1877 ended Reconstruction, leading Hayes to withdraw federal troops from the South. This marked a retreat from protecting African American rights and enabled the rise of Jim Crow laws.
Chester A. Arthur (1881–1885): While not directly focused on civil rights, he oversaw the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), reflecting widespread racial prejudice and setting a precedent for racially discriminatory federal immigration policy.
The Anti-Chinese Wall—The American wall goes up as the Chinese original goes down (F. Graetz, 1882). Labourers stack bricks labelled “prejudice,” “law against race,” and “fear,” while “Congressional mortar” binds the wall—an explicit metaphor for exclusionary federal policy. This image illustrates how national politics and public attitudes converged to restrict rights in the Gilded Age. Source
Grover Cleveland (1885–1889, 1893–1897): Cleveland emphasised limited government and rarely addressed civil rights. He vetoed pension bills for Civil War veterans and opposed measures that might increase federal oversight of social issues.
Laissez-faire: A political and economic philosophy advocating minimal government interference in economic and social affairs.
Presidents largely viewed civil rights as matters for state governments or private initiative, signalling a federal withdrawal from the activism of the Reconstruction era.
Congress: From Reconstruction Legislation to Retrenchment
Declining Commitment to Equality
During the early 1870s, Congress passed significant legislation aimed at securing civil rights:
Civil Rights Act (1875): Sought to guarantee African Americans equal access to public accommodation, transport, and juries. However, enforcement was weak, and the law was later declared unconstitutional.
By the late 1870s, Congressional priorities shifted. Economic concerns, westward expansion, and political compromise took precedence, leading to a waning commitment to racial equality and protection for marginalised groups.
Debates over women’s suffrage gained some visibility, but constitutional change did not occur during this period.
Labour issues attracted limited legislative attention. Strikes such as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 prompted some calls for reform, but Congress generally sided with business interests.
Policies towards Native Americans were framed within an assimilationist agenda, with Congress supporting legislation that eroded tribal sovereignty and communal landholding.
The Supreme Court: Restricting Civil Rights
Narrow Constitutional Interpretation
The Supreme Court played a decisive role in limiting civil rights progress by narrowly interpreting constitutional amendments and overturning key legislation.
Slaughterhouse Cases (1873): Weakened the 14th Amendment, ruling that it protected only federal, not state, citizenship rights.
United States v. Cruikshank (1876): Undermined federal authority to prosecute individuals for violating African Americans’ rights, weakening protections against racial violence.
Civil Rights Cases (1883): Struck down the Civil Rights Act (1875), ruling that the 14th Amendment did not give Congress power to regulate private acts of discrimination.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): Although slightly beyond the period, it stemmed from the judicial climate of the Gilded Age. It upheld ‘separate but equal’, legitimising segregation for decades.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Supreme Court judgement—a primary-source image from the U.S. National Archives. It captures the decision that validated state “separate but equal” statutes, demonstrating how judicial interpretation enabled Jim Crow. Extra detail: this document post-dates 1895 by one year but is pedagogically valuable for illustrating the direct outcome of Gilded Age jurisprudence. Source
14th Amendment: Ratified in 1868, it granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalised in the US and guaranteed equal protection under the law.
The Court’s restrictive interpretations signalled judicial hostility to civil rights claims and facilitated the rise of state-level discrimination.
State Governments: Resistance and Repression
Southern States and the Rise of Jim Crow
State governments, particularly in the former Confederacy, were often the most active opponents of civil rights.
After federal troops withdrew in 1877, Redeemer governments reasserted white dominance and enacted Jim Crow laws, mandating racial segregation in schools, transport, and public spaces.
Voting rights were curtailed through poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses, effectively disenfranchising most African Americans despite the 15th Amendment.
Lynching and racial violence were widespread, and state authorities often refused to intervene or prosecute perpetrators.
Western States and Native American Policy
State and territorial authorities in the West supported policies of Native American assimilation and removal from ancestral lands.
The reservation system was expanded, often enforced through military action, while boarding schools were established to suppress Native cultures and languages.
Northern States and Women’s Rights
Some Northern states passed legislation granting women limited property and custody rights, and suffrage campaigns gained momentum, though no national reform emerged.
Labour conditions remained harsh, with state governments frequently deploying troops to suppress strikes and siding with employers during industrial disputes.
Federal–State Dynamics and Attitudes
Federal Retreat and State Autonomy
The retreat of federal authority after Reconstruction meant that state governments held primary power over civil rights enforcement. Federal reluctance to intervene reflected broader societal attitudes:
White supremacy remained entrenched in Southern political culture, shaping state law and policy.
Social Darwinism, the belief that social hierarchy reflected natural selection, justified inequality and opposition to government intervention.
Industrial capitalism dominated national priorities, with labour unrest and economic expansion often overshadowing civil rights concerns.
Social Darwinism: A 19th-century theory applying Darwin’s concept of natural selection to human societies, used to justify social inequality and limited government intervention.
Federal passivity and judicial conservatism enabled states to enact discriminatory policies largely unchecked, entrenching inequality during the Gilded Age.
A Period of Retreat and Entrenchment
Between c.1875 and c.1895, government policies and attitudes towards civil rights shifted from the activism of Reconstruction to retrenchment and neglect. Presidents prioritised national unity and economic growth over social justice. Congress moved from passing civil rights laws to accepting state control. The Supreme Court’s narrow interpretations stripped constitutional amendments of much of their power, while states — especially in the South — institutionalised discrimination. These dynamics created a hostile environment for African Americans, Native Americans, women, and workers, setting back civil rights progress for decades and shaping the challenges later movements would confront.
FAQ
Party politics shaped federal approaches to civil rights. The Republicans, once champions of Reconstruction, increasingly prioritised economic growth, industrial expansion, and national unity, sidelining racial equality. The Democrats, dominant in the South, opposed federal intervention and supported white supremacy, promoting states’ rights and segregationist policies.
This bipartisan shift towards reconciliation meant that both parties avoided controversial civil rights measures, contributing to a federal retreat from enforcing equality and leaving states free to implement discriminatory laws.
The Court reflected prevailing judicial conservatism and a belief in limited federal power. Justices feared that broad interpretations of the 14th Amendment would allow Congress to legislate extensively over state matters, threatening the balance of federalism.
The emphasis on states’ rights and laissez-faire principles aligned with wider social attitudes that government should not intervene heavily in private life. As a result, rulings like the Slaughterhouse Cases confined the amendment’s protections, limiting federal enforcement of civil rights.
Rapid industrialisation and the growth of capitalism dominated federal priorities. Governments focused on policies that encouraged business development, infrastructure expansion, and westward settlement.
This focus meant labour disputes, Native American land policy, and immigration issues often took precedence over civil rights enforcement. Protecting property rights and business interests frequently outweighed protecting individual rights, leading to reluctance to challenge segregation, disenfranchisement, or racial violence that might disrupt economic order.
Public attitudes, particularly in the South, strongly influenced state governments. Widespread white supremacist beliefs underpinned laws enforcing segregation and disenfranchisement. Politicians relied on these sentiments to maintain support, embedding discriminatory practices in legislation.
Even outside the South, nativist attitudes fuelled anti-immigrant policies like the Chinese Exclusion Act. Public opinion also discouraged federal intervention, as many white Americans prioritised reconciliation and stability over racial equality, reinforcing local control of civil rights matters.
Federal and state policies towards Native Americans prioritised assimilation and land acquisition over sovereignty or equality.
Expansion of the reservation system displaced tribes and confined them to restricted areas.
Boarding schools aimed to eradicate Indigenous languages and cultures, reflecting a belief in the superiority of white society.
Policies such as allotment (precursors to the Dawes Act) undermined communal landholding and autonomy.
These actions demonstrate how civil rights considerations were subordinated to expansionist and assimilationist goals, illustrating broader governmental neglect of minority rights.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Name two ways in which state governments in the southern United States restricted African American civil rights between c.1875 and c.1895.
Mark scheme:
Award 1 mark for each correct example, up to a maximum of 2 marks.
Introduction of Jim Crow laws enforcing racial segregation in public facilities. (1)
Use of literacy tests to prevent African Americans from voting. (1)
Implementation of poll taxes to restrict voting rights. (1)
Grandfather clauses that excluded most African Americans from the electorate. (1)
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain how the Supreme Court influenced the development of civil rights between c.1875 and c.1895.
Mark scheme:
Level 1 (1–2 marks): Basic description with limited detail or accuracy. May name a case without explaining its significance.
Example: “The Supreme Court made decisions about civil rights.” (1)
“The Civil Rights Act was struck down.” (2)
Level 2 (3–4 marks): Some explanation of key decisions and their impact, but lacking depth or breadth.
Mentions cases such as Slaughterhouse (1873) or Civil Rights Cases (1883) with brief consequences.
Explains that the Court weakened federal power or allowed segregation but without full elaboration.
Level 3 (5–6 marks): Detailed explanation with clear examples and analysis of their impact on civil rights.
Explains that the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) limited the 14th Amendment by distinguishing between federal and state citizenship.
Describes how United States v. Cruikshank (1876) restricted federal ability to prosecute racial violence.
Discusses how the Civil Rights Cases (1883) struck down the 1875 Act, allowing private discrimination.
May reference Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) as a product of this judicial climate, establishing ‘separate but equal’.
Links these decisions to the entrenchment of Jim Crow laws and the decline of federal protection for civil rights.
