Civil Rights Act Turns 42
President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act 42 years ago. He said,
One hundred and 88 years ago this week, a small band of valiant men began a struggle for freedom. They pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, not only to found a nation, but to forge an ideal of freedom —not only for political independence but for personal liberty—not only to eliminate foreign rule but to establish the rule of justice, in the affairs of men. That struggle was a turning point in history.
It's interesting that Johnson should reference the founding fathers in this way, given how bitterly they fought over slavery before signing the Declaration of Independence. They finally chose to focus on gaining freedom from King George, judging that they could not win the war without the southern militias.
Free black soldiers were militia members in the northern states. After the founding fathers failed to agree to a proposal to free the slaves, the British proclaimed that slaves were free and welcome in their Army. Many slaves escaped their bondage and joined them. Slavery was still legal in England, but it was a convenient and cynical way to sap the south of a critical part of its economy, and draw soldiers from the militias to their own side.
That may have been the first time that race was part of a cynical political decision, but it certainly wasn't the last.
Here's how Congress voted:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
It's been pointed out before that a higher percentage of Republicans - the party of Lincoln - voted for the Civil Rights Act, and yet the Democrats claim to be the social justice party. George W. Bush has appointed blacks to much higher positions in his cabinet than Bill Clinton did and his cabinet is more diverse, yet Clinton was referred to as the first black president.
The last 42 years have brought a lot of change. I'll quote a Langston Hughes poem (out of context; he wrote it about his attraction to Communism but the beginning of it is apropos):
I speak in the name of the black millions
Awakening to action.
Let all others keep silent a moment
I have this word to bring,
This thing to say,
This song to sing:
Bitter was the day
When I bowed my back
Beneath the slaver's whip.
That day is past.
Bitter was the day
When I saw my children unschooled,
My young men without a voice in the world,
My women taken as the body-toys
Of a thieving people.
That day is past.
Bitter was the day, I say,
When the lyncher's rope
Hung about my neck,
And the fire scorched my feet,
And the oppressors had no pity,
And only in the sorrow songs
Relief was found.
That day is past.
I know full well now
Only my own hands,
Dark as the earth,
Can make my earth-dark body free.
O thieves, exploiters, killers,
No longer shall you say
With arrogant eyes and scornful lips:
"You are my servant,
Black man-
I, the free!"
The old racism Hughes suffered from is long past, and while things are far from perfect, it's undeniable that a lot of progress has been made. Today is as good as day as any to note and celebrate that fact.
Posted by Laura Curtis at July 3, 2006 09:57 AM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1355
| Trackback Entries |
Comments
| # July 3rd, 2006 11:37 AM mbrlr |
| Then shouldn't we keep all aspects of the Civil Rights Act in place? We're in danger of losing portions of it that don't need to be removed; we've come a very long way, but racism and prejudice are still often the rule rather than the exception.
BTW, I just learned a cousin from my birthplace down in South Arkansas is now practicing law with a firm in Maryland. Way to go! I had nothing to do with his legal education or career choice, but I'm very proud of him. He's from (no kidding), the arab side of the family. My family, now with arab and latino input, is diversifying to beat the band in complete conformity to US history, even in the South. |
| # July 7th, 2006 2:52 PM EddieW |
| Your sniggering about "may have been the first time that race was part of a cynical political decision" is belied by your own reference to the Founding Fathers sweeping the issue under the rug in favor of political expediency. |
| # July 8th, 2006 7:04 AM Laura |
| On the contrary - those early abolitionists came to a rather painful judgement that if they pressed the issue, they would all remain British subjects. I don't think that was a decision cynically arrived at, because they had sincere objections to slavery. It was a topic they struggled with, even - or especially - the slaveholders. Their debate was that if all men were created equal, what are we doing having slaves? And the resolution to the question was, if we don't punt this question, we're all going to remain slaves to England, so let's deal with the problem at hand and come back to this later.
On the other hand, the Brits declared some American slaves free not out of a sense of trying to do what is right, but because they wanted to draw men away from the enemy's army and mess up the enemy's economy. The "freed" slaves, had Britain won, had no reasonable expectation of remaining free, because as I mentioned, slavery was still legal in Britain. THAT was cynical. |