The economic boycotts of blacks in the course of the civil rights movement still offer lessons for making a just society today

Entered into force 60 years ago, Civil Rights Act of 1964 In the USA, discrimination based on “race, color, sex, religion or national origin” was prohibited.

Still, as historian I’m a believer in social movements and political change, and I imagine that crucial lesson we are able to learn from the law for movements today will not be its content, but quite the way by which it got here about.

As first-hand accounts from that point clarify, the movement won since it directly injured the interests of white entrepreneurs. 1955 Montgomery Bus BoycottThe 1963 Boycott of outlets in Birmingham and lots of lesser-known local boycotts imposed enormous costs on local business owners and compelled them to support integration.

The conventional narrative

A typical view amongst scholars, activists and most people is that the civil rights movement was successful because violent attacks on peaceful black demonstrators mobilized white public opinion in favor of the movement.

One of probably the most famous incidents occurred in May 1963 in Birmingham, Alabama, when town’s security officer, Eugene “Bull” Connorturned Fire hoses and dogs on black demonstrators.

The general perception is that Connor's actions outraged the whites within the North, and in response Kennedy administration sent federal troops to Birmingham and Civil Rights Act to the congress.

But this view fails to acknowledge the source of the movement’s power.

For one thing, it exaggerates public sympathy for the civil rights movement. Three months after the attacks on black demonstrators in Birmingham, for instance, almost two thirds of the general public against the famous March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom from August 1963.

In addition, the Kennedy administration predicted that civil rights laws harm the Democrats within the elections“The President has never had any illusions about the political benefits of equal rights,” wrote Kennedy’s adviser Arthur Schlesinger in his memoirs “A thousand days.” “But he saw no alternative” in view of the movement's actions.

So what form of actions were these?

Black organizers aimed to disrupt the white power structure, especially the economic elites, as much as possible. As Martin Luther King Jr. later told“The political power structure obeys the economic power structure.”

By breaking up white businesses, often in a really organized In this manner, black activists achieved social change.

A “devastatingly effective” weapon

Economic boycotts in southern cities corresponding to Birmingham And Nashville, Tennesseeplayed crucial roles in the course of the civil rights movement.

A 20-month boycott of black customers in downtown stores Greenwood, Mississippicaused legal changes in town's attitudes in 1964.

The most famous boycott took place in 1955–56 in Montgomery, Alabama, where the nearly 13-month protest against racial segregation in public transport This would save an estimated $3,000 in day by day fares for city bus transportation.

black accounted for about 75% of public transit riders. Instead of using city buses, they walked, carpooled, and used black-owned taxi services. The boycott ended on December 20, 1956, when the U.S. Supreme Court in Browder vs. Gayle that racial segregation on buses was unconstitutional.

By 1960, this “economic weapon to combat racial segregation” was widely adopted by civil rights activists. reported the national magazine Business Week.

Three years later, Time Magazine wrote Boycotts have proven “devastatingly effective” in pressuring white business owners and government officials to desegregate.

In Birmingham, for instance Real estate magnate Sidney Smyer led the elite’s push for integration. Smyer was a convinced racistbut he capitulated within the face of the boycott and the disruption it caused.

“I am still a segregationist” he said in May 1963, but “I'm not a damn idiot.”

During the five weeks of boycotts, sit-ins and demonstrations, Birmingham’s shops had lost Millions in sales.

Smyer and his Colleagues at management level decided to limit their losses through integration. Then they dragged politicians, judges, school administrators and law enforcement officials with them.

This had been the plan of the civil rights strategists from the start.

According to the civil rights organizer Abraham WoodsThey hoped that the business owners harmed by the boycott in Birmingham “Pressure on town” integrate.

Andrew Young, an adviser to King, later said that “Bull Connor added to the impact, but the momentum would not have happened without Bull Connor and the dogs. … When the demonstrations were so massive and the economic withdrawal program was so tight, the city was literally paralyzed.”

Change within the law after Birmingham

The victory in Birmingham inspired other blacks to revolt. Kennedy's Justice Department reported one other 2,062 black protests in 40 states until the tip of 1963.

It also prompted Kennedy – 28 months after taking office – to propose a civil rights lawin June 1963.

While attempting to dissuade black leaders from marching on Washington, Kennedy acknowledged that the disruptive boycotts and protests “made the executive branch act more quickly and forced Congress to now deal with legislation,” as Schlesinger reported in his book “A Thousand Days.”

Kennedy also feared the radicalization of black consciousness after Birmingham. If the federal government didn’t implement moderate reforms, the “colored masses” might adopt “the thoughtless radicalism of the black militants,” as Schlesinger described the president's logic.

Kennedy’s assassination in November 1963 meant that the Civil Rights Act fell to his successor, Lyndon Johnson. a heated fight In Congress, Johnson signed the bill on July 2, 1964.

By massively and sustainably disrupting the interests of the ruling class, especially corporations, black organizers, who were formally excluded from political power, were in a position to force changes within the law.

The lesson here is that comprehensive legal reform requires massive unrest outside the electoral and legislative spheres. Without this unrest, it would be very difficult to pass a law that negatively impacts established rulers.