Key individuals were responsible for the gains made by African Americans in their struggle for
equality only to a small extent, grassroots movements were mainly responsible for this
progress. In accordance with the “bottom-up” historical theory, it has been argued by historians
such as Charles Payne that grassroots organisations such as the NAACP were the motive force
for change that occurred during those years, while the federal government acted as an enabling
factor in eliminating statutory discrimination and the leadership of individuals helped lay the
groundwork and solidify the movement. The civil rights movement was impacted most heavily
by grassroots movements, evident from the significant gains made by the NAACP such as the
1954 Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education and the successes of the Birmingham
campaign. While Grassroot movements were significant, on their own were not sufficient. A
combination of Grassroot movements, actions of individuals, the federal government, and the
impact of the media ultimately led to the gains made by African Americans in their struggle for
equality.
The debate on the importance of Grassroot movements has been widely debated and produced
conflicting arguments, as shown by the differing interpretations of Charles Payne, and Steven F.
Lawson. The overarching argument of Paynes’ interpretation is that grassroots activism is
important and played a more significant role than previously recognised by other historians. He
emphasises that to understand civil rights, one must look at the grassroots and realise that the
struggle was one borne of hardship on the backs and in the hearts of local, often anonymous
women and men. Payne acknowledges that the government had impacts on progress, but
believes that it was not the most impactful factor contributing to this progress. This is valuable
as it shapes an entirely rounded and subsequently convincing picture of the civil rights
movement, taking into account different factors instead of ignoring them. Payne argues that too
much emphasis has been placed on national leadership and national institutions which
minimises the importance of local struggle. This is convincing as many historians focus on the
time period of the popular civil rights movement, having the view that Martin Luther King was
the most influential factor of the civil rights movement. Historians such as Sitkoff have a
King-Centric school of thought and ignore smaller scale protestors. He believes that this creates
an impression that historical change can only be attributed to the elites such as Martin Luther
King which undermines the role of other less commonly known individuals in the movement as
well as oversimplifying the complexity of the movement. This is convincing as historiographical
developments outline new emphasis on the role of women in the civil rights movement, which
was previously not highlighted. Women played crucial roles such as strategists and advocates in
their communities. For example, Ida B. Wells spoke out against lynching and fought for equality
for women and African Americans. Wells travelled throughout the South investigating lynchings
and boldly reported her findings in an editorial in The Memphis Free Press and Headlight in
, 1892. In discrediting the white support of assault for lynching, her various provocative articles
and talks led to Du Bois acknowledging her for starting 'the enlivening of the awareness of the
country.’1
Paynes’ argument is convincing as his specialism on the civil rights movement implies that his
opinions are likely to be accurate as they are supported by substantial research. However, it is
only convincing to a limited extent as Payne specialises in social history, with his Ph.D focusing
on sociology. This may make him more inclined to approach the Civil Rights movement focusing
on social issues, which makes him likely to overemphasise the importance of ordinary people.
This is evident from the documents used in his book not involving laws or white reactions.2This
approach means his argument is only partially convincing.
Contrastingly, Steven F. Lawson’s view, presented in Debating the Civil Rights Movement: the
View From the Nation is that the federal government was the main catalyst for the gains made
in civil rights, allowing the other factors to be successful. The overarching argument of Lawsons’
interpretation is that the advancement of racial equality would not have been possible without
legislation, legal rulings, and governmental measures. This argument is convincing as in the
1940s, several federal civil rights laws were legislated due to encouragement for movements. It
can be argued that without the support of the powerful presidents and members of the
Supreme Court, the struggle against the Jim Crow years ,especially in the south, would lack the
power and authority to defeat state governments.3 He asserts “the view from the nation”,
stating that prominent figures of the civil rights movement could only negotiate incremental
steps toward racial advancement because key political figures in the administration were willing
to hear from them and take appropriate action. Lawson exemplified that the nation had not
been moved to end the "legislative logjam" over a comprehensive civil rights law even after
Birmingham and the March on Washington. He argues that Lyndon B. Johnson's political
astuteness and moral fortitude in Congress were essential for that. This is convincing as
although the Selma demonstrations were significant in making the 1965 Voting Rights Act
passage a reality, Johnson had ‘instructed the Justice Department to prepare the bill even
before the Selma campaign had begun,’ which suggests that Johnsons’ authority was necessary
for change.4 In conclusion, Lawson admits the importance of protestors who had laid their lives
for equal rights, considering them to be important but considers the federal government to be
most responsible for the gains made by African Americans.
1
McMurry, Linda, O. (1998) To Keep the Waters Troubled: The Life of Ida B. Wells (New York: Oxford
University Press).
2
Payne, Charles (2006), ‘debating the civil rights movement;, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, inc, p.129
3
Lawson and Payne, Debating the civil rights movement p. 3
4
Ibid, p.32
