Before anyone can ascertain the role of federalism in the Civil Rights Movement of 1964, there needs to be some clarity regarding what federalism is (Goldscheid and Julie, 2000). Even though there are many interpretations of the concept, most of the time, federalism refers to a system of governance in which the sovereignty of the state is divided between the federal government and its constituent units (Rodriguez and Weingast, 2003).
These constituent units are also termed states (Rodriguez and Weingast, 2003). Another important thing that needs to be noted is that the United States is referred to as a federal nation, and the powers of government are divided between the federal government and state governments (Rodriguez and Weingast, 2003). In this context, it is important to understand the role of the federal government during the course of the movement that was carried out in 1964 (Goldscheid and Julie, 2000).
Role Of Federalism In The Civil Rights Movement Of 1964
Now that clarity has been developed regarding the role of the states in the United States, the key thing that needs to be kept in mind is what government practices existed at that point in time and how these governmental powers were being used (Rodriguez and Weingast, 2003). What happened during the events leading to the Civil Rights Movement, which had a huge impact on the way the movement developed, was the practice of segregation against African American communities (Goldscheid and Julie, 2000). One of the prime examples of segregation occurred when the National Guard of the Arkansas government prevented nine Black students from entering a school in Little Rock, Arkansas (Patterson et al. 2001). As a matter of fact, the matter escalated to the extent that presidential orders were required to make sure that the entry of these nine students into the school was made possible (Goldscheid and Julie, 2000). It was not the only instance in which the value of federalism was eclipsed to a certain extent (Goldscheid and Julie, 2000). There were some other instances that led the nation to believe that the values of federalism were on the decline as Americans became more and more aware of their civil rights (Goldscheid and Julie, 2000).
Development Of The Unitary System And The Role Of Civil Rights In The Propagation Of That System
Looking closely at some of the objectives of the civil rights movement, the conclusion can be reached that a unitary democratic system was one of the key objectives of the movement (Patterson et al. 2001). The development of such a system would have been really difficult if the three levels of government had been working independently during that period. One of the key prerequisites of the unitary system that the civil rights movement was trying to impose was to make sure that all three levels of government were aligned. At times, the argument has been made that local and state governments should not have any say over decision-making carried out during that period (Goldscheid and Julie, 2000).
Political Renaissance Of The Values Of Federalism
Toward the end of the 1960s, a renaissance of federalist values was identified. The movement especially gained momentum during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. One of the key things that this renaissance was able to highlight was the way in which the judicial expression of the debate was carried out, especially regarding the overall reach of judicial power (Blumstein and James, 1994). The debate also concerned the nature of substantive civil rights protected by the government (Blumstein and James, 1994). Thus, there were at least two instances during the period in which it was witnessed that the values of federalism were being upheld (Patterson et al. 2001). The first instance was when rulings were made by the Burger Court, and later, the decisions made by the Rehnquist Court also seemed to have enforced the same opinion (Patterson et al. 2001).
Concept Of Civil Rights And Federalism
The way the narrative was developing during the period, one could not have been mistaken in believing that the concepts of civil rights and federalism were more or less at loggerheads (Patterson et al. 2001). This was the case for laws that emanated from constitutional construction (Blumstein and James, 1994). The idea was mainly to protect the individual from the exercise of governmental authority during the period (Patterson et al. 2001). The persistent image that one gets during the period is of the way governmental authority was exercised. If that is the perspective that needs to be kept in mind, it does not make much difference with regard to which governmental power was being exercised and how civil and federal rights were interpreted during the period (Patterson et al. 2001). Despite this fact, the notion of federalism comprises the proposition that, at times, it is usually preferable to exercise power at the local level rather than at the national level (Blumstein and James, 1994). To develop a better understanding of the whole concept, it is important to develop some understanding of the underlying rationales for this preference (Patterson et al. 2001). These rationales can range from efficiency to the way transformation is supposed to be carried out (Patterson et al. 2001). There are a couple of justifications that need to be considered in this regard with respect to the responsive values claimed during the realization of civil rights (Patterson et al. 2001).
Federalism And The Articles Of Confederation
One of the reasons that federalism was still viewed as a major concept during the period was the fact that it was somewhat of a practical solution regarding the problems related to the Articles of Confederation (Blumstein and James, 1994). The Articles tended to give little or no practical authority to the federal government (Blumstein and James, 1994). As a matter of fact, one of the premises of the civil rights movement concerned a weak federal government and how its weakness was detrimental to the civil rights of people during that period (Patterson et al. 2001). Now, if one talks about an instance in which a movement gained momentum, the consensus is that federalism really gathered steam during Shays’ Rebellion (Patterson et al. 2001). It was an armed uprising of yeoman farmers on the western side of Massachusetts (Patterson et al. 2001). One of the reasons that the rebellion was fueled was the fact that the economy was really poor during that period. Also, the inability of the federal government to deal with these circumstances really raised questions about the strength of the government at the time (Rodriguez and Weingast, 2003). As a matter of fact, the federal government was criticized for its inability to raise an army in order to quell the rebellion (Blumstein and James, 1994).
Most Forceful Defense Of The New Constitution
One of the most forceful defenses of the new Constitution came when the Federalist Papers were released (Blumstein and James, 1994). These are a collection of about 85 anonymous essays, and the main premise of these essays was to make sure that people supported ratification of the Constitution. Most of these articles were known to have been written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (Blumstein and James, 1994). The common theme across most of these articles concerned the importance of the newly proposed Constitution (Blumstein and James, 1994). These papers seem to have analyzed the political theories that were prevalent during that period (Patterson et al. 2001). They also analyzed political theory and the function of various articles to make readers aware that the Constitution was being laid out in the right manner (Blumstein and James, 1994). The Federalist Papers remain some of the more influential documents in American history, and their importance across the spectrum of political science is also well known (Patterson et al. 2001). They were among the starkest defenses of the thought process that propagated federalism and were considered an important cornerstone in the debate with the Anti-Federalist movement (Blumstein and James, 1994).
Representation Of The Local And The State Government
It has to be noted that if state and local governments did not exist, that would not automatically imply that their people were not going to be represented (Blumstein and James, 1994). A thorough perspective was provided on the whole issue, and the key idea of the movement was to make sure that democratic and unitary systems could be developed (Patterson et al. 2001). The common perception in that era was that such a system would have worked well when it came to making sure that a voice was given to the common person (Patterson et al. 2001). The issue was gaining momentum because the civil rights movement was itself gaining momentum in the United States (Patterson et al. 2001). Despite the way it was carried out, though, most people had a fair idea that it was going to be resolved in that manner (Patterson et al. 2001). The key argument or takeaway from the whole debate is that if federalism as a system had not been operating in the United States, the whole Civil Rights Movement would not have occurred in the same way (Patterson et al. 2001). As a matter of fact, the impending issues related to slavery and racial discrimination might also not have been witnessed in the same form, and the whole issue of racial segregation and discrimination might have been worked out in a much more amicable manner (Patterson et al. 2001).
Plessy V. Ferguson And Its Impact On The Civil Rights Movement
There are certain legal decisions that have long-term implications for the makeup of society as well as the ability to shape a movement. If one talks about the civil rights movement, Plessy v. Ferguson is one of the cases in which the issue of equal protection under the law became central (Blumstein and James, 1994). The impact was especially evident in the states; the key thing that needs to be kept in mind is the way the law was formulated in the Southern states (Blumstein and James, 1994). Given the way lawmaking and policymaking were carried out in the Southern states, it was evident that efforts were needed to make sure that these laws were challenged at the level of the federal courts (Blumstein and James, 1994). In the context of the racial climate that was witnessed in the United States during that period, it was one of the instances in which racial segregation laws were upheld in the United States (Patterson et al. 2001). The decision is regarded as one of the most controversial rulings in the history of the United States because it upheld racial discrimination that had long been witnessed in the United States (Blumstein and James, 1994).
Why Plessy V. Ferguson Is The Most Controversial Decision By The Courts
Before one can ascertain how this decision affected the development of the Civil Rights Movement, it is important to understand why it is considered one of the most controversial decisions ever given by the United States courts (Blumstein and James, 1994). The Plessy decision was one of the first decisions that legitimized state laws establishing racial segregation during the period. Especially in the Southern states, which were quite racially charged in their outlook, the decision had significant implications (Blumstein and James, 1994). The other thing it did was erase legislative achievements won during the Reconstruction Era through the doctrine that claimed to be separate but equal in its outlook (Blumstein and James, 1994). What the ruling had done was basically allow state legislatures immunity when dealing with questions of race. The requirement put forth by the ruling was only that separate facilities were supposed to be equal during the period (Blumstein and James, 1994).
How It Affected The Events Of The Civil Rights Movement
Even though the case arose after the Civil War, the Plessy decision had quite a lot of implications, especially for the way events related to the later civil rights struggle transpired (Patterson et al. 2001). What happened was that the Plessy decision validated a justice system that was perceived to be racially charged at that point in time, and as the decision was not overruled for decades, it laid the basis for the radical change that needed to be brought to American society. There was a realization among African Americans that even though they were turning to the courts for validation of their rights, the fact was that the whole justice system was partisan, to say the least (Blumstein and James, 1994). The court had challenged legislation related to civil rights in the United States (Patterson et al. 2001). It was one of the major reasons that unrest concerning the federal government intensified and contributed to the later civil rights struggle (Blumstein and James, 1994).
Works Cited
Blumstein, James F. “Federalism and civil rights: Complementary and competing paradigms.” Vand. L. Rev. 47 (1994): 1251.
Goldscheid, Julie. “United States v. Morrison and the Civil Rights Remedy of the Violence Against Women Act: A Civil Rights Law Struck Down in the Name of Federalism.” Cornell L. Rev. 86 (2000): 109.
Patterson, James T., and William W. Freehling. Brown v. Board of Education: A civil rights milestone and its troubled legacy. Oxford University Press, 2001.
Rodriguez, Daniel B., and Barry R. Weingast. “The Positive Political Theory of Legislative History: New Perspectives on the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Its Interpretation.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151.4 (2003): 1417-1542.
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
