Author Archives: be5gm

The Beginning of the End

Posted on by

In chapter 9(p. 377-383), it starts off with NAACP lawyers meeting in New York for a conference in the summer of 1949. Charles Houston was present and he explained to the rest of the lawyers how far the association had come since it first started. By the end of the chapter, it obvious how far the organization had come in their race to end segregation. The NAACP started in 1909 and after fourty-one years of struggle their was a time to celebrate in the organization because…”In 1950, The Supreme Court struck down racial barriers separating blacks on railroads and in two educational institutions(p 381).” The Supreme Court reviewed two significant cases, the McLaurin case and the Sweatt case, and after came to the conclusion that both cases violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The equal protection clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. For the first time, a black student was able to attend an all-white educational institution.

Many students in our class have posed a question similar to this one…How is it that the NAACP did not give up hope after so many failures and after so many years? Well, it is times like this one that make all those struggles worthwhile. However, it is interesting that the NAACP worked on thousands and thousands of cases, but they were successful in starting the end of segreagation with these two cases. What makes these cases any different? And what made the Supreme court change their minds and see what the NAACP was trying to show them the entire time?

On the other hand, this part of the chapter was not only for celebration, but also for grieving because the NAACP lost an amazing leader in Charles Houston. He was one of the most influential people in organizing and igniting the NAACP and their cause. Thurgood Marshall stated, “whatever credit is given him is not enough.” He meant everything to the NAACP and the people within the movement. For example, William Hastie called him, “the moses of the Negro people in their long journey from second class citizenship.” Charles Houston saw the light at the end of the tunnel before he died, but there was still work that needed to be done in the NAACP. Would the African American race have reached this point in history at this time if they did not have Charles Houston?

Civil Disobedience

Posted on by

In Chapter six, David Meyer discusses and analyzes civil disobedience and how it relates to protest and social movements. The chapter looks into two different forms of civil disobedience. One form of disobedience is through a collection of people and the other is more individualistic, which is justified through some form of “higher law.” Collective disobedience goes through cycles, which is similar to most movements in America because there areso many people with different beliefs and values. In order for someone to disobey the law they have to have some passion for the cause they are protesting over. Now, a citizens level of civil disobedience depends on how passionate they feel towards what they are protesting, which can make variate and create cycles of protest where sometimes the protests are strong and powerful and other times not so much. According to David Meyers, the difference between individualistic and the collection of disobedience is that individuals chose to work alone because they have a seperate set of beliefs that relate to a “higher law.” For example, a protestor could believe that a constitutional law is contigent rather than absolute because they believe that people should answer to a higher judge, such as God or the word of the bible. This individual protestor could work in a group, but would need to find people who share the same beliefs to the same extent as they do.

When the writers of the Constitution gathered together to discuss the government of the United States, they agreed on the idea that they wanted to “Stop the development of divisive and potentially disruptive political conflict between the government and its challengers” (113). However, the American government allows access and it also suggest interpretation can be made from the citizens within the United States. Citizens can view a law unjust and decide to protest for what they believe in, but the government regulates its citizens and wishes that people challenge the government less. Civil Disobedience is unwanted by the government and even other citizens, but does civil disobedience suggest that the American government needs to regulate how open the laws are to interpretation and questioning by the citizens?

Ben Edwards