Although the act was the culmination of the American civil rights movement as a whole, historians agree that it was ultimately sparked by the so-called “Birmingham campaign” which had taken place the year before.

The Birmingham campaign

Birmingham, in the state of Alabama, was a flagship city of the policy of racial segregation in schools, employment and public accommodation. It lay in the American South, where in centuries gone by, most of the country’s black population had worked as slaves and where their white compatriots had gone to war over the issue of slavery in 1861.

Although black people were theoretically emancipated after the north’s victory in the Civil War, their lot did not improve much in the century that followed. Southern states enacted ‘Jim Crow’ laws which enforced racial segregation through formal and informal policies.

By the early 1960s, riots, discontent and violent police reprisals had given rise to a relatively minor movement asking for equal rights in Birmingham, which had been founded by local black reverend Fred Shuttlesworth.

In early 1963, Shuttlesworth invited the star of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr., to bring his Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) to the city, saying “if you win in Birmingham, as Birmingham goes, so goes the nation”.

Once the SCLC’s members were in town, Shuttlesworth launched the Birmingham campaign in April 1963, beginning with a boycott of industries that refused to employ black workers.

Non-violent protests

When local leaders resisted and condemned the boycott, King and Shuttlesworth changed their tactics and organised peaceful marches and sit-ins, knowing that the inevitable mass arrests of non-violent protesters would gain international recognition for their cause.

It was slow going at first. But a turning point came when the campaign decided to seek support from Birmingham’s large student population, who suffered from segregation in the city more than most.

This policy was a huge success, and images of teenagers being brutally hosed by police or having attack dogs set on them brought widespread international condemnation. With recognition came support, and peaceful demonstrations soon broke out across the south as Birmingham’s segregation laws began to weaken under the pressure.

Kennedy’s assassination

Civil rights leaders meet with President John F. Kennedy in the Oval Office of the White House after the March on Washington, D.C.

President John F. Kennedy was in the midst of trying to get the civil rights bill through Congress when he was assassinated in Dallas, Texas on 22 November 1963.

Kennedy was replaced by his deputy, Lyndon B. Johnson, who told members of Congress in his first speech to them as president that “no memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy’s memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long”.

Despite the efforts of numerous dissenters, the bill was passed by the House of Representatives in February 1964 and moved on to the Senate shortly after. There it ran out of momentum, however; a group of 18 mostly southern Democratic senators obstructed a vote by extending the debating time in a move known as “filibustering” or “talking a bill to death”.

Watching this debate on 26 March were Luther King and Malcolm X: the only time these two titans of the civil rights movement ever met.

Martin Luther King and Malcolm X waiting for a press conference together on Capitol Hill in 1964.

Image Credit: Library of Congress / Public Domain

The waiting is over

After months of talking and waiting under the watchful eye of the rest of the world (including the Soviet Union, which had been greatly enjoying the easy propaganda victories America’s racial problems provided it), a new, slightly weaker version of the bill was proposed. And this bill gained enough Republican votes to end the filibuster.

The Civil Rights Act was eventually passed by a crushing 73 votes to 27. Martin Luther King Jr. and Johnson had won, and now racial integration would be enforced by the law.

Aside from the obvious social changes that the bill brought about, which continue to be felt to this day, it also had profound political effect. The south became a stronghold of the Republican party for the first time in history and has remained so ever since, while Johnson won that year’s presidential election by a landslide – despite being warned that support for the Civil Rights Act might cost him the vote.

The act failed to bring about equality for minorities in America overnight, however, and structural, institutionalised racism remains a pervasive problem. Racism remains a contentious topic in contemporary politics. Despite this, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was still a watershed moment for not only the US, but also the world.

However, Kennedy won above all because he was Nixon’s equal in substance and superior in style. As the first absolutely media-conscious and heavily-marketed presidential candidate, Kennedy was able to impress upon the nation the idea that it had entered a new epoch and that he was its ideal leader.

Daddy’s money

Kennedy’s path to power was smoothed by his father’s money and influence. As a precocious young politician he never had to court sponsors, and was able to completely outspend his opponents in regional elections.

On the national stage this advantage was a less pronounced, but Joe Kennedy was still able to bankroll the campaign and effect proceedings from the fringes.

The Catholic question

Criticism of Kennedy’s religion was a persistent thorn in his side. Indeed, Robert Dallek attributes the fine margin of victory in the latter to, ‘an unyielding fear of having a Catholic in the White House’.

Certainly the idea that a president could have a salient, ‘praemunire’ allegiance to the Vatican was anathema to many Americans. Kennedy’s counter-argument, which he deployed to particular effect in the West Virginia primary, was watertight.

By affirming his loyalty to the First Amendment, outlining the fact that his religion had not affected his wartime service and introducing the idea that discrimination against one religion creates a dangerous paradigm, Kennedy demonstrated the frail basis of the attacks.

Smear tactics

Nixon’s was known for running tough, ruthless campaigns, and the Kennedy team anticipated smear tactics. It acted by publishing a ‘Campaign Sourcebook’ – a condensed set of counter-arguments that, together with the issues of experience and religion, also addressed concerns over Kennedy’s health.

On the latter issue Kennedy had also procured the services of two prominent physicians, who issued a statement declaring that he was fully capable of ‘meeting any obligation of the Presidency without the need for special medical treatment’. At best, this obscured the truth.

Lyndon Johnson

Kennedy’s selection of Lyndon Johnson as Vice President anchored significant southern support at the risk of alienating northern liberals. Kennedy moved to recover disenchanted liberal support by courting leading liberals.

L-R: Prime Minister of Greece Konstantine Karamanlis, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. 20 April 1961.

Eleanor Roosevelt, who had been Kennedy’s most vocal critic after the McCarthy affair, having met with Kennedy, was moved to remark that he ‘really is interested in helping the people of his own country’ and worthy of her support.

It is clear that Kennedy’s initiative substantially improved his electability, but it is often the case in elections that error rather than enterprise is the determining factor. In both the nomination and presidential races Kennedy benefited from blunders and tactical misjudgements of his opponents.

In the nomination race he was helped by Johnson’s and Stevenson’s sleeping candidacies, for he was able to use momentum gathered in the primaries to secure a first-ballot victory and kill their chances.

In the presidential race it must be noted that from the outset Nixon was working from a position of relative weakness. As the establishment’s candidate he had to face up to criticism over the sluggish economy, the communist revolution in Cuba and the U2 incident.

Nixon also hurt his campaign by pledging to visit every state in the Union. By visiting unswayable Republican or Democratic strongholds, he wasted precious time and energy.

Moreover, perhaps the most serious single mistake was Eisenhower’s declaration when asked what Nixon had contributed as VP: ‘If you give me a week I might think of one.’ This was a throwaway comment that was intended to reflect Eisenhower’s fatigue, but it was a gift to the Democratic cause.

The JFK mystique

However, if one is to talk about one single factor that won the election for Kennedy, then one must examine Kennedy’s uniquely captivating and multi-faceted image.

He was a man of literary stature, a Pulitzer Prize winning author. He, like the incumbent president, was a war hero. He was one of a glamorous family, a family that worked with great diligence and evident success to advance his career.

John and Jackie Kennedy in a motorcade in May 1961.

On the family, it is no exaggeration to say that Kennedy symbolised the family more than any other presidential candidate in history. Not only was he the figurehead of a very famous clan, but he also had a young, photogenic family with Jackie Kennedy, a celebrity in her own right.

The first televised debate gave Kennedy’s image massive exposure. Up to the 1st December doubts about his experience had threatened to destroy his campaign, but the debate came to undermine Nixon’s superiority and allay doubts about Kennedy’s character.

The statistics indicate its significance – a Gallup poll from September put Nixon leading by a point (47-46), but a post-debate poll saw Kennedy leading by 3 (49-46).

The debate lacked substantive discussion, so the audience’s response was based primarily on cosmetics and style. In this respect Kennedy was the clear winner – his crisp dark suit stood out on the screen, and his tanned complexion gave an impression of health and vigour opposite the grey-suited, perspiring Vice President.

In summary

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. claimed that the central issue for Kennedy’s 1960 campaign was ‘a new epoch.’ He was right.

Many Americans were willing to believe in a man who could get the country moving again and confront the changing world, and on a number of fronts Kennedy resonated with this will.

His youth – he was the first president born in the 20^th century, and the youngest up to that point. Together with his glamour and style, he created an irresistible allure that supplemented his significant political skill and resources.

His 1960 election victory ushered in a new breed of politics focused around image and presentation. This legacy indicates that Kennedy’s victory was attributable in significant measure to his unique and captivating style.

There are very few who would dispute this statement. The 32^nd President won 4 elections, built the New Deal coalition, ended the Great Depression by instituting a New Deal, and led the USA to victory in WW2. He is consistently ranked by scholars as among the top 3 Presidents, alongside Abraham Lincoln and George Washington.

In many ways, Lyndon B Johnson, the 36^th President of the United States, upheld and carried on FDR’s legacy of state-funded assistance for the poor and needy, and generally carried out sweeping and lasting reforms to US society.

His bold domestic crusades are in direct contrast to his leadership during the Vietnam war, which was often indecisive or simply misguided. In fact, Vietnam has tarnished his reputation to the point of obscuring some fairly monumental achievements.

It may be contentious, but on the basis of the points below one could argue that LBJ was the greatest domestic President since FDR. These can be grouped broadly around 2 topics – the Great Society and Civil Rights.

The Great Society

LBJ claimed working as a road labourer in his youth gave him an acute understanding of poverty and a conviction to eliminate it. He recognised that escaping poverty

Requires a trained mind and a healthy body. It requires a decent home, and the chance to find a job.

LBJ possessed an exceptional ability to convert rhetoric into substantive legislation.

As a Southern populist Congressman Johnson carried out this vision. His strong liberal record was defined by bringing water and electricity to Texas’s impoverished 10^th District as well as slum clearance programs.

As President, Johnson took this zeal for helping the poor to a national level. He also had broader ideas about how to set structures in place to secure the natural and cultural heritage of the country, and generally to eradicate inequality. Listed are just some of the reforms encapsulated by the Big Society tag:

• The Elementary and Secondary Education Act: provided significant and necessary funding for American public schools.
• Medicare and Medicaid: Mediacre was created to offset the costs of healthcare for the nation’s elderly people. In 1963, most elderly Americans had no health coverage. Medicaid provided assistance to the nation’s poor, many of whom had little access to medical treatment unless they were in a critical condition. Between 1965 and 2000 over 80 million Americans signed up for Medicare. It was certainly a factor in life expectancy climbing 10% between 1964 and 1997, and even more among the poor.
• National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities: Used public funds in order to ‘create conditions under which the arts could flourish’
• The Immigration Act: Ended immigrations quotas which discriminated by ethnicity.
• Air and Water Quality Acts: Tightened pollution controls.
• Omnibus Housing Act: Set aside funds for constructing low-income housing.
• Consumer vs Commerce: A number of controls brought in to re-balance mismatch between big business and the American consumer, including truthful packaging measures and truth in lending to the homebuyer.
• Headstart: Brought primary education to the poorest children.
• Wilderness Protection Act: Saved 9.1 million acres of land from industrial development.

Civil Rights

Allen Matusow characterised Johnson as ‘a complex man notorious for his ideological insincerity.’

This certainly fits Johnson political careering, but it is safe to say that underpinning the various faces that Johnson wore around various groups was a sincere belief in racial equality.

Despite having his rise financed by bigoted men and having stood against every ‘black policy’ he was required to vote on in Congress, Johnson claimed that he ‘never had any bigotry in him.’ Certainly once assuming the Presidency he did more than any other to secure the welfare of black Americans.

By employing the dual-approach of asserting rights and applying corrective measures, he broke the back of Jim Crow for good.

In 1964 he worked with customary skill to destroy a filibuster in the Senate and so rescued Kennedy’s buried Civil Rights bill. He assembled a hitherto unforeseeable consensus of Southern Democrats and the Northern liberals, having broken the logjam in Congress over Kennedy’s tax cut (by agreeing to bring the annual budget in below $100 billion).

Johnson signing the Civil Right’s Act.

In 1965 he responded to the ‘Bloody Sunday’ violence in Selma Alabama by having the Voting Rights Bill signed into law, a move which re-enfranchised black Southerners and empowered them to lobby for their welfare.

Together with these legislative changes Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court and more broadly initiated the affirmative action program for the federal government together with an intensive program to reconcile the South with integration.

On affirmative action, he said:

Freedom is not enough. You do not take a person who, fro years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him to the start line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others’, and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights.

A key example of this was the 1968 Fair Housing Act, which opened up public housing to all Americans, irrespective of race.

The positive effects of this initiative, alongside the Great Society reforms which disproportionately benefitted (poor) black Americans, were clear. For example, the purchasing power of the average black family rose by half over his Presidency.

Although it is arguable that growing black militancy in the mid-late 1960s, and the prospect of a race war, may have pushed LBJ to pursue Civil Rights legislation, it should be to his credit that he responded to a constitutional and moral imperative for change. He did benefit from the emotional impact of the Kennedy assassination, saying:

No memorial oration could more eloquently honour President Kennedy’s memory than the earliest passage of the Civil Rights Bill.

However it is clear he had a personal investment in change. After assuming the Presidentcy, on an early call to Ted Sorensen, who queried his pursuit of Civil Rights legislation, he rebutted, ‘What the hell is the Presidency for!?’

President who subscribed to the domino theory and initiated the USA’s military relationship with Vietnam.

16. George Kennan

First articulated the Containment Doctrine (1947) that became a central tenet of Far East policy and was a key justification of the Vietnam war.

15. Võ Nguyên Giáp

Ho Chi Minh’s premier general in the earliest days of the Viet Minh. His military brilliance was evident in the First Indochina War, and he supervised the anti-US war effort.

14. Le Duc Tho

Negotiated a peace deal with Henry Kissinger in Paris in 1972, agreeing to a ceasefire and then an end to official US involvement.

13. Senator William Fulbright

An Arkansas Senator and figureheard of the anti-war movement, Fulbright published The Arrogance of Power (1966) which criticised Johnson and his war strategy.

12. Madame Nhu

A francophile, de facto first lady of the Diem regime (married to Diem’s brother Dinh Nhu) who was contemptuous of a public that truly hated her. She evaded the 1963 coup.

11. Lieutenant William Calley

US Army Lieutenant and the only soldier prosecuted for participating in the My Lai massacre (1968.) He was given a life-sentence in 1971, but was paroled in 1974.

10. President John Kennedy

Increased the US military’s advisory presence in Vietnam to 16 200 by late 1963 and supported a military coup against the Diem regime.

9. General William Westmoreland

A US General who instituted the ‘search-and-destroy- tactic which dominated US strategy in the late 60s and, with its attritional logic, heightened casualty figures on each side.

8. McGeorge Bundy

As special assistant for national security affairs under JFK and LBJ, Bundy consistently pressed for escalation before quitting in 1966.

7. Ngo Dinh Diem

Led the SV Republic Of Vietnam up until 1963, the Catholic Diem was supported by the US until late 1963.

His Catholicism alienated the Buddhist majority in Vietnam, and his goverment was crippled by corruption and autocracy, suppressing Buddhist demonstations and ignoring calls for free elections. He was assassinated in October 1963 in a US backed coup.

6. Robert McNamara

Secretary of Defence from 1961 to 1968, McNamara was an early, vocal advocate of escalation. He grew disillusioned as the war progressed and resigned after the Tet Offensive.

5. Henry Kissinger

Served as President Nixon’s national security advisor, then as his Secretary of State. Kissinger was Nixon’s closest advisor on Vietnam strategy (including the bombing of Cambodia) and together with Le Duc Tho negotiated the final peace agreement.

4. President Richard Nixon

The 37th President orchestrated the withdrawal from Vietnam, Vietnamised the war effort and authorized illegal military action in Cambodia and Laos.

3. President Lyndon Johnson

The US Department of Defence produced this propaganda film to boost support for the Vietnam War during Johnson’s presidency. Watch it here on HistoryHit.TV. Watch Now

Having made the crucial ‘July Decisions’, Johnson bears ultimate responsibility for the American war effort up to 1968. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and Operation Rolling Thunder were under his direct authority.

2. Ho Chi Minh

Founder of the Viet Minh (1941), the highly westernised leader of the North Vietnamese insurgency against South Vietnam was the face of the enemy for the USA.

1. Le Duan

Arguably the most important figure of the Vietnam War, Le Duan was tasked with organising an underground Communist party organisation following Vietnam’s division in 1954. In 1960, he became general secretary of the Workers’ Party of Vietnam’s central committee – a position that made him second in command only to party chairman Ho Chi Minh.

As the latter’s health declined throughout the 1960s, Le Duan assumed more and more of his responsibilities, eventually succeeding Ho Chi Minh as leader of North Vietnam upon his death in 1969.

6 oppositionists

Richard Russell

The patriarch of the obstructionist Southern caucus, and long-serving Senator for Georgia. Russell repeatedly marshalled the conservative Southern Democrats into opposing any Civil Rights legislation.

George Wallace

Tuscaloosa Mayor George Wallace publicly resisted JFK’s integration of the University of Alabama, and would later run in the 1968 Presidential Election as an independent, winning 10% of the popular vote.

Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor

As Police Commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama, ‘Bull’ Connor decided to crush the ‘Project C’ protest and so inflamed popular opposition to segregation. JFK called the Civil Rights Act he introduced in June 1963 ‘Bull Connor’s bill.’

Strom Thurmond

Thurmond served for 48 years as Senator for South Carolina, switching parties in opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He was a key member of the obstructionist Southern caucus.

James O’Eastland

Senator for Mississippi, patron of Lyndon Johnson and enthusiatic proponent of racist rhetoric. Eastland was renowned for scapegoating Mississippi’s black community, and opposed the Freedom Rides and the admission of James Meredith to Ole Miss.

Ross Barnett

Governor of Mississippi who headed the resistance to the registration of James Meredith at the University of Mississippi.

4 unsung heroes

Ella Baker

Perhaps the most influential woman in the Civil Rights movement after Rosa Parks, whom Baker mentored in the before her Montgomery stand. She largely worked behind the scenes, but associated closely with the major activists, including Randolph and King.

James Meredith

James Meredith is largely remembered as a pawn at the centre of the 1962 Ole Miss crisis, but Meredith consciously pressured the Kennedy administration, forcing it to confront Southern prejudice directly.

Bayard Rustin

Rustin was an early advocate for the non-violent resistance model, a direct influence on King. He was the chief organizer of the March on Washington, but rarely shared the spotlight with his more illustrious comrades.

Senator Everett Dirksen

As Senator for Illinois Dirksen was an essential figure in passing the 64′ act. His support for the Bill undermined the traditional alliance between Southern Democrats and Western Republicans over Civil Rights.

8 activists

AA Phillip Randolph

Head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, and an equally prominent labour and civil rights activist, Randolph played a central role in Project C and the March on Washington.

Rosa Parks

In Montgomery, Alabama on December 1 1955 Rosa Park’s single act of defiance – refusing to obey a bus driver’s order that she give up her seat in the coloured section of the bus to a white passenger – sparked the first major co-ordinated civil rights protest – the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

Although this failed in its immediate aims it precipitated subsequent protests, and Parks became an emblem for peaceful stoicism in the face of white oppression. Her act of civil disobedience set an example for future protests.

James Farmer

As Head of the Congress of Racial Equality, Farmer co-ordinated the Freedom Rides and other emblematic protests.

John Lewis

The last surviving leading member of the Big Six Civil Rights organizations, Lewis was head of the Student NonViolent Coordination Committee from 1963 to 1966 and helped organize the March on Washington. He was also one of the Freedom Riders.

Roy Wilkins

Wilkins was Executive Secretary and later Executive Director of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People. He was an articulate and well-respected activist who helped organize the March on Washington and the Selma-to-Montgomery marches of 1965.

Whitney Young

Whitney Moore Young Jr. entered the National Urban League’s Omaha, Nebraska chapter in 1950, and rose to become the organization’s Executive Director in 1961.

Under his leadership it evolved from passive protest toward aggressively lobbying large businesses to increase black employment, and Young himself acted as a direct advisor to Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon until his death in 1971.

Fred Shuttlesworth

As head of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights, Shuttlesworth orchestrated the era’s most significant civil rights protest – Project C in Birmingham, Alabama. He also helped organize the March On Washington For Freedom And Jobs.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Chairman of the Southern Christian Leadership Council, Baptist minister, Nobel Prize winner and figurehead of the civil-rights movement. King embodies black activism in modern memory.

A battle ensued, during which the USS Maddox and four USN F-8 Crusader jet fighter bombers strafed the torpedo boats. All three boats were damaged and four Vietnamese sailors were killed, with six wounded. There were no US casualties.

The second, another sea battle, allegedly occurred on 4 August 1964. On that evening, destroyers patrolling the gulf received radar, sonar and radio signals that were interpreted as indicating a NV attack.

What happened?

Despite reports of US ships sinking two NV torpedo boats, no wreckage was ever found, and various conflicting reports, alongside the freakishly bad weather, indicate that the sea battle never took place.

This was recognized at the time. One cable read:

The first boat to close the Maddox probably launched a torpedo at the Maddox which was heard but not seen. All subsequent Maddox torpedo reports are doubtful in that it is suspected that sonarman was hearing the ship’s own propeller beat.

Outcome

Within thirty minutes of the second attack, President Lyndon Johnson was resolved on retaliatory action. After reassuring the Soviet Union that his war in Vietnam would not be expansionist, he addressed the nation on 5 August 1964.

Johnson detailed the supposed attack, and then sought approval for undertaking a military response.

At the time, his speech was interpreted variously as assertive and fair, and as unfairly casting the NV as the aggressor.

However, crucially, there were no overt indications of all-out war. His subsequent public announcements were similarly muted, and there existed a wide disconnect between this stance and his actions – behind the scenes Johnson was preparing for a sustained conflict.

Some members of Congress were not fooled. Senator Wayne Morse sought to corral an outcry in Congress, but could not gather sufficient numbers. He persevered, maintaining that Johnson’s actions were ‘acts of war rather than acts of defence.’

Subsequently, of course, he was vindicated. The US was to become embroiled in a bloody, prolonged and ultimately failed war.

Legacy

It was clear that, even immediately after the second ‘attack’, there were strong doubts as to its veracity. History has only served to reinforce those doubts.

The sense that these events were a false pretext for war has subsequently grown stronger.

It is certainly true that many government advisors were militating toward a conflict in Vietnam before the alleged events to place, as illustrated by the transcripts of War Council meetings, which show a very small, anti-war minority being side-lined by the hawks.

Johnson’s reputation as President was heavily tarnished by the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and its repercussions have echoed down the years, most notably in accusations that George Bush committed the USA to an illegal war in Iraq.

Presidential ambition from an early age

There are innumerable tales of Johnson’s exploits, all of which illustrate his central, burning desire to climb the ladder of power. While studying at Southwest Texas Teacher’s College in San Marcos, Johnson openly stated that he was only interested in co-eds with rich daddies.

At college he also developed a propensity to latch onto any senior authority, playing off their insecurities, in order to advance his position. No amount of toadying was beneath him.

Johnson kept up this particular strategy in the Senate itself, cosying up to lonely but powerful individuals. He also developed a unique method of persuasion – the ‘Johnson Treatment.’

The ‘Treatment’ in a nutshell

The Johnson treatment is not easily defined, but it typically involved invading the personal space of the target – Johnson taking advantage of his substantial bulk – and issuing a disorientating stream of flattery, threats and persuasion that would leave the target unable to counter.

If he did counter, Johnson would press on relentlessly. It was evocatively described as like having, ‘a large St. Bernard licking your face and pawing you all over.’

An effective tactic

Johnson’s tenure as Senate majority leader coincided with a high level of legislative fluidity, and Johnson was central to it. He was a bully of high authority and not above base threats and tactics.

The treatment helped bring the USA a number of astounding legislative achievements – the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act prime among them.

In pursuit of the former, LBJ leaned heavily on Richard Russell, the leader of the Southern caucus and key impediment to Civil Rights legislation. Johnson allegedly said, ‘Dick, you’ve got to get out of my way.’

However, he deployed the treatment with both sides. Here he delivers the treatment to Whitney Young, the Executive Director of the National Urban League.

The political chameleon

Johnson would stop at nothing to get his point across. Although on the face of it he had a visceral instinct to advance Civil Rights and rejected racism, he recognised that he had a shift faces when working different audiences.

When socialising with his close friends in the Southern caucus, Lyndon would throw around the word ‘nigger’ as though it were everyday parlance, and always couched his support for civil rights bills in reluctant political terms – the ‘Nigger Bill’ would have to be passed to prevent social upheaval.

In front of Civil Rights leaders, however, Johnson would speak earnestly about the absolute moral need to push legislation through. Even though it was not politically expedient, he vowed to tie his flag to their cause.

It was this ability to slip seamlessly between positions, and so enamour himself with opposition parties, which alongside the ‘treatment’ was a major factor in his political success.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended racial segregation in public places and forbade employment discrimination on the basis of race, religious affiliation or sex.

It was first slated by President John F Kennedy, and was signed into law by his successor, Lyndon Johnson, but the Civil Rights Act belonged to the grass-roots civil rights movement that had lobbied the federal government to take firm legislative action against a pernicious, pervasive societal affliction.

The act itself banned segregation in all public accommodation, including courthouses, parks, restaurants, sports stadiums, hotels and theatres. Service could no longer be withheld on the basis of race, religion or gender.

It also banned discrimination in racial, religious or gender terms by employers or labour unions. This would be supervised and enforced by the newly created Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The Act also placed restrictions on federal funds, addressing the long-standing issue of federal sponsorship, inadvertent or otherwise, of programs or organisations that discriminated in terms of race.

It also empowered the Department of Education to pursue school desegregation. This had been a cornerstone issue when it came to federal intervention in civil rights matters, highlighted when President Eisenhower sent federal troops to enforce the enrollment of black students at Little Rock High School, Arkansas, in 1954.

Finally, it underlined the notion that all Americans should have equal ability to vote. In theoretical terms, the Fourteenth Amendment had secured equal voting rights for all Americans. Racial conservatives had therefore argued that any groundswell civil rights movement would express itself and enact change through the democratic process.

This ignored the reality – that southern blacks in particular were barred through intimidation or obfuscating procedures from voting for change.

However, in this particular field, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alone was not sufficient.

Voting Rights Act (1965)

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 followed naturally in the footsteps of the broader Civil Rights Act. The backlash to that Act had involved an outbreak of violence in the South, with racists seeking to prevent blacks, emboldened by the federal government’s stance, from attempting to register to vote.

The violence was a timely reminder that more action was required, and so Lyndon Johnson gave a speech to Congress that contained the following refrain:

Rarely are we met with a challenge…..to the values and the purposes and the meaning of our beloved Nation. The issue of equal rights for American Negroes is such as an issue…..the command of the Constitution is plain. It is wrong – deadly wrong – to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country.

The Act that Congress soon passed outlawed poll taxes or literacy tests as methods of assessing whether someone could register to vote. It essentially stated that all one required was American citizenship.

The Act had a startling impact. Within 3 years 9 out of 13 Southern states had over 50% black voter registration. With this elimination of de facto restrictions, numbers of African Americans in public office increased swiftly.

Johnson instigated a legislative revolution, finally enabling black voters to promote change through the democratic process.