Preface

early every American

and millions of people around the

world are familiar with Martin Luther Kings I Have a Dream

speech, yet most know little about the March on Washington at which it was delivered. The tremendous eloquence and elegant simplicity of the speech meant that many, then and now, came to associate the broader goals of the demonstration with Kings compelling vision of harmony a dream of a nation that would finally live up interracial to its founders proclamations about the self- evident equality of all people, in which children would be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin and in which citizens would be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day. Few know that Kings was the last of ten well- known speeches, capping more than six hours of performances by musicians, appearances by politicians and movie stars, and statements as of solidarity from groups across the nation and around the world well as an actual march. Even fewer know that it was a march For Jobs and Freedom, and that it aimed not just to end racial segregation and discrimination in the Jim Crow South but also to ensure that Americans of all races had access to quality education, affordable housing, and jobs that paid a living wage. We forget that Kings task was to uplift the spirits of marchers after a long day in the sun and, for most, a night travelling by bus or train from as far away as New York, Chicago, Atlanta, and even Los Angeles. One reporter observed that
ix

T h e M a rc h o n Wa s h i n g t o n

while King ignited the crowd with his optimistic vision of the future, the other speakers concentrated on the struggle ahead and spoke in tough, even harsh language. Yet those other speeches have been virtually lost to history.1 On August 28, 1963, nearly a q uarter- million people descended on the nations capital to demand Jobs and Freedom. By freedom they meant that every American be guaranteed access to stores, restaurants, hotels, and other public accommodations, to decent housing and adequate and integrated education, and to the right to vote. They also wanted strict enforcement of those civil rights, including the withholding of federal funds from discriminatory programs and housing developments, the reduction of congressional representation in states where citizens were denied the right to vote, and authorization of the attorney general to bring injunctive suits when any constitutional right is violated. Some of those demands were addressed by a civil rights bill that President John F. Kennedy had introduced to Congress on June 11, 1963, two months before the demonstration. Marchers wanted to pass that bill, but they believe it was far too limited. In addition to equal access to public accommodations and the right to vote, they demanded a massive federal program to train and place all unemployed workersNegro and white on meaningful and dignified jobs at decent wages. They wanted to raise the minimum wage to a level that would give all Americans a decent standard of living, and to extend that standard to agricultural workers, domestic servants, and public employees, who were excluded from the federal law that created the minimum wage. For many marchers, the most important objective was the creation of a Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to prevent private firms, government agencies, and labor unions from discriminating against workers on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.2 King delivered the finale at the Lincoln Memorial, but the tone for the day was set in an opening address by A. Philip Randolph, the

Preface

xi

seventy- four- year- old trade unionist who was the official leader of the March on Washington. Randolph agreed with King on the need for integration and racial equality in the South, but he linked those objectives to a broader national and interracial struggle for economic and social justice. We are the advance guard of a massive moral revolution for jobs and freedom, he told the crowd that stretched out for more than a mile before him. He declared that the civil rights movement affected every city, every town, every village where black men are segregated, oppressed and exploited, but insisted it was not confined to the Negroes; nor is it confined to civil rights. It was critical to end segregation in southern stores and restaurants, the union leader insisted, but those accommodations will mean little to those who cannot afford to use them. What good was an FEPC, he asked, if the rapidly expanding automation of industry was allowed to destroy the jobs of millions of workers, black and white? Whereas King appealed to the nations founding principles of equality and freedom, Randolph insisted that real freedom will require many changes in the nations political and social philosophies and institutions. Ending housing discrimination, for example, would require Americans to reject the assumption that a homeowners property rights include the right to humiliate me because of the color of my skin. In the civil rights revolution, he declared, The sanctity of private property takes second place to the sanctity of a human personality.3 Randolph used language and imagery that reflected a lifetime of activism in organized labor and the Socialist Party, but his points were echoed by the younger and, for the most part, more moderate speakers who followed. Roy Wilkins of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the nations oldest and largest civil rights organization, charged that President Kennedys civil rights proposal amounted to so moderate an approach that if it is weakened or eliminated, the remainder will be little more than sugar water. Emphasizing the need for an FEPC law, the s ixty- two- year- old

xii

T h e M a rc h o n Wa s h i n g t o n

former journalist stated, We want employment and with it we want the pride and responsibility and s elf- respect that goes with equal access to jobs. Walter Reuther, the fifty- five- year- old president of the United Auto Workers union, concurred that the job question is crucial; because we will not solve education or housing or public accommodations as long as millions of American Negroes are treated as second class economic citizens and denied jobs. According to the New York Times, Harshest of all the speakers was John Lewis, the twenty- three- year- old chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), who currently represents Georgia in the U.S. Congress. Lewis endorsed Kennedys civil rights bill with great reservations, pointing out that the proposed legislation did nothing to protect African Americans from police brutality and racist violence, to uphold their right to vote in the South, or to ensure the equality of a maid who earns $5 a week in the home of a family whose income is $100,000 a year. Urging marchers to seek alternatives to a political system corrupted by power and money, Lewis declared, Let us not forget that we are involved in a serious social revolution.4 In addition to complicating popular memories of the March on Washington, the tenor of those speeches also challenges a common misconception about the broader history of the civil rights movement. Until recently, the most influential accounts presented the 1963 protest as the apex of an exceptional moment when civil rights leaders transcended their ideological and strategic differences by focusing narrowly on moral imperatives that had garnered support from the nations moderates issues such as the right to vote and the right to a decent education. The classical phase of the civil rights movement began with the Supreme Courts Brown decision in 1954, which struck down the legalized system of segregation in the Jim Crow South, and it ended in the late 1960s, we were told, when the Black Power and New Left movements shifted the focus toward the urban North and to issues whose moral rightness was not as readily apparent, such as poverty

Preface

xiii

and discrimination in housing and employment. That interpretation was embraced by critics representing a broad spectrum of American political thought. Conservatives praised King and other civil rights leaders for suppressing calls for radical social, political, and economic changes while leftists chided those same leaders for failing to even grapple with [the] social and economic contradictions of American capitalism. Historians have complicated the traditional narrative by tracing the radical roots of civil rights back into the 1930s and 40s and by demonstrating that civil rights activists of many ideological varieties always insisted that access to jobs, housing, and economic security was as vital to their struggle as voting rights and integration. They also reminded us that the movement faced stiff resistance to those demands in the most moderate regions of the urban North, as well as in the conservative South. With few exceptions, however, scholars simply inverted the older story by allowing the March on Washington to remain a moderate exception to a radical long civil rights movement. The most influential recent studies still either end the story before 1963 or shift our attention from leaders on the platform high above the crowd to local movements and grassroots activists that, scholars contend, more accurately capture the motivations that led relatively obscure individuals to the March. By relegating w ell- known leaders and events to the background, historians have reinforced the old thesis that political constraints of the era kept discussions of b based road- social change, or a linking of race and class, off the agenda during the classical phase.5 Both the power and the limitations of the traditional narrative are evident in the political career of Barack Obama, who became the nations first black president during the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression. During his campaign for president in 2008, Obama credited the civil rights movement often gesturing directly to Congressman John Lewis with leading a people out of bondage

xiv

T h e M a rc h o n Wa s h i n g t o n

and laying the foundation for his own success. When discussing social and economic policy, however, he suggested that the racially egalitarian politics of Lewis Moses generation had lost their effectiveness in an era when poorly funded public services, stagnant wages, and skyrocketing unemployment rates threatened the livelihoods of all Americans, regardless of their race. Most working- and middle- class white Americans dont feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race, he stated in his campaigns most direct attempt to address the question of racial inequality, suggesting that African Americans could transcend the racial stalemate that dominated American politics by binding our particular grievances for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs to the larger aspirations of all Americans. Referring to his own white grandparents, who came of age during the Depression and the Second World War, the candidate suggested that the ace- social- democratic and r neutral policies of the New Deal era offered a more effective model for social and economic policy in the twenty-first century.6 Obamas appeal to the greatest generation certainly aided his election in 2008, but when he ran for reelection four years later the lessons to be drawn from their experiences seemed less clear. The president had implemented an ambitious economic recovery program and the most dramatic reform of the nations health care system since the 1960s, both of which benefited white Americans as much as or more so than nonwhites. Yet the racial polarization of American politics had only increased. Although unemployment rates had fallen at a slightly faster rate for black and Latino workers than for whites, they remained far higher than the national average. Still reluctant to address racial inequality directly, Obama spoke out powerfully against clear cases of discrimination and racist violence but had no narrative to explain the more complex interactions between racial and economic inequality. Meanwhile, polls indicated that white voters were even less likely to support the black candidate than they had been four years earlier.

Preface

xv

Rather than transcending racial differences through a color- blind appeal to economic interests, Obama won reelection by uniting a broad coalition of nonwhite workers, women of all races, liberal youth, and a few white men around demands for equality and economic justice.7 By tracing the roots of the March on Washington to A. Philip Randolphs demand for fair employment during the Second World War, this book demonstrates that the civil rights movement was always closely linked to the social democratic politics of the New Deal. Randolph initiated the March on Washington before the United States entered the war, but federal investments in weapons, equipment, transportation, and military bases had already begun to lift the nations economy out of the Great Depression. President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to strengthen the economic recovery by directing federal spending toward the South and other particularly depressed regions, and by strengthening federal labor laws to protect workers rights to form unions and bargain collectively for better wages and benefits. While those policies were ostensibly race- neutral, Randolph pointed out that they allowed private employers, unions, and local officials to bar African Americans from jobs that were funded by federal tax dollars and protected by federal laws. He demanded an FEPC law, not just to end discrimination by unions and employers but also to extend to African Americans the promise of economic and social citizenship that Roosevelt had linked to participation in the defense effort. It was that egalitarian vision of social citizenship, as much as constitutional principles of political equality, that inspired the modern civil rights movement. Like many other labor leaders of his generation, Randolph believed that the most effective path to first- class citizenship was to ensure that black men had access to wages and benefits necessary to ensure economic and social security for their families. The March on Washington never became the mass movement that he envisioned in 1941, but its objectives were sustained by a generation of young militants who would play key leadership roles in the classical

xvi

T h e M a rc h o n Wa s h i n g t o n

phase of the civil rights movement. Emphasizing the need for sustained grassroots organizing rather than a nationwide mobilization, Pauli Murray, Bayard Rustin, Anna Arnold Hedgeman, and other activists linked the March on Washington Movement to womens organizations, unions, and churches in communities across the country. Inspired by the movement against British imperialism in India, they adopted the nonviolent techniques of civil disobedience that had been developed by independence leader Mohandas Gandhi. They also expanded the agenda of the movement from winning jobs to building unions and, more controversially, to demanding f amily- supporting jobs for black women as well as for black men. Finally, they pushed for an immediate end to segregation in the armed forces, universities, and other public institutions, which they viewed as inherently discriminatory and incompatible with the democratic rhetoric that Roosevelt used to inspire the defense effort. The classical phase of the civil rights movement emerged in the context of a booming postwar economy, but it displayed important continuities with the March on Washington Movement. While the United States claim to leadership of the free world made it difficult for federal officials to defend the legal system of segregation and discrimination in the Jim Crow South, the democratic rhetoric of the Cold War proved just as empty as Roosevelts when presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy refused to confront white southerners who defied the Supreme Courts decision that segregation violated the U.S. Constitution. When grassroots activists mobilized to enforce that decision, they drew on networks that had been developed during the Second World War, and they employed the nonviolent strategies pioneered by the March on Washington Movement. They also argued that in addition to violating their constitutional rights, barriers to education and transportation in the South as well as to unionized jobs and quality schools and housing in the North prevented them from taking advantage of the unprecedented economic expansion of the postwar era. As

Preface

xvii

Martin Luther King stated in the often- overlooked opening to his I Have a Dream speech, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.8 Rather than narrowing their objectives in the interest of gaining broader support, organizers of the March on Washington united the various strands of black protest around the bold and expansive demand For Jobs and Freedom. The initial proposal for the 1963 march came from the Negro American Labor Council (NALC), a largely forgotten organization that Randolph and other black trade unionists created to highlight the economic crisis caused by black workers exclusion from skilled jobs and unions. Anna Arnold Hedgeman pushed the union activists to expand their agenda to include access to public accommodations and voting rights in the South, a move that allowed them to gain support from Martin Luther Kings Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), John Lewis SNCC, and the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), a network of nonviolent activists that Bayard Rustin had created during the Second World War. Hedgeman also persuaded them to seek support from the National Council of Negro Women, a network of organizations claiming nearly 800,000 members, although Randolph and other male activists rejected her request to include black women in the official leadership of the march. The most reluctant supporters of the demonstration were Roy Wilkins of the NAACP and labor leader Walter Reuther, who joined the mobilization only after they were convinced that it would occur without them.9 The March on Washington focuses primarily on leaders and experienced activists in the civil rights movement, but it also challenges the assumption that their beliefs and concerns differed significantly from those of their followers. While Randolph, King, and other national figures were the official spokesmen for the March on Washington, the primary task of organizing the protest fell to staff and elected officials of local civil rights organizations, unions, churches, and other groups who lived in the same w orking- class communities that formed the

xviii

T h e M a rc h o n Wa s h i n g t o n

primary base of support for the movement. Perhaps the most important evidence of agreement between leaders and marchers was simply the fact that so many people travelled hundreds or even thousands of miles most missing a day or more of work and all but a few paying their own way to be in Washington that day. Some were students or full- time activists, but the vast majority consisted of auto workers and meatpackers, teachers and letter carriers, domestic servants and aside from their membership in unions and civil sharecroppers who rights organizations had little history of political protest. Journalist iddle- Russell Baker described them as a gentle army of quiet, m class Americans who came in the spirit of the church outing, suggesting that they were in Washington for pleasure or out of a sense of religious or patriotic duty. Malcolm X, a black nationalist who accused Randolph, King, and other leaders of tempering the radicalism of the protest, argued that the marchers had been fooled. Given the size and enthusiasm of the crowd, however, it seems more likely that they believed deeply in the message that Randolph, King, and others proclaimed from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that day.10 Even on the basis of Kings dream of racial equality and integration, that message was hardly moderate. By 1963, the civil rights movement had already changed Americans views about racial equality. Polls showed that 83 percent of whites believed that Negroes should have as good a chance as white people to get any kind of job, for example, nearly double the percentage that held that same view when A. Philip Randolph first called for a March on Washington in 1941. Even in the rigidly segregated South, a majority of whites had no objection to riding a bus with a black person or to a black family with the same income and education buying a house on their block. Civil rights leaders faced resistance, however, when they asked the government to enforce those ideals. Nearly a decade after the Brown decision, only one percent of black students in the South attended school with any white students. Yet 75 percent of white southerners and 50 percent of

Preface

xix

white northerners accused President Kennedy of pushing integration too fast. Three- quarters of white northerners believed that a property owner had the right to sell or rent a home to a family regardless of their race, but less than half of them thought the government should force them to do so.11 The economic policies that marchers demanded were no less controversial. They wanted to raise the minimum wage to $2 an hour, even though Kennedy had struggled to increase it to $1.25 just two years earlier. By 1963, Kennedy had abandoned the old slogans, like wage increases and public works programs of the New Deal era, in favor of new tools for creating economic growth, such as tax cuts and free trade. A. Philip Randolphs FEPC had been defeated in nearly every session of Congress since the Second World War. After watching Bayard Rustin close the March on Washington by reading the full list of demands while every television camera at the disposal of the networks was upon him, left- wing journalist Murray Kempton remarked: No expression o ne- tenth so radical has ever been seen or heard by so many Americans.12 Of course the true test of any political movement lies not so much in its goals or objectives as in its ability to achieve them, and in this regard as well, historians have been too eager to dismiss the March on Washington. While some adopted Russell Bakers assertion that marchers were simply affirming the basic principles of middle- class America, others agreed with Malcolm X that they were nave to believe that they could challenge 400 years of white supremacy with a one day integrated picnic. More recent scholars have acknowledged the radical roots of Randolph, King, and other leaders but echoing broader trends in the literatureconclude that media coverage simultaneously blunted the marchs broad political demands and reduced its message to Kings optimistic Dream, while continued resistance from Congress meant that the march yielded no immediate legislative gains. It is true that newspapers and television broadcasts were

xx

T h e M a rc h o n Wa s h i n g t o n

filled with praise for Kings speech, but they also highlighted the other leaders and the full list of the marchs demands. It took nearly a year to pass Kennedys bill, and many supported it to honor the president after his assassination in November of 1963 rather than to respond to the civil rights movement. But the Civil Rights Act that President Lyndon Johnson signed on July 2, 1964, had the marks of the March on Washington all over it. Most importantly, it included the FEPC clause that Randolph had fought for since the 1940s. Unexpectedly, the law also banned employment discrimination based on sex, in addition to race, color, religion, and national origin, thus realizing through a complicated and often contradictory set of eventsAnna Hedgemans and other black womens efforts to expand the scope of the March on Washington Movement. In addition to supporting the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Johnson pledged to couple it with an unconditional war on poverty, an idea he adopted from the Kennedy administration but bolstered with measures such as the minimum wage increase and federal investments in education, housing, and job training that were demanded by the March on Washington. Those items were scaled back dramatically as the War on Poverty made its way through Congress, and civil rights leaders would soon realize how weak the Civil Rights Act was, but they had won a victory for African Americans and the cause of racial equality that was certainly appropriate for the hundredth anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation.13 Speaking to a conference of black leaders sixteen months after the March on Washington, A. Philip Randolph observed that the Civil Rights Revolution has been caught up in a crisis of victory. Comparing that crisis to the disillusionment that set in among former slaves and abolitionists in the 1870s and 1880s, when the achievements of emancipation were undermined by the rise of Jim Crow, and to the decline of labor militancy following the upheavals of the 1930s, he warned that many activists were frustrated with the limited nature of the victories they had already achieved, that they had stopped moving

Preface

xxi

forward and were in danger of losing ground. He was responding to divisions that had challenged the movement during preparations for the march and widened during the campaign to pass the Civil Rights Act. They included debates over the utility of mass protest versus legislative lobbying, the relationship between race and sex discrimination, and the possibility of interracial cooperation. In many respects our historical memory of the March on Washington is still caught up in that crisis of victory, in part because those conflicts have not been resolved but also because we still allow them to overshadow the significance of what was actually accomplished by bringing a quarter- million people to the nations capital on August 28, 1963. This book attempts to lift that veil.14