In January 2025, a lawsuit was filed by the NAACP against the Governor of Alabama and members of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, seeking to injunct state legislation banning diversity, equity, and inclusion and critical race theories.
The lawsuit opens with a preliminary statement that,
Alabama’s history entails a devastating and violent history of racial discrimination against black communities in the United States, but it also chronicles a deep resolve to resist and eliminate racial discrimination through civil rights advocacy.
It goes on to state that, “Alabama served as the first capital of the Confederacy” and lists civil rights “acts of resistance” of which it avers that Alabama should be proud: “the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the March on Selma, Bloody Sunday, and the Birmingham Campaign organized by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership.”
In his book Taming the Storm: The Life and Times of Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. and the South’s Fight Over Civil Rights, Jack Bass uses similar language in his description of Montgomery, calling it “the cradle of the Confederacy” which later “emerged as the crucible of civil rights.”
That description—framing the civil rights movement as one forged in the South—summarizes the perspective of civil rights campaigners. They see civil rights legislation as testament to a proud legacy of fighting for racial justice in the aftermath of war and reconstruction.
Although some of its modern admirers have tried to reframe civil rights law as a universal platform promoting the liberal ideal of equal opportunities for people of all races, its legislative and judicial history tells a much more political story. It has always been understood, as depicted by the activists behind it—as a platform empowering federal authorities to create racial peace and harmony by fighting against “racists” whom they believe to lurk in the shadows of the old Confederacy.
When President Dwight D. Eisenhower introduced the Civil Rights Bill of 1957 his stated aim was to protect black voters in the South from being discriminated against in elections. It was believed that their states could not be relied upon to do so, as they were deemed to be under the control of “racists.” The bill created a civil rights division in the Justice Department to relocate the enforcement of voting rights violations from state to federal jurisdiction. The premise is that, unlike state legislatures, federal judges can be trusted to do the right thing.
A key role in the enforcement of civil rights in Alabama was played by Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., an Eisenhower appointee from Winston County. Judge Johnson has gone down in history for his rulings in the pivotal civil rights cases of the 1950s and 60s. Bass depicts Judge Johnson as “a ‘mountain Republican’ with Alabama forebears who fought for the Union in the Civil War.” His commitment to the national government, and to federal oversight of the states, was deeply rooted in the “Jacksonian philosophy” of Winston County.
Bass relates that, “For more than thirty-six years, Johnson kept a typed quotation from Abraham Lincoln under an unobtrusive glass paperweight on his courthouse desk” which inspired him to “do the very best I know how – the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end.” That a stalwart supporter of the Union and devotee of Lincoln would favor federal enforcement of racial integration is no surprise. It reflects a key plank of the Radical Republican platform of the post-war era.
Bass argues that, “Frank Johnson has emphatically acknowledged that the unique political history and cultural environment of Winston County helped mold his values and shape his life.” He quotes Johnson saying,
And the people up there [in Northwest Alabama] have been referred to in many instances as Jacksonian people, Jacksonian Democrats. I think that they envision themselves as adhering to the Andrew Jackson philosophy of government. . .the people that adhered to the Jackson philosophy had a fierce loyalty to the national government.
These were some of the people who fought in the 1st Alabama Cavalry, which was the only Union regiment with white men from Alabama. Bass quotes Johnson saying that they “did not want the state of Alabama to secede from the Union.”
Similar loyalty to national government can also be seen in the widespread cross-party support for the Civil Rights Bill 1957. The final version passed with a majority of 60-15. It was seen as a triumph for racial harmony, marking a revolution in racial attitudes and building on the Republican legacy of civil rights enforcement in the South. Republicans cast 37 of the supporting votes, the remaining 23 yea votes being primarily cast by Democrats from Northern states.
The same bipartisan support for protecting black voting rights can be seen in relation to the Voting Rights Act 1964. Proposed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, it was co-sponsored in the Senate by Democrats and Republicans. In the Senate the yea vote was 47 from the Democrats and 30 from Republicans. In the House, the yea vote was 221 from the Democrats and 112 from the Republicans.
The principle was one that appealed to a large cohort of both parties. It is still the case today that civil rights law is widely seen as non-partisan and supported by politicians of both parties. In proposing the 1957 Civil Rights Bill, the Republicans argued that,
. . .the right to vote is the cornerstone of our representative form of government. It is the one right, perhaps more than any other, upon which all other constitutional rights depend for their effective protection. It must be zealously safeguarded.
Then came the key words concerning the role of the federal government, a role said to follow from the provisions of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments:
The federal government has in the past and must in the future play a major role in protecting this essential right.
This provision, the reliance on “reconstruction” amendments to consolidate the role of the federal government in the conduct of elections in the Southern states, was cited by the Southern Democrats as their main reason for voting against the Civil Rights Bill in 1957. It also formed the basis of their subsequent opposition to the legislation that followed in 1964.
The 15 nay voters in 1957 were from the former Confederate States which had a long tradition of defending the sovereignty of states. The full states’ rights platform covers constitutional matters, concerning the balance between state and federal power, that are beyond the scope of this article, but on the specific question of voting rights, the states’ rights Democrats argued that control of voting and elections was constitutionally vested in the states and not in the federal authorities.
Northern Democrats who supported the civil rights bills had little sympathy for the states’ rights doctrine relied on by their Southern members, which was widely depicted in the media as mere subterfuge to mask racial animosities which they believed to prevail in the South. The concern was that no jury in the South would convict white men of voting rights violations and this role should, therefore, be vested in federal authorities.
In the wider context of the civil rights movement, the consolidation of federal power enjoyed cross-party support largely because federal power was seen as the only effective means of protecting the rights of racial minorities in the South. An increasingly-powerful federal government, which was seen in the South as “federal tyranny,” was seen outside the South as a price worth paying to create racial harmony.
The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was, in fact, a watered-down compromise. Many believed it ought to have gone much further in giving the federal authorities oversight of voting disputes. Eisenhower’s original bill had contained an even stronger role for federal enforcement of school desegregation, in addition to prosecution of voting rights violations.
It is a striking illustration of the belief, held by many people, that it is worth giving up more liberty to secure more equality. Even some liberals, in the tradition of Millian man, believe that federal tyranny is acceptable as long as it is promised to be strictly temporary.
In pursuit of such a salutary goal as racial equality, its proponents see limits on federal power as unmeritorious, at best. At worst, they view the defense of states’ rights as evidence of “something more poisonous,” as Time put it.
Although the 1957 bill was widely celebrated as a landmark on the path to racial harmony, it was described by the NAACP as merely “a small crumb from Congress.” They were just getting started. It is, therefore, no surprise that it was followed by further civil rights laws expanding the scope of federal enforcement, notably through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 whose implications for liberty have proved disastrous.
