Evaluate the leadership role of Martin Luther in the civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s

Martin Luther King is one of America’s most controversial figures. Contemporaries and historians were divided bitterly in their assessment of him. He was considered to be a Communist and a radical to some of the whites, an “Uncle Tom” to some of the blacks. Other contemporaries, black and white, admired him greatly. Martin Luther King can be seen as a great inspiration to the people involved in the Civil Rights movement. However, he was a moderate leader, whose organization skills were limited, and tactics which were sometimes neither successful nor admirable. Though the end result was often satisfactory to King’s cause, he was frequently led by others rather than leading them.
When comparing Martin Luther King with the other black leaders in the Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s, there are various reasons as to why Martin Luther King can be seen in a positive light. The leader that comes to mind is Malcolm X, who believed in black power. While black Muslims said only physical violence could defeat American Racism, Kind knew violence stood little chance against the military strength of the American government. While Malcolm X wanted separation from white supremacy, King wanted integration, which proved to be a more practical approach. Malcolm X’s extremist approach failed to bring about much change and influence, the Black Panthers having only 5000 members. However, for Martin Luther King’s I have a dream speech, about a quarter of a million turned up, showing his popularity and efficiency as a leader.
When compared to Malcolm X, Martin Luther King can come out in a negative aspect when looking at his leadership role in the 50’s and 60’s. Malcolm X’s radical approach gave the black people inspiration and the confidence to ask for their rights. Malcolm X refused to go down to the white people, which can be seen positively. King was often accused of deferring to white authority. Malcolm X, even with only a limited number of followers, can be said to be a better leader, in the sense that he had better organization skills than Martin Luther King. If King had some of Malcolm X’s attributes as a leader, much more could have been achieved in the civil rights movement.
The Montgomery Bus Boycott was the first instance that Martin Luther King was able to use his leadership qualities. The choice of Martin Luther King to “front” the protest proved to be prophetic. As a minister, King preached his non-violent political message at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery. As an outsider, a minister and as an effective speaker, Martin Luther King was able to forge links between different African American groups into the MIA. The Boycott’s success can be said to be a reflection of King’s ability as a leader.
King’s leadership role in the Montgomery Bus Boycott can be undermined in various aspects. Though the feeling developed that King was the focal point of the boycott, but King himself said “I just happened to be here…If M.L King had never been born this movement would have taken place…there comes a time when time itself is ready for change. That time has come in Montgomery, and I had nothing to do with it”. One local activist agreed, it was “a protest of the people…not a one-man show… the leaders couldn’t stop it if they wanted to”. It was the local NAACP activists that had started the protest, and they can be said to have led King rather than King leading them.
Martin Luther King was able to act as a leader again when he was elected President of SCLC in 1957. He acquired responsibility for masterminding a civil rights campaign in the south. He aimed to attract national attention to the segregation of America. He began by holding a march, the high point of which would be his eloquent exposition of black problems. He led a pilgrimage to Washington. He was the most popular speaker before a crowd of about 20 000 people outside the Lincoln Memorial, allowing his oratory and leadership qualities to shine.
SCLC brought out one of King’s greatest weaknesses, which damaged his role as a leader: organization. SCLC’s early disorganization and lack of inspiration seemed to prove that. One-off events such as marches were relatively easy to organize and gained maximum publicity for minimum work. Sustained local campaigns for specific gains proved more difficult. Poor organization and the lack of salaried staff and of mass support hampered SCLC’s ‘Crusade for Citizenship’, which aimed to encourage Southern blacks to vote.
King was brought forward as a leader again in the SNCC and the Sit Ins. It began in Greensboro, North Carolina. Four black college students spontaneously refused to leave the all-white Woolworth’s cafe when asked. Other students took up and retained the seats, day after day, forcing the cafeteria to close. The sit-ins spread across the South. King’s talk of non-violent protest might have been inspirational. Atlanta students begged King to join the in the sit-ins. With King’s leadership, the sit-ins brought some successes. Atlanta’s schools and stores were soon desegregated. Black students were more mobilized.
As with the Montgomery Bus Boycotts, King can be said to have been led rather than leading, throwing a negative light onto his role as a leader in the civil rights movement. King himself said ‘What is new in your fight is that it was initiated, fed, and sustained by students’. With the divisions that arose between the black organizations such as SCLC, SNCC and NAACP, blacks desperately needed a single leader who could unite all activists. King never managed to fulfill that role, but others such as Rob Wilkins were probably far more culpable than him.
Birmingham could be said to be the first time that King actually “led” the black people rather than being led himself. His initial aim was fulfilled, portraying him as an able leader. As King expected, Connor reacted appropriately to the mass action. His police and their dogs turned on black demonstrators. King defied an injunction and marched, knowing his arrest would gain national attention and perhaps inspire others. His wife Coretta called the President, who got King released. King mobilized marches again, and O Connor reacted with high pressure water hoses, which tore the clothes off student’s backs. The event was greatly publicized, exactly what King wanted. ‘There was never any more skillful manipulation of the news media than there was in Birmingham’ said a leading SCLC staffer. SCLC had shown America that Southern segregation was very unpleasant, which was far more important than the speed of desegregation in Birmingham stores. Extra donations poured into SCLC. The Kennedy administration admitted that Birmingham was crucial in persuading them to introduce civil rights legislation. ‘We are on the threshold of a significant breakthrough and the greatest weapon is mass demonstration’ said King. King had shown that he could lead from the front and gain change, but through rather artificially engineered violence which could lose him both popularity and credibility, were it to get out of hand.
King’s leadership role in Birmingham, which contributed greatly towards the civil rights movement, could be criticized in various ways. King made miscalculations. SCLC failed to recruit enough local demonstrators, because the local SCLC leader was unpopular. Many blacks felt the recent electoral defeat and imminent retirement of Connor made action unnecessary. King was aware that there was ‘tremendous resistance’ amongst blacks to his planned demonstrations. SCLC had to use demonstrators in areas where there were lots of blacks to give the impression of mass action and to encourage onlookers to participate. Despite considerable local opposition, SCLC enlisted black school children, though King himself questioned the morality of this action. It was only these students that gave SCLC the essential numerical support. When King gave a one day halt to the demonstrations, he infuriated a local black leader – ‘Well Martin, you know they said in Albany that you come in, get the people excited and started, and you leave town… Oh, you’ve got a press conference? I thought we were to make joint statements. Now Martin, you’re mister big but you’re soon to be mister nothing… You’re mister big, but you’re going to be mister s-h-i-t”.
The March in Washington in 1963 showed King the leader at his best in the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s. Marches were a favorite tactic of civil rights activists and Washington DC a favorite location. It aimed to encourage the passage of a civil rights bill and executive action to help blacks. The crowd was around a quarter of a million. A quarter of them were white. King’s memorable ‘I have a dream’ speech emotionally appealed to documents and beliefs enshrined by white American history, for example, the Declaration of Independence, with its ‘all men are created equal’ – “I have a dream that my four little children will one-day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.” Naturally, his speeches were virtual sermons, with appeals to the Bible and the typically black emphasis on the Old Testament God who freed his enslaved people. That appealed to America’s Christians and Jews of all colours. He uniquely and repeatedly tapped the emotional well springs of American history and culture in a way as to lead thoughtfully patriotic whites to conclude that King’s dreams of equality should be made into a reality.
The March on Washington reflected King’s weakness at organization again, undermining his role as a leader of the civil rights movement. The March revealed the problems and opportunities of inter organization co-operation. It would have been far more effective if all the black organizations participated. Roy Wilkins participated, but hesitantly. President Kennedy wasn’t supportive either. Their opposition worried King. King felt the march the march would maintain black morale and advertise the effectiveness of non – violent protest. ‘The negro is shedding himself of his fear’, he said, ‘and my real worry is how we will keep his fearlessness from rising to violent proportions’. He feared that non-violence was losing popularity.
King was able to fill the shoes of being leader again in Selma in 1965, one of the important events of the civil rights movement of the 50d and 60s. King announced that Selma had become a symbol of bitter-end resistance to the civil rights movement in the Deep South. It promised exploitable division within the white community. While some black activists feared that SCLC would ‘come into town and leave too early’ or ignore them, others said that as SNCC had lost its dynamism there it was an ideal opportunity for SCLC. Selma’s white officials could be trusted to act as brutally as Bull O Connor, which would result in a nation wide publicity and revitalize SCLC and the whole civil rights movement. The historian Stephen Oates described as ‘the movement’s finest hour’. King thought the nationwide criticism of ‘Bloody Sunday’ in Selma was a ‘shining moment in the conscience of a man’. There were sympathetic interracial marches in cities such as Chicago, Detroit, New York and Boston. Johnson and congress probably would have not delivered the Voting Rights Act without Selma. The positive outcomes of Selma allowed King to shine as a leader.
King himself admitted that he didn’t fulfill his role as a leader in Selma, which was essential to the Civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s. Selma didn’t prove to be as explosive as King expected. Although NAACP had been very supportive in the law courts, there were now black divisions. SNCC publicly criticized SCLC: All SCLC left behind was a ‘string of embittered cities’ such as in St Augustine, which were worse off than when SCLC first got there : SCLC just used people in those cities to make a point. Disgruntled St Augustine black activists claimed King and SCLC had ‘screwed them’. Selma’s activists felt betrayed by the SCLC’s withdrawal. SCLC had raised a great deal of money because Selma was in the headlines, then SCLC left and spent the money elsewhere. SNCC gleefully quoted an arrogant SCLC representative who said ‘They need us more than we need them. We can bring the press in with us and they can’t’. SNCC also accused SCLC of ‘leader worship’ of King.
In Chicago in 1966, King attempted to lead the SCLC, and he could have been said to fill the role properly for various reasons. King hoped he could demonstrate his leadership skills for the first time in the North, which he thought suffered from ‘bankruptcy of leadership’. King had the press following his moves in the ghettoes, allowing the American public to see the atrocities and their demeaning conditions. In one of his peaceful marches in the ghettoes, he got hit by a rock: this news made the national press. When the press asked him how he could justify the demonstrations that turned violent, King said that demonstrations might stop greater violence – “you’re asking us to give up the one thing that we have when you say ‘Don’t march’. We are being asked to stop one of our most precious rights, the right to assemble, the right to petition. We’re trying to keep the issue so alive that it will be acted on. Our marching feet have brought us a long way, and if we hadn’t marched, I don’t think we’d be here today.’ King managed to make Daley agree to promote integrated housing in Chicago.
Chicago saw Martin Luther King’s failure as a leader in the Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s. The New republic said ‘so far, King has been pretty much of a failure at organizing’. His achievement with the integrated housing was merely a ‘paper victory’. Most blacks remained stranded in the ghetto. Althought the SCLC obtained a $4 million federal grant to improve Chicago housing and left behind a significant legacy of community action, local blacks felt SCLC had ‘sold out’ and lapsed into apathy. An SCLC staffer in Chicago said the voter registration drive was a ‘nightmare’ largely because of the divisions in Negro leadership. Chicago’s race relations had always been poor, and King could be said to have had worsened the situation. Black hopes were raised and dashed. One of King’s closest admirers described the Chicago venture as a ‘fiasco’ and a ‘disaster’.
To conclude, Martin Luther King played a very important role in the civil rights movement. He was an inspiration to millions of people in America, as well as across the world, his “I have a dream” speech being a perfect example. His tactics of getting the media to notice the plight of the black people was excellent, and his effort in organizing all the marches and protests, especially staying in Chicago in the ghettoes is extremely admirable. However, as Ella Baker said, “the movement made Martin rather than Martin making the movement”. Most of the time, King was led rather than leading, as he was no great organizer. King played a greater role as a visionary and a unique inspiration, than he ever would as a leader in the civil rights movement.