Discrimination against Black Americans

Discrimination

Racism in America has long been a source of contention. The impact of slavery and subsequent segregation of the races led to a great deal of discrimination against Black Americans. The purpose of this discussion is to provide a literature review on the subject of discrimination against Blacks and the laws that have been introduced to eliminate such discrimination.

Civil Rights Act of 1866

When most people think of the Civil Rights Act, they think of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; however, the Civil rights Act of 1866 was the foundation for the Civil Rights Act that would become law nearly a century later. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 also laid the groundwork for the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 came about in the wake of the civil war won by the Union forces. In an effort to unify the country and lessen discrimination against Blacks the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was proposed. According to Paulson (1997), the congressional Republicans presented an answer to the proposed Civil Rights Act. The republican spoke through the Senate judiciary committee in doing so they first addressed the issue of the status of the former slaves in light of the 1857 Dred Scott case in which the Supreme Court had denied their status as citizens. Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act defined citizenship as applying to anyone who was native born or naturalized. Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois clarified during the debate in the Senate that this definition included all native-born blacks, Indians who had left their treaty nation reservations and who paid taxes, and children born of Chinese parents who were resident in the United States. Section 1 declared that citizens "of every race" ought to have the same rights as those "enjoyed by white citizens." What were some of these rights that the authors of the bill believed were fundamental to citizenship? They included the right to make contracts, to sue and to give evidence in court, to own and sell real and personal property, to enjoy the security of person and property, and to be subject to the same punishment or penalty as anyone else convicted of a similar crime (Paulson 1997)."

The second and third sections of the Civil rights Act of 1866 address the legal aspects of protecting equal rights (Paulson 1997). The first aspect of the Act was legal means to protect rights through a presumption of federal judicial supremacy (Paulson 1997). The second section of the Act asserted that anyone who, through law or custom, deprived another person of the rights declared in the law because of race, color, previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude would be guilty of a misdemeanor and, if convicted, subject to a $1,000 fine and/or one year in jail (Paulson 1997).

In addition, the third section of the Act authorized federal courts to have jurisdiction suits and cases brought in state courts upon motion of the defendant (Paulson 1997). The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was important because if gave the federal government and the states the responsibility of protecting the civil rights of all American Citizens (Paulson 1997). In addition, the Act put the Southern states on alert that if they failed to protect the civil rights of citizens, the federal courts would uphold these rights (Paulson 1997). According to Paulson the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was approved by Congress with the endorsement of all but three Republicans. Paulson (1997) asserts that President Johnson, citing states'-rights doctrines and fear of excessive federal power, vetoed the bill. He had earlier vetoed a revised Freedmen's Bureau Act on similar grounds. On 9 April 1866 the congressional Republicans rallied the necessary votes to override the presidential veto; shortly thereafter they overrode the veto of the Freedmen's Bureau Act (Paulson 1997)."

Paulson goes on to state that the presidential vetoes and the overall message sent by President Johnson persuaded republicans that a constitutional amendment would be the only way to ensure the civil rights of White Unionists and Black freedmen living in the South. Furthermore, they thought the amendment was necessary to avoid a future Democratic-controlled Congress from abolishing the Civil Rights Act or other important wartime legislation. The result of these efforts was the fourteenth amendment, which the author describes as complex, disingenuous and using ambiguous language. The amendment asserts, that all persons born or naturalized in the United States were citizens of both the national and state governments. It prohibited the states from abridging their "privileges or immunities," depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law," or denying them "equal protection of the laws." The question of the number of Southern representatives in Congress was approached cautiously by the Republicans. Rather than requiring black suffrage in the South, Section 2 provided that if the right to vote was denied "to any of the male inhabitants" of the state (i.e. black freedmen), then its representation in Congress would be reduced proportionally. Section 3 disqualified from public office most former Confederate officeholders but provided a mechanism for congressional pardons. Section 4 invalidated the Confederate war debt, guaranteed the validity of the Union war debt, and barred any compensation for emancipated slaves (Paulson 1997)."

Indeed the Civil rights Act of 1866 was important although it was often ignored. The act was the stepping-stone for the laws suits that followed which pertained to civil Rights. In addition, it spawned the 14th amendment to the constitution, which later challenged the constitutionality of racial segregation in schools and other public facilities, which led to the decision in Brown vs. The Board of Education and the civil rights movement.

Racial zoning laws

Racism in America extended to all facets of society. One of the most prominent issues has been racial zoning laws. Such laws dictated that there were certain areas where Black citizen could not live and encouraged the segregation of Americans along racial lines. The use of racial zoning laws were enforced keep Blacks out of White areas. According to Kennedy, many states restricted residential zoning based on race. The author asserts municipal laws determined residential zoning and were often supported by state laws (Kennedy). The author asserts that the municipal laws reserved sections of a city for the limited habitation of whites (Kennedy). In addition, these laws regulated that all other citizens live in other undesirable areas of the city (Kennedy). The author also provides an excerpt of the Virginia statute, created in 1912, which was as follows:

The map so prepared and certified and corrected shall be prima facie evidence of the boundaries and racial designation of such districts.... Nothing contained herein shall preclude persons of either race employed as servants by person of the other race from residing upon the premises of which said employer is the owner or occupier (Kennedy)."

Eventually such laws were abolished but discriminatory housing practices continued; whether through carefully worded laws or through racial intimidation. Neighborhood remained segregated for many years to come.

The New Deal and federal government discriminatory housing polices

The New Deal was an economic, social and political plan that was brought about by the great depression and created by President Roosevelt. The New Deal reformed the Banking system by making it more secure and led to better regulation of the banking system (Himmelberg 2001). In the creation of this policy there was a first new deal and a second new deal. The first new deal depended on two key programs, the NRA and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (Himmelberg 2001). These programs were based on the idea that the market economy was futile and was unable of to restore wealth to industry and agriculture (Himmelberg 2001). The author explains that these programs represented, to some extent, experiments with a form of economic planning, the notion that economic stability and prosperity could be achieved by regulating production. By 1935 the NRA had attracted much criticism, and the Supreme Court in any case early in 1935 declared it unconstitutional, making government-regulated planning for industry across the board appear a less viable option than previously. For this reason, but more importantly because of the pressures for new directions that were building up among the people, the emphasis of the Second New Deal would be different from its predecessor (Himmelberg 2001)."

The emphasis of the Second new deal was to encourage direct improvement of the security and income of the unemployed, the elderly, the dependent and blue-collar workers (Himmelberg 2001). The New Deal allowed states to issue and Dole to the unemployed, eventually the amount of money received by the unemployed was increased and more jobs were provided at a reasonable rate (Himmelberg 2001). In addition, the Second New Deal included work relief and support for labor unions. The second New Deal also involved included the Wagner Act, and the social Security Act (Himmelberg 2001).

Discriminatory housing practices after the new deal that were endorsed by the federal government became known as exclusionary zoning. This type of zoning began to be enforced because of integration, which many Americans were opposed to. In recent years, the idea of exclusionary zoning still lingers as a topic of debate. This is not only an issue of race but also an issue of affordable housing for low income workers.

According to Sternlieb (1973)

Exclusionary zoning and subdivision control in the suburbs as a means of preserving the community status quo and of avoiding certain types of residential growth have been the focus of recent discussions and criticisms. Such land-use controls in conjunction with rising construction costs are seen as substantially reducing the availability of low and moderate income housing in the areas of suburban employment growth. A locality may effect prohibitive minimum price levels for new residential development by zoning its undeveloped lands for predominately single-family homes with requirements for large lots, large frontages, and large livable floor areas to the exclusion of multifamily units and mobile homes. The impact of such zoning policies falls most heavily upon racial minorities since their ranks are proportionately greater than whites among low and moderate income households (Sternlieb 1973)."

According to Pendall (2000), there are many reasons why racial segregation exists in neighborhoods. These reasons include institutionalized racism in both the private and public sectors (Pendall 2000). The author asserts that land use controls, is the primary way local institutions have created exclusionary zoning. The author explains that zoning was originally designed to segregate minorities from non-Hispanic Whites (Pendall 2000).

Zoning, for example, was invented in part to keep minorities away from non-Hispanic Whites (Pendall 2000). The author explains that Even after racial zoning was found to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, large-lot zoning and other land use controls with the potential to exclude racial minorities remained available to municipalities throughout the United States, often as a very thin cover for racial bias. Not until the 1970s did state legislatures and courts in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California begin to restrain these exclusionary practices. In the same decade, the first of more than a dozen state legislatures began to enact new measures to coordinate and require local planning for growth management (Pendall 2000).

Although exclusionary practices are prohibited those seeking to continue, discriminatory practices have done so with predatory lending or the redlining of black neighborhoods as credit risk. In recent years, there has been a great deal of discussion concerning predatory lending. According to an article entitled "The Prosecution Won't Rest: Washington Law Group Fights Housing Discrimination" predatory lending and housing discrimination has persisted in spite of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (Jackson 2002). The author asserts that the predatory lending attempts to impose higher interests rate on Black people attempting to purchase homes. These lending organizations also redline black neighborhoods and establish them as high credit risk areas. Doing so enables lenders to charge people buying homes in these areas higher interest rates on their loans.

Federal Policy after WWII

After World War II and prior to the Civil Rights movement, there was a great deal of hostility in the country (a Brief History). The migration of people to the suburbs increased and discrimination followed (a Brief History). One of the most controversial developments was Levittown, which encouraged discrimination against Blacks. Levittown was the brainchild of Abraham Levitt a real estate lawyer (a Brief History). Levitt was also involved in, real estate investment, purchasing land and selling it to developers during the 1920s (a Brief History). In the 1930's during the Great Depression the developers of the Rockville Centre property could no longer make the payments on the land as a result Levitt had complete the development of the land himself.

Since Levitt had no experience with this aspect of real estate he commissioned who two sons to assist him (a Brief History).

The three of them formed Levitt & Sons and completed the project (a Brief History).

After the success of this project, the team continued to purchase land and develop home sites throughout the Depression (a Brief History).

Eventually, after World War II they were awarded a military contract and perfected a method of constructing homes quickly, which was later used in the construction of Levittown (a Brief History). The Levitts ability to build was unique because Not only did the Levitts own their own forests and make their own concrete, but they paid their workers above average wages to avoid unionization and flouted standard union rules -- such as those against spray painting -- to finish the homes faster. Yet their employees never worked more than a five-day week. At its building peak, onlookers at Levittown often saw more than 30 houses a day going up. In four years 17,447 houses appeared on the Long Island potato field. Originally designed for rental to veterans at $60 a month with an option to buy, the houses became a steal starting at $6,990 because longterm government mortgage guarantees made buying even cheaper than renting. People lined up to put $90 down payments on the original models the way they would for tickets to rock concerts or sporting events in the future (Kaledin, 2000)."

Another historical fact about the Levittown communities is the racist policies that governed them. According to Reed (1999) in the 1949 case of Shelly v. Kraemer, the Supreme Court decided that racial restrictive covenants could not be enforced in U.S. courts (Reed 1999).

As a response to this decision, the FHA reformed its policies, through its manuals and booklets (Reed 1999). In addition, in 1950, the organization republished its Underwriting Manual and made certain that it no longer overtly recommended racial segregation or restrictive covenants (Reed 1999). However, by this time Levitt and Sons was the largest developer in the east and when they built the Levittown development outside of Philadelphia restrictive covenants were attached to deeds even though, unlike Nichols's Country Club development, Levittown was designed for ordinary middle-class families. Deed restrictions could no longer be legally enforced, but this proved to be inconsequential; the Levitt firm simply refused to show houses or to accept applications from blacks. William Levitt argued that economic realities required him to recognize that "most whites prefer not to live in mixed communities."

In 1960, not a single black family lived among Levittown's eighty-two thousand residents (Reed 1999)."

Events leading to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968

The decision handed down in the case of Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) was just one of the sparks that led to the civil rights movement, which eventually resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1968. According to Klarman (2004), this case was the most pivotal in the nation's history. Prior to the passage of the Act, there were many protests, marches, sit-ins and boycotts. The most significant boycott was the Montgomery Bus Boycott. According to Klarman (2004) the boy was important because demonstrated black agency, resolve, courage, resourcefulness, and leadership. The boycott revealed the power of nonviolent protest, deprived southern whites of their illusions that blacks were satisfied with the racial status quo, challenged other southern blacks to match the efforts of those in Montgomery, and enlightened millions of whites around the nation and the world about Jim Crow. A less satisfactory outcome would have been disappointing to Montgomery blacks, but it hardly would have negated, or even greatly tarnished, the momentous accomplishments of the movement (Klarman 2004)."

In addition, the author asserts that in the wake of the Bus boycott there were many other direct action protests throughout the south. One such protests took place on February, 1 1960, when four black college students in Greensboro, North Carolina protested at a segregated lunch counter in the Woolworth's drugstore through a sit in (Klarman 2004). One NAACP observer called it the "the most inspiring, and most dramatic appeals for citizenship of anything I have seen in all my 49 years (Klarman 2004)."

This type of protest was covered by national news outlets and spawn similar sit ins throughout the country and they were also encouraged by many northern politicians and President Eisenhower.

In addition, northern supporters raised funds to get protestors out of jail and also held their own sympathy protest (Klarman 2004).

The author asserts that during the next year young Black people and sympathetic whites "stood in" at movie theaters; "kneeled in" at churches; and "waded in" at beaches. All told, an estimated 70,000 people participated in such demonstrations, and roughly 4,000 were arrested. More than a hundred southern localities desegregated some public accommodations as a result (Klarman 2004)."

In addition to these protest there were also the freedom riders in the spring of 1961 (Klarman 2004). These individuals traveled on buses in the South to implement a Supreme Court decision outlawing segregation at interstate bus terminals (Klarman 2004). This was a pivotal part of the movement because the first freedom riders were beaten severely when they attempted to drive through the cities of Montgomery and Birmingham Alabama (Klarman 2004). In addition, the second set of freedom fighters were thrown into jail in Mississippi. The Freedom Riders were protesting on behalf of the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) and rose able to a great deal of funding (Klarman 2004).

These peaceful demonstrations and the subsequent beatings by the police were broadcasts around the nation (Klarman 2004). Whites in the north were very disturbed for what they saw and support of the movement increased (Klarman 2004).

Other aspect of the movement included mass demonstrations against segregation in Albany, Georgia sponsored by the SCLC in 1961 (Klarman 2004). In addition, other groups such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) coordinated projects to register black voters in some of the more racist areas of Mississippi (Klarman 2004).

The author reports that by the spring of 1963, "massive street demonstrations by blacks in Birmingham, Alabama, resulted in hundreds of arrests and produced televised scenes of violence by law enforcement officers against peaceful demonstrators that sickened northern audiences and impelled national politicians to support landmark civil rights legislation. In the months after Birmingham, spin-off demonstrations occurred in hundreds of southern cities and towns; more than 100,000 people participated, and nearly 15,000 were arrested (Klarman 2004)."