AP Syllabus focus:
‘Continuing resistance slowed desegregation and sparked social and political unrest, shaping national debates over civil rights and order.’
The Persistence of Southern Resistance
Despite federal civil rights victo
ries, many Southern officials actively resisted desegregation. These efforts aimed to preserve racial hierarchy and delay or undermine the implementation of federal mandates. Local officials argued for states’ rights and criticised federal intervention, while simultaneously designing new measures to circumvent court rulings and legislative reforms.
Methods of Obstruction
Resistance took multiple forms across the South, reflecting both official policy and informal practices. Common methods included:
Massive resistance strategies, such as school closures to avoid integration
Use of local police forces to intimidate or arrest civil rights activists
Administrative delays in processing desegregation plans
Economic pressure on African Americans supporting integration
Massive Resistance: A coordinated political strategy used by Southern leaders in the 1950s and 1960s to oppose school desegregation through legislation, delays, or closure of public schools.
These tactics demonstrated how deeply entrenched segregation remained, even after landmark federal legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Southern officials and white citizens’ groups organized massive resistance campaigns to block or delay desegregation and civil rights enforcement.
This photograph depicts white protesters rallying at the Arkansas State Capitol in 1959 to oppose the integration of Central High School. It illustrates the public mobilisation behind massive resistance campaigns, which continued into the 1960s. The image includes broader contextual details not covered in the notes but directly visualises white resistance to desegregation. Source.
Political Backlash Beyond the South
Resistance to desegregation was not confined to the South. In northern and western cities, many white residents opposed residential integration, school busing, and expanding civil rights protections. This backlash helped reshape national political alignments and influenced debates about federal authority.
Suburban Opposition and the Debate over “Law and Order”
The growth of postwar suburbs brought new political dynamics. Many white suburban residents framed civil rights reforms as threats to neighbourhood stability or property values. Politicians capitalised on these anxieties by promoting “law and order” rhetoric, which portrayed civil rights demonstrations and urban unrest as evidence of social breakdown.
Media coverage of protests, counter-protests, and confrontations with police contributed to widening divisions over race, public safety, and the appropriate limits of federal intervention. These debates set the stage for major political realignments as the decade progressed.
The Roots of Urban Unrest
During the mid-1960s, several American cities experienced outbreaks of violent unrest. These events reflected long-standing frustrations within African American communities, where legal advances often failed to translate into economic or social equality. Urban unrest highlighted the persistent gap between civil rights legislation and lived experience.
Structural Inequality in Urban Centres
African Americans living in northern and western cities faced:
Employment discrimination limiting access to stable jobs
Housing segregation reinforced by redlining and discriminatory lending
Over-policing and police brutality, particularly in majority-Black neighbourhoods
Underfunded schools and deteriorating urban infrastructure
These conditions undermined the promise of equal citizenship, revealing that legal desegregation alone could not address systemic inequities.
One visible result was a series of major urban uprisings, including the Watts (1965), Newark (1967), and Detroit (1967) riots.
This aerial photograph shows buildings burning during the 1965 Watts uprising in Los Angeles. The scale of destruction highlights the depth of frustration over policing, unemployment, and segregation in urban communities. Although it focuses specifically on Watts, similar uprisings occurred across the nation during the mid-1960s. Source.
The Major Urban Uprisings
Between 1964 and 1968, several cities—including Harlem, Watts, Newark, and Detroit—saw explosive uprisings. While specific triggers varied, many involved confrontations with police followed by large-scale protests, property damage, and National Guard intervention.
The Watts Uprising of 1965
One of the most significant early uprisings occurred in Watts, Los Angeles, following a violent arrest during a traffic stop. The unrest lasted several days and resulted in dozens of deaths, thousands of arrests, and widespread property destruction.
Watts illustrated how racial inequality persisted outside the segregated South. It also showed how marginalised communities viewed police forces as agents of oppression rather than protectors of public safety.
National Responses and the Kerner Commission
Growing unrest led federal officials to investigate the underlying causes of urban violence. In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson established the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, commonly known as the Kerner Commission, to study the uprisings and recommend policy responses.
Findings of the Kerner Commission
The Commission concluded that the United States was moving toward “two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal.” It attributed urban unrest primarily to structural racism, inadequate economic opportunities, and police misconduct.
This photograph shows President Lyndon B. Johnson meeting with members of the Kerner Commission in 1967. The image reflects federal attempts to analyse and respond to the causes of urban unrest. Although it does not depict the uprisings themselves, it captures the national significance of the Commission’s findings. Source.
Its recommendations included:
Expanding social welfare programmes to reduce poverty
Improving police-community relations
Investing in housing and education in urban neighbourhoods
Combating discrimination in employment and public services
While the report was widely praised for its clarity, many of its recommendations were not implemented due to political resistance and competing national priorities.
Backlash, Politics, and the Shift in Public Opinion
As urban unrest intensified, segments of the American public grew increasingly sceptical of civil rights activism. Politicians seized upon these tensions to appeal to voters concerned about social disorder, contributing to major political shifts.
Rise of the “Silent Majority”
Political figures such as Richard Nixon argued that demonstrations and uprisings reflected a broader breakdown in social norms. They positioned themselves as defenders of stability, appealing to voters who felt threatened by rapid cultural and political change.
This backlash ultimately reshaped national debates, influencing elections and public policy while slowing momentum for additional civil rights reforms.
FAQ
The Commission argued that racial inequality—not individual behaviour—was the primary cause of urban unrest. This contradicted narratives that blamed protestors or “outside agitators.”
Its call for massive federal investment in jobs, housing, and education ran counter to growing public and political demands for stricter law-and-order policies.
Although these regions lacked explicit segregation statutes, African Americans often faced entrenched discrimination in housing, policing, and employment. Informal practices such as redlining and workplace exclusion limited upward mobility.
These inequalities created conditions similar to those in the South, contributing to frustration when legal civil rights gains did not improve daily life.
In many cities, African Americans viewed police forces as instruments of racial control rather than protectors. Harsh patrol practices, discriminatory arrests, and lack of accountability deepened mistrust.
Confrontations between residents and police frequently served as immediate triggers for unrest, even when deeper structural issues were the underlying cause.
Young African Americans often faced the sharpest effects of unemployment, inadequate schooling, and limited housing.
Youth participation was shaped by:
Higher exposure to police surveillance
Few economic opportunities
A sense that peaceful protest was insufficient to prompt change
Their actions reflected generational frustration with slow-moving reforms.
Television coverage emphasised fires, looting, and confrontations, shaping public perceptions of disorder. Many viewers struggled to connect these images to systemic inequality.
As a result, some Americans sympathised with civil rights aims but feared the social instability they associated with urban violence.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (1–3 marks)
Identify one factor that contributed to urban unrest in the mid-1960s and briefly explain how it fuelled tensions in African American communities.
Question 1 (1–3 marks)
1 mark for identifying a relevant factor (e.g., discriminatory policing, housing segregation, unemployment, underfunded schools, economic inequality).
1 mark for explaining how the factor contributed to frustration or inequality.
1 mark for linking the factor to increased tensions or likelihood of unrest.
Question 2 (4–6 marks)
Analyse how resistance to desegregation and the rise of political backlash in the 1960s influenced national debates about civil rights and public order. In your answer, refer to specific examples such as massive resistance, Watts, or the Kerner Commission.
Question 2 (4–6 marks)
Award marks as follows:
Up to 2 marks for describing forms of resistance or backlash (e.g., massive resistance, “law and order” rhetoric, white suburban opposition).
Up to 2 marks for explaining how unrest in places like Watts or Newark shaped public perceptions of civil rights activism.
Up to 2 marks for analysing how national responses (e.g., Kerner Commission findings, political realignments) influenced debates about civil rights and public order.
Higher-scoring answers should use specific evidence and show clear linkage between backlash, unrest, and shifting political discourse.
