[Dark_crow]

Could the civil right movement have succeeded without civil disobedience?

[RickJ]

In short: Absolutely. In my opinion.

[Dark_crow]

In short: Absolutely. Imho.

Then would you agree with William F. Buckley, Jr. that civil disobedience is an instrument of lawlessness and therefore object to it?

[tomder55]

Obviously it is speculative to say that . I do not believe that the civil rights movement would've gotten very far in the 1950's and 1960's without it . Perhaps as time goes on a gradual societal change would've evolved but there is nothing like revolution to jump start it . The non-violence movement is brilliant in it's concept . But the revolutionary must have justice and right on their side .

It is hard to argue with the effectiveness of civil disobedience in the 20th century. Gandhi ;MLK Jr. Desmund Tutu .It is much easier for the authorities to deal with window breakers and arsonists . Much tougher to deal with people getting in the way ;especially when the cameras are rolling .

I also think economic boycotts work real well also .

Buckley thought civil disobedience perfectly acceptable in some instances i.e. . Religious presecution.

Buckely in retrospect said that he got the civil rights movement partly wrong. He debated the leaders and intellectuals (like James Baldwin )of the movement during the heat of the moment and was more concerned with the inflamed passions then the cause .He was concerned the King movement would unleash forces that could not be controlled . In that aspect he was at least partially prophetic as the riots showed . At the time he favored gradualism .He argued that true empowerment could not be achieved through symbolism and gestures.

He later said he editorial position at National Review was a mistake and supported the creating of a day to honor MLK Jr.
But I blame a lot of the delay in civil rights directly on the Supreme Court ;which decided in 1896 Plessy v Ferguson that separate but equal is equal which was a poor interpretation of the 14th Amendment at best and helped stall the progress that blacks had made post-Civil War.I don't think it a coincidence that the civil rights movement gained traction around the same time that SCOTUS reversed Plessy .

[s_cianci]

I doubt it.

[excon]

Could the civil right movement have succeeded without civil disobedience?

Hello DC:

Nahhh. And, you can't establish a country by throwing a bunch of tea into the ocean, either...

Oops!

excon

[Fr_Chuck]

Civil disobedience, in what do you call this, Marches, protests, pickets, perhaps the "strike" for not riding busses.

MLK to me the best civil rights leader truly believed that change can happen though legal protests and though the court systems.

[tomder55]

When MLK Jr. was tossed into that Birmingham jail it was for disobeying what he thought was an unjust law.

[Dark_crow]

I agree Tom; MLK Jr. was concerned with unjust law. Thoreau on the other hand was an “individualist” who believed in the sovereignty of the individual and that they derived the legitimate power of civil order from its exercise; that, as Thomas Paine noted, sovereignty is a property of individual agents, not States. The legitimacy of a State is derived entirely from its people.

King was concerned with legislation declaring but not granting human rights; making distinction between just and unjust laws, and basing it on the conviction that there is a moral order in the universe by which human orders must be judged.

The point of civil disobedience is public discourse. It rarely has the effect of directly stopping the abuse toward which it is directed.

Obedience is the only relevant form of consent; to obey is to consent.

It appears to me that these two different strains of thought are yet today something being played out in American Politics. There is one group who would have it that the State must be held sovereign, while another group holds that it is the individual that must be held sovereign.

[excon]

There is one group who would have it that the State must be held sovereign, while another group holds that it is the individual that must be held sovereign.

Hello DC:

Well, since I read the Constitution, you can count me amongst the latter.

Wait! Don't tell me. You're a guy who thinks the state is sovereign. Aren't you a guy who supports the state spying on Americans?? And, Americans should just consent and keep their mouths shut? I think you do.

Well, it should come as no surprise to you that I'm a guy who thinks we should cut the phone lines of the companies who help the government violate our rights. That's disobedience, all right.

excon

[George_1950]

As I recall, and research would verify, violence followed closely wherever MLK held his lawful protests. When he got to the end of the parade route, he jumped in a limo and away; fires and lawlessness were close behind.

[ordinaryguy]

There is one group who would have it that the State must be held sovereign, while another group holds that it is the individual that must be held sovereign.

Guess which group is the Bush-Cheney-neocon cabal is in. Does their disobedience of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and disregard of international treaty obligations qualify as "civil" disobedience?

[George_1950]

They hold government positions and, as such, have a presumption that their actions are legal. Why don't you just go out there and prove that the "Bush-Cheney-neocon cabal" is disobeying a law, and not simply acting in defiance of your opinion? The lib/fascists have controlled Congress for 14 months; what have you come up with?

[excon]

As I recall, and research would verify, violence followed closely wherever MLK held his lawful protests. When he got to the end of the parade route, he jumped in a limo and away; fires and lawlessness were close behind.

Hello George:

I don't know what kind of research you did. But the research I did shows that the violence was done BY the COPS - DURING his marches - not after them.

See for yourself: YouTube - Bridge to Freedom

excon

[Dark_crow]

It's clear from some of the responses I've received that some of you simply do not understand what civil disobedience means. There is a difference between Private disobedience and its limits in public effect, and civil disobedience. American prisons are full of people who have committed crimes, and to confuse that with civil disobedience is simply silly.

Civil disobedience is more like the 1971 May Day traffic blocking in Washington, D.C. in which 13,000 people were arrested, or the 1963 March on Washington, which drew 250,000 participants.


But to cast yourself as performing civil disobedience because you read the constitution, or voice that we should cut the phone lines of the companies who help the government violate our rights, or to disregard international treaty obligations is pathetic.

Apathy in the face of injustice is a form of violence. Struggle and conflict are often necessary to correct injustice

[ordinaryguy]

They hold government positions and, as such, have a presumption that their actions are legal.

Yes, they presume that whatever they want to do is legal. Presumptuous is a good word for it.

Why don't you just go out there and prove that the "Bush-Cheney-neocon cabal" is disobeying a law, and not simply acting in defiance of your opinion?

The law says that the Government may not eavesdrop on communications within the US without first obtaining a warrant from the FISA court. They have decided that they don't have to obey the law. Pretty simple, really.

The lib/fascists have controlled Congress for 14 months; what have you come up with?

"Lib/fascists"? The Democrats won their razor-thin majority in Congress fair and square in democratic elections. What they've "come up with" is a string of Presidential vetoes, sustained by the Republican enablers.

[BABRAM]

When MLK Jr. was tossed into that Birmingham jail it was for disobeying what he thought was an unjust law.

A country that in part historically favored slavery, not permitting Blacks to drink from public drinking fountains, and was concerned with seating arrangements on buses, and had laws on books that were skewed to favor Caucasian interests. Can we all say that we would had spent time alongside MLK Jr for his effort to bring equality to the forefront of American minds? For myself, "yes." It would had been a necessity and honor.

[Fr_Chuck]

A country that in part historically favored slavery, not permitting Blacks to drink from public drinking fountains, and was concerned with seating arrangements on buses, and had laws on books that were skewed to favor Caucasian interests. Can we all say that we would had spent time alongside MLK Jr for his effort to bring in equality to the forefront of American minds? For myself, it would had been an honor and necessity.

I can remember as a younger boy some "unrest" parts of Florida and in
Jr High and High school I can remember several times out school buses having stones and other objects thrown at them. After my move to Atlanta a few years ago, before her death I had the wonderful honor to be a body guard for Mrs King on a few occasions. During my time in Atlanta I followed and visited many of the places where Dr King held meetings and got his hair cut and talked and more. So much of his work has been a real influence on my life.

[BABRAM]

I can remember as a younger boy some "unrest" parts of Florida and in
Jr High and High school I can remember several times out school buses having stones and other objects thrown at them. After my move to Atlanta a few years ago, before her death I had the wonderful honor to be a body guard for Mrs King on a few occassions. During my time in Atlanta I followed and visited many of the places where Dr King held meetings and got his hair cut and talked and more. So much of his work has been a real influence on my life.

G-d bless you.

[George_1950]

How ugly and immoral did it get, or is it still? "Sept. 24, 1965: Asserting that civil rights laws alone are not enough to remedy discrimination, President Johnson issues Executive Order 11246, which enforces affirmative action for the first time. It requires government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment."
He should have been impeached, but fell on his own sword with the Vietnam fiasco.