Repression, the Judicial System, and Political Opportunities for Civil Rights Advocacy During Reconstruction

Abstract

Contemporary research on the modern civil rights movement stresses the importance of a triad pattern of civil rights protest, white violence, and federal intervention. We explore the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in constraining federal intervention in response to white supremacist violence during Reconstruction. We conclude that Supreme Court decisions played an important role in defeating the Reconstruction‐era civil rights movement by minimizing the likely benefits to be gained from civil rights advocacy. Future scholarship should further examine the impact of federal court decisions on the political opportunity structure facing social movements.

Legal opportunity structure and social movement strategy in Northern Ireland and southern United States

“…Until recently, research on contentious politics overlooked the significance of legal systems for processes of social and political mobilization (Barnes and Connolly, 1999;McCann, 2006). However, law can be a valuable ally for a movement's cause, strategy and objectives, as it represents 'a unique type of symbolic resource; it is not only a means by which movement can, by appealing to deeply resonant legal symbols, garner legitimacy and support for the movement.…”

“…Kitschelt, 1986; see also Meyer, 2004;Meyer and Minkoff, 2004). 2 Unfortunately, the structure and features of the judicial system are rarely considered a relevant component in the development of movement strategies (Barnes and Connolly, 1999;Pedriana, 2004). Legal opportunities are only occasionally mentioned as a factor in the elaboration of movement tactical choices (e.g.…”

“…This judicial view maintained that 'neither the Fourteenth nor the Fifteenth Amendments conferred upon the federal government the constitutional authority to enforce directly the civil and political rights of citizens' (Barnes and Connolly, 1999: 336). The Supreme Court's tendency to favor state's rights critically undercut the federal government's attempts to implement civil rights legislation, letting state courts decide on cases of racist white violence (Barnes and Connolly, 1999). In the South, this ensured virtual impunity to white segregationist violence against African American activism for civil rights (Barnes and Connolly, 1999).…”

“…The Supreme Court's tendency to favor state's rights critically undercut the federal government's attempts to implement civil rights legislation, letting state courts decide on cases of racist white violence (Barnes and Connolly, 1999). In the South, this ensured virtual impunity to white segregationist violence against African American activism for civil rights (Barnes and Connolly, 1999).…”