The Churches and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Author(S): James F

Religion and Politics in the Sixties: The Churches and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Author(s): James F. Findlay Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of American History, Vol. 77, No. 1 (Jun., 1990), pp. 66-92 Published by: Organization of American Historians Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2078639 . Accessed: 27/09/2012 13:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Organization of American Historians is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of American History.

http://www.jstor.org Religionand Politicsin the Sixties: The Churchesand the Civil RightsAct of 1964

JamesF. Findlay

On June19, 1963,John E Kennedyintroduced into Congress his firstmajor piece of civilrights legislation. Slightly more than a yearlater a strengthenedversion of thebill passed Congress as theCivil Rights Act of 1964.That landmark law marked the dramaticentry into nationalpolitics of the "secondReconstruction" in civil rights.As theystruggled over the bill, politicianson CapitolHill recognizedthat the Americanchurches were playing an unusualand importantrole in the efforts to pass the legislation.Hubert Humphrey,the floormanager of the bill in the Senate,ultimately felt that the churches were "the most important force at work." Humphrey'scolleague from Georgia, Richard Russell, essentially concurred, even as he acidlycommented that in supportingcivil rights "men of thecloth" had applied a "philosophyof coercion"similar to the "doctrinethat dictated the actsof Torquemadain the infamousdays of the Inquisition."1 The directcommitment of thechurches in 1963 and 1964to thenational racial strugglewas both a returnto the activismof the earlytwentieth-century Social Gospeland somethingof a newdeparture. Indeed, throughout our nation's history religiouspeople often had participatedactively in thepolitical struggle - overissues ofwar and peace beginningin thecolonial era, over the slavery question in thenine- teenthcentury, over Prohibition in the 1920s. Since the twenties,however, the churcheshad tendedto avoidlarge political agendas. Although liberal Protestant leaderslike ReinholdNiebuhr expressed vigorous views on public issues,official churchbodies, affected by the widespread uncertainties associated with the depres- sionand WorldWar II and bythe conformity ofthe early Cold Waryears, were reluc- tant to get directlyinvolved in politics.The deep commitmentof the mainline churchesto the racialstruggle in 1963 ended all that,reviving the Social Gospel

JamesF. Findlayis professorof history at theUniversity of Rhode Island. He thanksthe following people fortheir commentsand criticism:David Thelen,Susan Armeny,Norman Zucker, Richard Taylor, James Patterson, James Cone, and severalanonymous reviewers for theJournal of American History. He also thanksthe LillyEndowment foressential financial support.

I NationalObserver, July 13, 1964,p. 1; New YorkTimes, June 19, 1964,pp. 1, 16; CongressionalRecord, 88 Cong.,2 sess.,June 18, 1964,p. 14300.For an exampleof reporters' commentary about thechurches' involvement, see New YorkTimes, Feb. 23, 1964,sec. 4, p. 10. See also ChristianCentury, Sept. 11, 1963,pp. 1094-95. Churchesand theCivil Rights Act of 1964 67 traditionthat demanded the church demonstrate its faith by active concern for the poor and the dispossessed.2

At thecenter of thechurches' efforts to supportthe Civil Rights Act of 1964stood theNational Council of Churches(NCC). Establishedin 1950,the NCC absorbed intoits capacious bureaucratic house the Federal Council of Churches, the principal Protestantecumenical body of the earlytwentieth century and a majoradvocate of theSocial Gospel. The NCC wasalways seen as a principalinheritor of the tradition of social activismthat had animatedliberal Protestantism in its earlydays.3 Thus in the 1950s,supporters of the NCC tendedto sympathizewith public efforts for greaterequality. As the "ecumenical"racial revolution, cutting across all religious boundaries,gathered momentum in the late fiftiesand earlysixties, it was all but inevitablethat the NationalCouncil of Churcheswould get involved. The changingattitude of the National Council toward racial matters in theearly sixtiessymbolized the growing involvement of the mainline churches in themush- roomingcivil rights struggle. Since its inception in 1950the council had frequently issuedpublic pronouncementsagainst racial discrimination, and fromthe outset it also includeda Departmentof Racial and CulturalRelations headed bya black clergyman,J. OscarLee. But too oftenthe council's work on racerelations justified the summaryof an African-Americancritic: "race relations Sundays, prayer days, brotherhoodpronouncements, conferences, seminars, workshops, statements, and resolutions . . . [in which] action was too often another matter."4

2 Scholarshave disagreed about theimportance of racialissues to proponentsof the Social Gospel. See David Reimers,White Protestantism and the Negro(New York,1965), 53-54; and Ronald C. White,Jr., Liberty and Justicefor All: RacialReform and the Social Gospel (San Francisco,1990). There is no systematichistorical treatmentof the churches in Americanlife from the 1930sto the 1960s,but see SydneyE. Ahlstrom,A ReligiousHistory ofthe American People (New Haven, 1972), 1055-96;Robert Wuthnow, The Restructuring ofAmerican Religion: Societyand Faithsince WorldWar II (Princeton,1988); RichardW. Fox,Reinhold Niebuhr: A Biography(New York,1985); RobertBooth Fowler, Religion and Politicsin America(Metuchen, 1985), 26-45, 77-110,140-66, 293-316;Robert M. Miller,Harry Emerson Fosdick: Preacher, Pastor, Prophet (New York,1985); RobertT Handy, A Historyof UnionTheological Seminary in New York(New York,1987), 159-314.For further comments on the Social Gospel, see Donald Gorell, The Age of Social Responsibility:The Social Gospel in the ProgressiveEra, 1900-1920(Macon, 1988); and Paul Minus,Walter Rauschenbusch: American Reformer (New York,1988). On the Quakers,an exceptionto thechurches' lack of political involvement before the 1960sand a groupespecially active in thefight over the 1964Civil Rights Act, see EdwardRaymond Wilson, Uphillfor Peace. QuakerImpact on Con- gress(Richmond, Ind., 1975); RichardTaylor interview by James Findlay, June 18, 1985(tape in JamesFindlay's possession);letters between Taylor and officialsof the Leadership Conference on CivilRights, scattered throughout LeadershipConference on Civil RightsPapers (Manuscript Division, Library of Congress). 3 JohnA. Hutchison,We Are Not Divided:A Criticaland HistoricalStudy of the Federal Council of Churches ofChrist in America,1905-1938 (New York,1941); Samuel McCrea Cavert, The American Churches in theEcumen- ical Movement,1900-1968 (New York,1968). Because of the historically central role of Protestantism in American lifeand becauseofficials of the NationalCouncil of Churches(NCC) werethe principalshapers and leadersin the lobbyingefforts by the churchesin 1963and 1964,this article focuses on thatorganization's work. However, thethree major faith communities - Protestant,Roman Catholic, Jewish -were all veryactive in thepolitical work of 1963and 1964.The "churches"that supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964were essentially the liberal, "mainline" segmentsof the entireAmerican religious community. 4 Anna Hedgeman,The Giftof Chaos:Decades ofAmericanDissent (New York,1977), 77-78. See also R. H. EdwinEspy interview by Findlay,Feb. 2, 1989(in Findlay'spossession); Interchurch News, June 6, 1960,pp. 1, 4; ibid.,Nov. 1961,p. 1; ibid., Sept. 9, 1962,p. 1; ibid., Nov. 1962,p. 1 (NationalCouncil of Churches headquar- ters,New York,N.Y.). InterracialNews, published by the NCC throughoutthe 1950s,often epitomized the ap- 68 The Journalof AmericanHistory June 1990

The risingtempo of racial agitation in thenation, dramatized by the tumult over the admissionof James Meredith to the Universityof Mississippiin late 1962 and massiveblack protestsand boycottsin Birmingham,Alabama, in the springof 1963,pressed the liberalchurches toward more direct action. A newgeneration of nationalreligious leaders, sensitized by the thrustof eventsand inclinedtoward activism,was emerging. No one symbolizedbetter that new leadership than Eugene CarsonBlake. In 1963 Blakewas the statedclerk (the chiefadministrative officer) of the United PresbyterianChurch, U.S.A., the northern,more liberalwing of AmericanPresbyterianism. Long recognized as an ecumenicist,by 1963 Blakehad becomean outspokenadvocate of churchactivism in supportof racialjustice, and he wasbecoming a majorinfluence within the National Council of Churches. Blake attractedheadlines when he and othernationally known religious leaders were ar- restedon July 4, 1963, afterparticipating, all of themfor the first time, in a sit-in protestingsegregated public facilitiesat Gwinn Oaks AmusementPark in Bal- timore.5 Otherpressures for direct action by the churcheswere developing. In January 1963, thenational Conference on Religionand Race convenedin Chicago.It rep- resenteda major effortto focus the attentionof the three primaryfaith communities- Protestant,Catholic, Jewish - on the mostpressing domestic issue confrontingthe nation. The three-daygathering attracted several hundred church people, but rhetoricstill outweighed the abilityto mountconcrete and effective programsof action. A "continuing"office of the conference was established in New YorkCity following the meeting in Chicago,but funding,broad church support, and imaginativeleadership failed to materialize,and it foldedwithin a year.6Al- thoughleaders of the Conferenceon Religionand Race failedin theirambitious objectiveto become major ecumenicalspokespersons on mattersof race, the gatheringin Chicago in early1963 and subsequentefforts to maintainthe en- thusiasmsgenerated there pointed to thegrowing sentiments among church people thatsomething should be done nationallyto help African-Americancitizens secure long-deniedbasic rights. Althoughthe NationalCouncil of Churcheshad been an officialsponsor and financialsupporter of the Conferenceon Religionand Race fromthe outset,the top leadershipof theNational Council stood somewhat apart from those shaping theconference. In itsearliest days the continuing Conference on Religionand Race

proachcriticized by Dr. Hedgeman.Files of thisnewsletter are in folder30, box 46, RG 6, NationalCouncil of ChurchesArchives (Presbyterian Historical Society, Philadelphia). On effortsby the mainline churches in the 1950s to expresstheir growing concerns about race,see A. JamesReichley, Religion in AmericanPublic Life (Washington, 1985), 246-47. 5 InterchurchNews, July, 1963, p. 3; New YorkTimes, July 5, 1963,pp. 1,44; ChristianCentury, July 17, 1963, p. 902. See also R. Douglas Brackenridge,Eugene Carson Blake: Prophet with Portfolio (New York,1978), 77-105. 6 New YorkTimes, April 25, 1964,p. 25; "FinancialStatement through month ending April 30, 1963,""Con- tinuationCommittee, 1963-64" folder, box 1, series7, NationalCatholic Conference for InterracialJustice Papers (MarquetteUniversity, Milwaukee, Wis.); Galen Weaver,"Reports to the ContinuationCommittee, May 14-15, 1963,March 2, 1964,"ibid.;JohnJ. O'Connor to Weaver,July 31, 1963,"Weaver (1963, 1964)"folder, box 2, ibid.; MathewAhmann to Weaver,July 23, 1963,Jan. 7, 1964,ibid.; Weaverto RobertSpike, July 14, 1963,ibid. Churchesand theCivil Rights Act of 1964 69 musthave served as an implicitreminder that the well-established and muchmore influentialNCC had notresponded directly to therapidly escalating racial crisis of the country.Even individual denominations under the council'sumbrella seemed readierto adopt an activiststance. On May20, 1963,the GeneralAssembly of the UnitedPresbyterian Church, U.S.A., establishedits own Commissionon Religion and Raceto addressracial problems in thedenomination and in thecountry at large. The Presbyteriansvoted to fundtheir commission with a heftyfirst-year budget of $500,000.7 The Conferenceon Religionand Race also highlightedthe increasinglysig- nificantimpact Martin Luther King, Jr., was making on thewhite churches. In the fiftiesand earlysixties, other leaders in theAfrican-American community had fre- quentlyaddressed the people in themainline churches. Two examples were Howard Thurman,dean of thechapel at BostonUniversity during and afterthe time King was a studentthere, and BenjaminMays, president of MorehouseCollege and a closefriend of the King family,both of themurbane, sophisticated speakers and preachers.Nevertheless, by the early sixties the mainline churches looked less often to thesemen than to King.8 Kingrepresented a younger generation of black clergy whose direct action tactics weretransforming the civil rights struggle in theSouth. King's willingness to engage in directaction and to preachpowerfully to whitechurches about the consequences wasimmensely compelling. By 1963he waswithout question the leading black in- terpreterof the civil rights struggle, in all itsmoral urgency, to whitechurch people throughoutthe country.9 King was appointedto the steeringcommittee that planned the Conferenceon Religionand Race in Chicago,and he deliveredone of the majorspeeches there. Scarcelytwo months after the conference,he penned fromthe Birminghamjails his famousletter. The letterwas firstpublished in its entiretyin the widelyread Protestantecumenical weekly the Christian Century. King wrote from behind bars: In themidst of a mightystruggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice I haveheard many ministers say, "Those are social issues with which the gospel hasno realconcern," and I havewatched many churches commit themselves to a completelyotherworldly religion which makes a strange,unbiblical distinction be- tweenbody and soul, between the sacred and the secular.... Butthe judgment

7On NCC endorsementof the conference,see "ProgramCommittee Summary," May 16, 1962,folder 3, box 46, SouthernRegional Council Collection(Robert W. WoodruffLibrary, Atlanta University); Ahmann to Leslie Dunbar,May 24, 1962,ibid.; NCC, newsrelease, "U.S. ReligiousGroups Call Conferenceon Religionand Race," June21, 1962,ibid. On NCC financialsupport, see "FinancialStatement, ending April 30, 1963,""Continuation Committee,1963-64" folder, box 1, series7, NationalCatholic Conference for InterracialJustice Papers. The con- ferencealso turnedto theUnited Church of Christ,not to theNCC, forits continuing executive director, Galen Weaver."Newsletter," March 5, 1963, "Newsletter,March, 1963-February, 1964" folder,box 2, ibid.; New York Times,May 21, 1963,p. 18. 8 "SpeakingEngagements, 1962-63," Howard Thurman Papers (Mugar Library, Boston University, Boston, Mass.); BenjaminMays, Born to Rebel: An Autobiography(New York,1971), esp. 241-64. 9 See boxes36-47, MartinLuther King, Jr., Papers (Mugar Library); and SecondaryCorrespondence, boxes 37-60, MartinLuther King, Jr., Papers (Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Nonviolent Social Change,Atlanta, Ga.). On King'simpact on whitechurches, see JohnC. Raines,"Martin Luther King, Jr., and MoralEducation," Journalof ReligiousEthics (forthcoming). 70 TheJournal of AmericanHistory June1990

ofGod is uponthe church as neverbefore. If today's church does not recapture thesacrificial spirit of the early church it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty ofmillions, and be dismissedas an irrelevantsocial club with no meaning for the 20thcentury. Wordslike these, coupled with his activism,made King a personalmodel for other clergyand bymid-1963 offered a notso subtlerebuke to thecontinuing inactivism of mostwhite religious leaders. 10 Eventscame to a focusin lateMay 1963. A groupof black intellectual and cultural leadersin New York,fearful that racial violence might occur throughout the nation followingthe recentdemonstrations in Birmingham,arranged a privatemeeting withRobert Kennedy to expresstheir worries and to seek greaterfederal support forpossible solutions. Kennedy brushed aside theirentreaties. In the searchfor help,some participants in themeeting with the attorney general turned to friends in the NationalCouncil of Churches.The churchpeople wveresimply "there" in New York,they were sympathetic, and perhapstheir contacts and resourcescould make a difference.11 The topmostleadership of the NCC was finallygalvanized into action. On June 7, 1963,the General Board of the council announced the formation of a newCom- missionon Religionand Race (NCC-CORR) designedto allow America'spremier ecumenicalreligious body to becomefully and flexiblyinvolved in the day-to-day struggleover civil rights. The newcommission was to reportdirectly to theGeneral Board,not through the cumbersome existing bureaucracy. That arrangementgave the commissionan unusualdegree of freedomin decisionmaking and planning. The commissionalso received substantial budgetary support - almosta half-million dollarsfor its first year of operation. Reflecting his rapidly growing role as a national spokesmanfor the churcheson racialmatters, Blake soon becamethe chairof the commission'sgoverning board. The firstmeeting of the new body was held onJune 28, 1963,in New YorkCity; by that time the executive director of the organization, RobertSpike, a youngthough seasoned minister drawn from the nationalstaff of the United Churchof Christ,was alreadyat work.12

10 Ahmannto MartinLuther King, Jr., May 3, 1962,folder 22, box 17, King Papers(King Center);J. Oscar Lee to King,June 22, 1962,ibid.; King to Lee,July 2, 1962,folder 29, ibid.; Ahmannto King,Jan. 24, 1962, folder25, ibid.; MartinLuther King, Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Christian Century, June 12, 1963,pp. 767-73,esp. 772. Kinghad beenan editor-at-largeofthe Century for several years before 1963. The editor,Harold Fey,wrote King thatthe letterwas "the mostmemorable article to appearin The ChristianCentury during my editorship."Harold Fey to King, Sept. 8, 1958,folder 111-16, box 22, King Papers(Mugar Library); Fey to Maude Ballou, March17, 1959,ibid.; Feyto King,July 6, 1962,May 22, 1963,undated postcard, folder 6, box 6, King Papers(King Center).On the creationof the letter,see TaylorBranch, Parting the Waters:America in the King Years,1954-63 (New York,1988), 737-45. On King as a model, see forexample Spike to King, Oct. 16, 1964, folder34, box 17,King Papers (King Center).Spike was a keyleader of the NCC's directinvolvement in civilrights activities. l1 On theblack leaders' meeting with Robert Kennedy, see New YorkTimes, May 25, p. 1; ibid.,May 26, 1963, p. 59; ArthurM. Schlesinger,Jr., A ThousandDays:JohnF Kennedyin the WhiteHouse (Boston,1965), 878-79; ArthurM. Schlesinger,Jr., Robert Kennedy and His Times(Boston, 1978), 356-60; and especiallyBranch, Parting the Waters,809-13. The connectionswith the churchesare documentedin JonRegier interview by Findlay,Feb. 8, 1987(in Findlay'spossession); Regier interview by Findlay, Feb. 2, 1989,ibid.; and RobertSpike, Civil Rights Involvement:Modelfor Mission(Detroit, 1965), 9-10. 12 Forthe enabling resolution voted by the General Board of the NCC, see InterchurchNews, June-July 1963, Churchesand theCivil Rights Act of 1964 71

Fromits firstmeeting onward, the commissionassumed as one of its major responsibilitiesthe coordination of all supportfor civil rights legislation from orga- nizedreligion. Jewish and RomanCatholic leaders encouraged NCC-CORR to take thelead. The commissionheard it reportedthat the latter two groups "would wel- comethe stimulus which would be givenby firm National Council of Churches action." JohnF. Kennedyunderscored further this leadership role of the NCC when, at a largegathering of national church leaders at theWhite House onJune 17 (one ofseveral meetings of influential private groups the president convened early in the summerof 1963 to developsupport for his pendingcivil rights legislation), he in- vitedJ. IrwinMiller, president of the NCC, to chairthe meetingand to oversee effortsat follow-up.13Although subsequent church lobbying was alwayscouched in ecumenicalterms, the NCC remainedthroughout the struggleover the Civil RightsAct primus inter pares. And now the councilpossessed an organizational weapon,its own Commission on Religionand Race,to transforminformal leadership statusinto concreteplans of action. Subtlyyet with gathering momentum a concatenationof eventswas shapinga civilrights agenda for mainline church people. Massivedemonstrations in southern cities,often orchestrated by black religious leaders; militant white resistance to the demonstrations;President Kennedy's televised appeal of May 1963urging Ameri- cans to acceptracial change especially because of the deep moralissues involved, followedquickly by his proposed civil rights legislation -all helpedarouse churchgoers.Thus eventsin the South,presidential guidance, and churchleadership- blackand whitetogether-were combining to createamong church people a major commitmentto social activism.

Successfullobbying has alwaysrelied on twokey tactics, pressure applied directly on legislatorsin Washingtonand pressureapplied froma distanceby constituents at thegrass roots. The NationalCouncil of Churches recognized that reality in early appointmentsto the commissionstaff. One was Dr. Anna Hedgeman,a shrewd, politicallysavvy African-American woman who had workedin Democraticparty circles,both in Washingtonand New YorkCity, and had runfor elective office several times.One of the firsttasks of the commissionhad been to coordinatethe churches'somewhat belated effort to participatein the Marchon Washington.Dr.

p. 6. See also ibid., Aug.-Sept. 1963, p. 5; National Council of Churches,Commission on Religionand Race Minutes,meeting of June 28, 1963;folder 2, box 15,Victor Reuther Papers (Archives of LaborHistory and Urban Affairs,Wayne State University, Detroit, Mich.); Victor Reuther to EugeneCarson Blake, telegram, June 20, 1963, ibid.; "Reportof the ExecutiveDirector to the Commissionon Religionand Race of the National Council of Churches,"July 26, 1963,p. 4, folder20, box 6, RG 11,NCC Archives.James Hamilton, personal appointments book, 1963 (NationalCouncil of Churchesoffice, Washington). 13 NCC, Commissionon Religionand Race Minutes,meeting of June 28, 1963,p. 3, VictorReuther Papers; "Meetingof the Presidentwith Religious Leaders, June 17, 1963,"verbatim transcript, pp. 15-21,"Civil Rights Meetingwith Religious Leaders" folder, box 97, PresidentialOffice Files, Subjects(John F. KennedyLibrary, Boston,Mass.). The promised"follow up" to thismeeting by Kennedy's staff never occurred. See LouisF. Ober- dorferto J. IrwinMiller, June 20, 1963, box 23, Lee C. WhitePapers, White House StaffFiles, ibid.; Millerto Oberdorfer,June 21, 1963,ibid. 72 The Journal of American History June 1990

.-. ... ;. . .. N.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... T.~~~~~~.

Marchon Washington,August 28, 1963. RobertW. Spike,executive director of the Commission on Religionand Race of the National Council of Churches,marches immediately behindthe banner.Courtesy National Councilof Churches.

Hedgemandirected that effort to a verysuccessful conclusion -an estimatedforty thousandchurch people swelledthe ranksof thosewho marchedto the Lincoln Memorialin supportof jobs and the vote forblacks on August28, 1963.14 The involvementin the Marchon Washingtonwas a firsttest of the churches' abilityto organizewidespread grass-roots support for specific aims and goalsin the civilrights struggle. Although for many church people participationwas primarily a powerfulsymbolic moral act, the politicalimplications of goingto Washington werealso veryclear. Churchleaders were among those who met withPresident Kennedyimmediately after the conclusionof the marchand who lobbied con- gressmenbefore returning to theirhomes. Perhaps James Reston caught the sense of the momentbest in wordswritten just as the Marchon Washingtoncame to an end: "Ifthere is no effectivemoral reaction out in thecountry, there will be no effective political reaction. . . . While the politicians here are not saying much about theMarch, they are listening,and ifsuch a mammothdemonstration, dramatizing thebasic religious concept of equality, does notget an impressiveresponse from the

14 Forbiographical information, see Hedgeman,Gift of Chaos, 3-90. On the NCC-CORR involvementin the Marchon Washington,see folder20, box6, RG 11,NCC Archives.On themarch from NCC participants'perspec- tive,see Spike,"Report of the ExecutiveDirector," Sept. 5, 1963,pp. 4-6, ibid.; and Spike,Civil Rights Involve- ment,11-12. See also InterchurchNews, Oct. 1963,pp. 1, 4; New YorkTimes, Aug. 28, 1963,p. 1; Blake and Spiketo WalterP. Reuther,Aug. 16, 1963,folder 8, box 494, WalterP. ReutherPapers (Archives of Labor History and Urban Affairs);and Spike to "Friends,"with attachments, Aug. 2, 1963, ibid. Churchesand theCivil Rights Act of 1964 73

1* 1 Iv

.amid,11 i

Preparationofsandwiches for the March on Washington. CourtesyNational Council of Churches. churches,Congress could easily conclude that the nation was indifferent orworse.' Hedgemanand theCommission on Religionand Race setout to organizeand coor- dinateNCC effortsto makecertain that local people did respondto ensurepassage of an effectivecivil rights bill. Bythe second meeting of the commission inJuly 1963, its members were rapidly developingideas forgenerating political pressures. Victor Reuther, member of the commission,Methodist layman, and brotherof WalterReuther, chaired a small planninggroup that proposed guidelines for lobbying that the churchesfollowed untilthe civilrights bill was enactedalmost a yearlater. Probably the most crucial of theirearly suggestions was to "concentrateour legislativeefforts" on a limited numberof "keyStates."16 The commissionquickly decided that meant paying spe-

15New YorkTimes, Aug. 30, 1963,p. 20. The NCC-CORR widelydistributed James Reston's column in church circlesimmediately after the March on Washington.See Hedgeman,Gift of Chaos,89. See also InterchurchNews, Oct. 1963,p. 1; and New YorkTimes, Aug. 29, 1963,p. 17. Politiciansand othersecular leaders also sensedthe importanceof the churches'involvement and the potentialpolitical benefits. G. MennenWilliams to WalterP. Reuther,Aug. 29, 1963,folder 10, box 494, WalterP. ReutherPapers; Ralph McGill to WalterP. Reuther,Aug. 30, 1963, ibid. 16 NCC, Commissionon Religionand Race Minutes,meeting of June 28, 1963,p. 7, July26, 1963,pp. 3-4, folder2, box 15, VictorReuther Papers. 74 The Journalof AmericanHistory June 1990

Rep. FredSchwengle, Rep. James C. Corman,Robert W Spike,Clarence Mitchell, and VictorReuther (left to right)at the conferenceheld in Lincoln,Nebraska, September4-5, 1963,to educate midwesternchurch leaders about the civilrights bill. CourtesyNational Council of Churches.

cial attentionto the Midwest.In thatregion were large rural districts where labor unionsand othertraditional supporters of civilrights were weak, and exceptin the cities,the blackvote therewas negligible.Many congressmen from the area were uncommittedto civilrights legislation. In a regionwith deep religiousroots, moral argumentspressed by church people mightbe especiallyeffective. The targetswere primarilyRepublicans, who possessedgreat strength in the regionand whosesup- portwas essentialto passinga strongcivil rights bill. The area coveredranged from Ohio on the east to Iowa, Minnesota,and the Dakotas on the west.This plan of action,eventually known as "theMidwest strategy," evolved naturally out ofdiscus- sionsamong people backingthe civilrights legislation, as one participantremem- bered, "the way any good lobbying works."'1

17 NationalObserver, July 13, 1964,p. 1;James Hamilton interview by Findlay, March 15, 1985 (in Findlay's possession);Hamilton interview by Findlay, Jan. 9, 1986,ibid.; ArnoldAronson and MarvinCaplan interviewby Findlay,Jan. 9, 1986,ibid. See also NCC, Commissionon Religionand Race Minutes,meeting of June 26, 1963, p. 4, folder2, box 15,Victor Reuther Papers; Report of the Legislative Committee, attached to NCC, Commission on Religionand Race,"Agenda," July 26, 1963,folder 4, box 15, ibid.; StephenHorn, "Periodic Log Maintained duringthe Discussions concerning the Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,"p. 53, box 125,Miscellaneous Manu- scriptCollections (Manuscript Division, Library of Congress).Horn was a legislativeassistant to the Republican senatorThomas Kuchel,the co-floormanager of the civil rightsbill in the upper house. Churchesand theCivil Rights Act of 1964 75

A secondrecommendation of the Reuthercommittee reflected the recognition thatfor many Midwestern church people the civilrights issue was not a burning concerneven in 1963.At thetime one churchleader noted "a kindof irony" in the factthat the fate of the bill might rest with such people. 18 ThusReuther's committee proposedthat a nine-state"legislative conference" be held in the Midwestas soon as possibleas a trainingsession and educationaldevice for church leaders throughout theregion. The gatheringwas held in Lincoln,Nebraska, on September4 and 5, 1963.The twohundred people attendingheard theologians, congressmen from the Midwest,and a veteranlobbyist from Washington discuss "The Necessityfor a Coalitionof Conscience" to secureenactment of the civil rights bill. Within weeks ofthe conference in Lincoln,similar "Civil Rights Workshops" were held in churches in Columbus,Ohio; Denver;Indianapolis; and Minneapolis.19 In Octoberthe commissiondispatched four-person teams, like circuit-riding Methodistevangelists, into Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, and SouthDakota, where criticalcongressional votes were located. The teamsconsisted of a ministerto inter- prettheologically why voting for civil rights was important, a young black civil rights workerto speak personallyabout the effectsof racial discrimination(like a par- ticipantgiving testimony at an old-timerevival?), a legislativeexpert to answer questionsabout the bill, and a contactperson from the appropriatestate council ofchurches. Speakers on this"breakfast and lunchcircuit" urged people to initiate telephone,telegram, and letter-writingappeals to theircongressmen and to join delegationsbeing organizedto visittheir representatives in Washington.20 In July1963 VictorReuther's planning committee made anothersuggestion to the Commissionon Religionand Race; its implementationfirmly established the churches'presence in Washingtonas wellas in the hinterlands.This was to create "closeworking relationships with the Leadership Conference on CivilRights." The conference(LCCR) had beenestablished in 1949in NewYork City, chiefly by people seekingcongressional enactment of a federalFair EmploymentPractices Com- mittee.By 1960 the conferencehad becomethe principallobbyist for civil rights legislation,coordinating the efforts of over sixty church organizations, labor unions, and blackand otherminority group agencies. InJuly 1963 the LCCR moved its office fromNew Yorkto Washington,thus suggesting both the significance of the legisla- tionpending before Congress and theconference leaders' belief that the proposals could be enactedinto law.21

18 Spike,Civil Rights Involvement, 14. Followingan extensivetrip through the regionin Septemberand Oc- tober1963, James Hamilton reported to the NCC-CORR that"the naiveteand the lack of understandingand involvement[concerning the civil rights legislation] in themidwest are shocking."NCC, Commissionon Religion and Race Minutes,meeting of Oct. 22, 1963,folder 8, box 15, VictorReuther Papers. 19 NCC, Commissionon Religionand RaceMinutes, meeting ofJuly 26, 1963,folder 4, box 15,Victor Reuther Papers;Spike to "Dear Friends,"Aug. 14, 1962,folder 6, box 15,ibid.; James Hamilton to Anna Hedgeman,Oct. 31, 1963,"Correspondence, NCC-CORR" folder,office files (National Council of Churchesoffice, Washington). The scheduleof workshopscan be followedin Hamilton,"Expense Statement," Sept. 26, 1963, ibid. 20 The youngblack speakers, recruited from the staffof the SouthernChristian Leadership Conference or the StudentNonviolent Coordinating Committee, were heavily involved in civilrights activities in the deep South. Fora detailedanalysis of the meetings in theMidwest, see reportof Anna Hedgeman,NCC, Commissionon Reli- gion and Race Minutes,meeting of Oct. 22, 1963, pp. 1-3, folder20, box 6, RG 11,NCC Archives. 21 NCC, Commissionon Religionand Race Minutes,meeting of July 26, 1963,p. 3, folder4, box 15, Victor 76 The Journalof AmericanHistory June 1990

Protestant,Catholic, and Jewishgroups, including the National Council of Churches,had workedwith the LCCR fromtime to timeat least sincethe mid- 1950s.Most of the connectionswere "passive," consisting of "consultativeconfer- ences" and informaldiscussions, without active lobbying on Capitol Hill.22 The earlyinformal contacts were possible in partbecause the churches were establishing officesin Washingtonto protectinstitutional interests there. The NationalCouncil of Churches,for example, opened a Washingtonoffice in 1953 undera part-time director,principally to insurethe continuationof tax exemptionsfor clergy. The Protestantchurches' long commitment to a ministryto migrantlaborers first caused National Council officialsto begin thinkingabout lobbyingovertly in Washington.NCC studygroups had underscoredthe centralimportance of economic problemsin migrantworkers' lives, and theyhad concludedonly federal legislationwas likely to improvethe migrants' wages, working conditions, and even the literacyof theirchildren. By 1960 the NCC's Washingtonoffice had begun to workopenly in supportof suchlegislation. When the momentcame, it was but a shortstep to beginsupporting civil rights legislation as well.23 A keyparticipant in all ofthese developments wasJames Hamilton, who became theassociate director of the NCC's Washingtonoffice in November1958. Hamilton had alreadybeen in Washingtonfor several years, principally as a law studentat GeorgeWashington University. To financehis law studies,Hamilton had servedas one ofthree doorkeepers in the House ofRepresentatives, gaining the opportunity to observenational politics at veryclose rangeand to begina long self-education in the intricaciesof representingthe churches'interests on Capitol Hill. In June 1963Jim Hamilton became one ofthe first staff members of the council's Commis- sionon Religionand Race. His workin Washingtonparalleled and wasof equal im- portanceto thatof Anna Hedgeman in NewYork in coordinatingthe churches' supportfor the CivilRights Act.24 Hamilton(and thusthe commission) became directly involved in theactivities of the LCCR as soon as the lattergroup established its centraloffice in Washington

ReutherPapers; Arnold Aronson and MarvinCaplan interviewby Findlay, Jan. 9, 1986,(in Findlay'spossession). See also thenewsletter of the Leadership Conference on CivilRights, Memo, July 2 5, 1963,box 1,Leadership Con- ferenceon CivilRights Papers; Marvin Caplan to FieldingSimmons, Dec. 24, 1963,ibid.; "Memorandumon the PrincipalActivities of the LeadershipConference on Civil Rightsfrom 1963 to July1966," "Civil RightsAct of 1964, BackgroundMaterial" folder, ibid. 22 Aronsonand Caplan interviewby Findlay; Lewis I. Maddocksto NationalAssociation for the Advancement ofColored People, Washington Bureau, July 18, 1961,"LCCR-1961" folder, box 104,Washington Bureau, National Associationfor the Advancementof ColoredPeople Papers(Manuscript Division, Library of Congress); list of par- ticipatingorganizations, Leadership Conference on CivilRights, [1961], ibid.; "Program,"plenary session, Consul- tativeConference on Desegregation,Sept. 16-17,1957, "LCCR, 1957"folder, box 103,ibid.; newsrelease, March 3, 1956,"LCCR, 1956"folder, ibid.; listof participants in meetingat WillardHotel, Sept. 18, 1956,ibid.; Arnold Aronsonto "Participantsin meetingat WillardHotel," Sept. 25, Oct. 11,1956, ibid.; RoyWilkins to "AllCooper- atingOrganizations," Dec. 5, 1956, ibid. 23 Hamilton interview,Jan. 9, 1986. The Federal Council of Churchesapparently established a small Washingtonoffice in 1945,which reported to memberchurches about political issues. Cavert, American Churches in the EcumenicalMovement, 194. 24 Hamiltoninterview, Jan. 9, 1986; NCC, Commissionon Religionand Race Minutes,meeting of June 28, 1963,p. 1, folder4, box 15, VictorReuther Papers; NCC, Commissionon Religionand Race,agenda sheet,July 26, 1963,ibid.; Hamilton,personal appointments book, 1963(National Council of Churches office, Washington). Churchesand theCivil Rights Act of 1964 77 in July1963. One of the firststeps taken by Hamiltonand the conferencewas to arrangefor testimony by leaders of the threemajor religious communities in con- gressionalhearings prior to the formalconsideration of the civilrights bill. The churchesalso sentrepresentatives to LCCR briefingson the civilrights legislation held at the nation'scapital just beforethe Marchon Washington.25As debate on Kennedy'sprogram began in theHouse in September1963, the Leadership Confer- ence convenedweekly strategy sessions open to all of the organizationsunder its umbrellaand held almostdaily meetings with crucial Democrats supporting the bill. Hamiltonattended most of thosemeetings and soon becameone of the key figureswithin the conference.26 Because of the complexityand protractednessof the debate in the House of Representatives,it was crucialthat the LeadershipConference maintain a precise accountingof the votingof congressmenknown, or evensuspected, of supporting the conference'sposition. Soon the conferencecreated an elaboratewatchdog system,made up largelyof volunteers,who sat in the House galleries,kept track ofthe votes of House members,and alertedtheir leaders when parliamentary emer- genciesarose. Conference lobbyists could then meet quickly with the floor managers ofthe bill to containor minimizethe difficulties. Hamilton was one offive Leader- ship Conferencepeople presentregularly throughout the debatesto supervisethe properfunctioning of this system. The churchesalso providedmany of the "gallery watchers"("vultures" one frustratedcongressional critic called them) who made up the human tabulatingmachine that appeared in the House galleryeach day.27 Hamiltonalso developedclose linkages with church leaders outside Washington, chieflythrough existing ecumenical state and local churchcouncils, and withthe widelydispersed network of denominational officials that supported all theNCC's

25 Eugene CarsonBlake of the NationalCouncil of Churches,Father John Cronin of the National Catholic WelfareConference, and RabbiIrwin Blank of the SynagogueCouncil of America testified before a subcommittee of the House JudiciaryCommittee on July24, 1963. The act of testifyingwas a new and significantexpression of ecumenicityon a majorpublic issue. For a verbatimtext of the testimony,see folder3, box 15,Victor Reuther Papers.For the LeadershipConference's activities, see "Reportof the LegislativeCommittee," attached to NCC, Commissionon Religionand Race, "Agenda,"July 26, 1963,folder 4, ibid.; NCC, Commissionon Religionand Race Minutes,meeting of July 26, 1963, p. 4, ibid.; Hamilton,personal appointments book, 1963 (National Council of Churchesoffice, Washington). 26 A closeally of Hamilton and theLeadership Conference staff was the Friends Committee for National Legisla- tion,which in 1963 broughtto WashingtonRichard Taylor, a politicalscientist then teaching at Coe Collegein Cedar Rapids,Iowa, to lobbyon "humanrights" issues. Although the Friendscommittee never officially joined the LeadershipConference, Taylor was involvedin manyof the latter'sstrategy sessions. The FriendsCommittee forNational Legislation played a quiet, important,and stilllargely unknown role in the lobbyingeffort on civil rightsin Washington.Taylor interview by Findlay,June 18, 1985 (in Findlay'spossession); Richard Taylor to Aronson,July 18, Aug. 15, Sept. 23, Oct. 7, 1963,April 15, 1964,box 2, LeadershipConference on CivilRights Papers;Taylor to MarvinCaplan and Hamilton,Jan. 21, 1964,ibid.; EdwardSnyder to Caplan,Feb 3, 1964,ibid.; Caplan to Taylor,March 4, 1964,ibid.; specialcitation of LeadershipConference on CivilRights to Taylor,June 11, 1964, box 1, ibid. 27 CongressionalQuarterly, Revolution in CivilRights, 1945-68 (Washington,1968), 54-55. See also Charles Whalenand BarbaraWhalen, The Longest Debate: A LegislativeHistory ofthe 1964 CivilRights Act (Washington, 1984), 109;Hamilton to GroverBagby, March 31, 1964,"Correspondence, NCC-CORR" folder(National Council of Churchesoffice, Washington). For the preciseaccounting of votesthis system produced, see Aronsonto Jean Graham,Feb. 24, 1964,box 1, LeadershipConference on CivilRights Papers. On theweekly strategy sessions of theLeadership Conference, see Memo,July 25, 1963,Jan. 13,Feb. 3, 1964,ibid.; and "Important!Read at Once!" n.d., "Correspondence"folder, ibid. For the "vulture"reference, see Memo,Feb. 11, 1964,ibid. 78 The Journalof AmericanHistory June 1990 activities.Hamilton's office mailed five thousand such people regularinformation sheetson the legislationas it slowlymade itsway through the House and thenon to theSenate. Occasional "immediate action memos" were sent to a moreselect list ofProtestant leaders when critical votes in theHouse werepending. Thus in a rela- tivelyshort time Hamilton, Hedgeman, and theNCC-CORR had fashionedout of theexisting ecumenical church structure an effectivesystem of grass-roots supporters able to respondquickly and specificallyto the people in Washingtonwho were monitoringday-to-day developments in Congress.28 When the House approveda strongcivil rights bill on February10, 1964,there wasonly one no voteamong the fifty-five representatives from Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Eightof the twelveCongressmen from Iowa, Nebraska,and SouthDakota, all Republicans,voted in favor.The exactrelationship between those votes and churchpressures cannot be measuredprecisely, but theresults at leastsuggest that the religiousgroups had begun to maketheir political presence felt.29 As couriersdelivered the House-approvedlegislation to the Senatefor further scrutinyand a finaldecision, the churchesand theirallies refocused their political energieson the upperchamber. Soon the senatorialopponents of the civilrights bill launcheda filibuster,hoping to wearout thepro-civil rights forces by talking themeasure to death.It wasa classicsouthern maneuver on race-relatedissues. Clo- ture(a voteto end a filibuster)had neverbeen invokedin theSenate in an instance of civilrights legislation. It was difficultto achievein anycase, since it requireda two-thirdsvote of the Senate. These developmentsdemanded from proponents staminaand an increasingvolume of support as publicpressure grew, especially in Apriland May 1964, to resolvethe issue one wayor another.30 In respondingto thesechallenges, the churches made use of tacticsfirst learned whileworking for passage of the bill in theHouse. Hamiltonand othercommission staffmembers once again moved about the Midwest, particularly in Nebraska,Iowa, and Minnesota,holding workshops on thebill and on howlocal churchesand indi- vidualscould exert pressure on theirleaders in Washingtonto supporta strongcivil rightsact.31 The mainlinechurches, usually middle-class and oftenpossessing mem- berswho were well educated and politicallyaware, were in an excellentposition to transformthe entreatiesof national church leaders into specific political pressures. Thereare many indications that they did so. B'nai B'rith,a Jewishfraternal organization,gathered all the lawyersin Iowa who weremembers and as a groupde-

28 NCC, Commissionon Religionand Race Minutes,meeting of June 28, 1963,p. 4, folder2, box 15,Victor ReutherPapers; Hamilton to Carol Anderson,April 10, 1964, "Correspondence,NCC-CORR" folder(National Councilof Churchesoffice, Washington); Hamilton to Spike,May 1, 1964,ibid.; "Digestof CivilRights Act of 1963,"n.d., ibid.; Hamiltonto "SelectedDenominational Officials," July 4, Oct. 10, 1963, "ImmediateAction Memos,Selected Denominational Officials" folder, ibid.; Memo,July 1, Dec. 15, 1963,Feb. 1, 15, April 1, 15, 1964, "Memo"folder, ibid. 29 Forthe votes,see CongressionalQuarterly Almanac, 20 (1964), 82-83. 30 Whalenand Whalen,Longest Debate, 124-48;Memo, April 1, 1964,pp. 1-2 (NationalCouncil of Churches office,Washington). 31 Hamiltonto Jay Moore, May 1, 1964,"Correspondence, NCC-CORR" folder(National Council of Churches office,Washington); Hamilton, "Expense Statement,"June 23, 1964,ibid. Hamiltonand his associatesalso taped talkson civilrights issues by nationallyknown church leaders and circulatedthem widely in the areasvisited. Churchesand the Civil RightsAct of 1964 79

| a Ax qil Nz :--:<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....S: ......

. .^...e,.. _...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....

Robert W. Spike and an ecumenical group of clergy and lay people meet with Sen. Hubert Humphreyon the stepsof the Capitol in May 1964. CourtesyNational Council of Churches. scendedon BourkeHickenlooper, a veryhesitant Iowa senator,to urgethat he vote forthe bill. One ofthe lobbyists was a formerlaw partner of Hickenlooper's. Quaker professorsfrom Earlham College in Indiana came to Washingtonand lobbied the senatorsfrom that state. A leadingQuaker layman, president of a largenational corporationwith facilities in Kentucky,spent considerable time talking with the two senatorsfrom the BluegrassState, John Sherman Cooper and ThrustonMorton. Hamiltonlater recalled contacting a businessmanin Omaha, a Methodist,who in turnprevailed upon his ministerto go to the presidentof the largestbank in the state, also a parishioner,to buttonholea reluctantRepublican senatorfrom Nebraskato votefor the Civil RightsAct. The listof such informalcontacts and subtle pressurescould be extended. They are a normal part of the political process, but notnecessarily tactics used regularlyby church people involvedas churchpeople in public life.Hamilton summed it up fora reporterin 1964: "[This]wasn't the churchoperating as a church,it was the churchoperating in lay fields,involving the businesscommunity, reaching into the powerstructure." These wordsdemon- strateclearly how quickly representatives ofthe mainline churches learned the ways of applyingsophisticated political pressures, of "reachinginto the power structure." 80 TheJournal of AmericanHistory June1990

It is easyto see whythe moreexperienced lobbyists of the LeadershipConference on CivilRights from the labor unions and theNational Association for the Advance- mentof ColoredPeople (NAACP) welcomedthem as fullpartners in the taskof securingcomprehensive civil rights legislation.32 Beginningin April1964, the Leadership Conference orchestrated, state by state, the continualarrival in Washingtonof large delegationsof privatecitizens who crowdedinto congressional offices to pressagain and againfor support for the civil rightsbill. Religiousgroups were prominent in nearlyall the delegations.33But as the battlein the Senateneared final resolution, the churchesalso operatedas an independentforce. By late Marchall the majorfaith communities were sending largegroups to Washingtonto lobby.The mostdramatic example occurred on April 28, 1964,on theGeorgetown University campus where an interfaithrally drew 6,500 people, "a religiousexpression of unprecedentedscope on behalfof specificlegis- lation."Archbishop Patrick O'Boyle, head ofthe Catholic Archdiocese of Washing- ton,noted people had come fromas faraway as Californiato speakof "ourdeep religiousconvictions about thedignity of man and therights of all men."The next day almosttwo hundred-ministers, priests, and rabbismet with President Lyndon B. Johnsonat the White House to dramatizethe religiousgroups' presence in Washington.34 On April29, at theLutheran Church of the Reformationjust a blockfrom the Capitol, the National Council of Churchesinitiated daily worshipservices that would not end until"a strongand just civilrights bill was passed."For six weeks theservices continued, presided over by 12 5 Protestantand Orthodoxchurch leaders invitedto Washingtonto lead thesedaily "demonstrations." Surely the most imagi- nativeeffort of this sort was a round-the-clockvigil initiated on April19 by Catholic, Protestant,and Jewish seminary students from all overthe country.Held nearthe LincolnMemorial and visibleto thousandsof motoristsand pedestriansentering and leavingthe cityeach day,the vigilcontinued uninterruptedly until Congress passed the CivilRights Act in mid-June.35 As thelong struggle in Congressneared its climax in thelate springof 1964,the churcheshad exertedtheir influence at almostevery level of the politicalprocess. In the finalanalysis, however, all the entreatiesfor racial change from religious

32 Taylorinterview; Taylor to JamesFindlay, June 25, 1985 (in Findlay'spossession); Herman Edelsberg to NicholasD. Katzenbach,May 11, 1964,with attachments, box 28, MarshallPapers; Richard Taylor, "Congress Makesa Law: The CivilRights Act of 1964,"in Cases in AmericanNational Government and Politics,ed. R. J. Tresoliniand RichardFrost (Englewood Cliffs, 1966), 97;John Pratt interview by Findlay, June 16, 1985(in Findlay's possession);Hamilton interview, March 15, 1985. ForHamilton's statement, see NationalObserver, July 13, 1964, p. 18. 33 Horn,"Periodic Log," 26A; Memo,May 4, May 11,May 18, 1964,Leadership Conference on CivilRights Papers.Many of thecoordinators of thestate delegations, usually volunteers, were ministers. See esp. ibid., April 20, May 18, 1964. 34 Memo,May 15, 1964,"General Correspondence on CivilRights" folder (National Council of Churches office, Washington);"Civil Rights Act of 1964:A Reporton theActivity of theCouncil for Christian Social Action," Sept. 1, 1964, "UnitedChurch of Christ"folder, ibid.; BipartisanCivil Rights Newsletter, March 17, 1964,"General Correspondenceon Civil Rights"folder, ibid. 35 Spike,Civil Rights Involvement, 14; Memo,May 4, June 19, 1964,Leadership Conference on CivilRights Papers;Horn, "Periodic Log," 199; New YorkTimes, April 29, 1964,pp. 1, 29. Churchesand theCivil Rights Act of 1964 81 groupsprobably could not have succeeded if politicians perceived little support for the proposednew law in the churchesin theirdistricts at home. The National Council'sCommission on Religionand Race and manyof the nationalleaders of theliberal churches had workedhard to educateand to energizepeople at thegrass roots.Did theysucceed? Letterschurch people wroteto the directorsof the LeadershipConference offer hintsof an answer.As the Senatedebate over the bill reachedits peak in Apriland May 1964,church people floodedthe conference offices with requests for information,personal offers of help, or detailed descriptions of what had beendone to orga- nize local supportor to prodcongressmen.36 Like church representatives at the nationallevel, some local churchleaders became expert political tacticians. Ernest A. Rueter,a campusminister at PurdueUniversity in Indiana,wrote to Leadership Conferenceofficials offering a steadystream of suggestionsfrom December 1963 untilthe bill passed sevenmonths later. Purdue was in the congressionaldistrict ofCharles Halleck, the Republican minority leader of the House; Rueterorganized people statewideto pressureHalleck to supportthe civilrights legislation.37 The youngcleric also headed thedelegation from Indiana that came to Washingtonin May 1964 under LeadershipConference auspices. By that time Rueterwas also providingadvice and informationabout local networksof civilrights' supporters in Iowa,Nebraska, and otherMidwestern states. Thus in April1964 the executive directorof the LeadershipConference felt compelled to writeRueter's denomina- tionalsuperiors about the minister's work, stating that of the many people involved in the battle,"few have such a noteworthyrecord of accomplishment."38 Equallyrevealing of grass-roots activity are archives of members of Congress con- tainingconstituent mail on the civilrights question written while the legislation wasbeing considered. Even a limitedsurvey reveals how widely and activelychurch peopleurged support for the pending act.39 Hubert Humphrey, for example, almost

36 See, forexample, Caplan to EdgarMetzler, March 27, 1964,box 1, LeadershipConference on CivilRights Papers;AndrewJuvinall to Bagby,March 28, 1964,ibid.; FatherJamesStewart to Aronson,April 11, 1964,ibid.; Aronsonto Rev.Mario Shaw, O.S.B., April23, 1964,ibid.; RuthHarrison to Aronson,Jan. 29, 1964,ibid.; Sister MaryLuke to Aronson,May 15, 1964,ibid.; Dan Asherto Aronson,May 21, 1964,ibid. 37 BetweenSeptember 1963 and mid-February1964 (H.R. 7152 passed the House of Representativeson February10), Ernest Rueter wrote Charles Halleck at leastseven times, more than any other constituent interested in civilrights. Halleck responded regularly, even asking Rueter to help interprethis actionson thecivil rights bill to a clericalconstituent. Ernest A. Rueterto CharlesA. Halleck,Sept. 24, 1963,box 74, CharlesA. HalleckPapers (LillyLibrary, Indiana University, Bloomington); Rueter to Halleck,Dec. 3, 1963,box 75, ibid.; Halleckto Rueter, Jan.28, Feb. 4, 1964,box 76, ibid.; Rueterto Halleck,Jan. 30, Feb. 1,4, 10, 1964,ibid.; Rueterto Halleck,telegram,Feb. 7, 1964, ibid. 38 Caplanto King,Dec. 6, 1963,"Correspondence" folder, box 2, LeadershipConference on CivilRights Papers; Caplan to Rueter,Jan. 10, 23, 28, March3, 5, 1964, ibid.; Aronsonto LawrenceMcVoy, Feb. 26, 1964,ibid.; Aronsonto GaryOniki, April 9, 1964,ibid.; "Re: Rep. CharlesHalleck'" memo, Dec. 6, 1963,"Civil Rights Act of 1964: DischargePetition" folder, ibid.; Rueterto "Dear FellowCitizen," Feb. 28, 1964,ibid. Worksimilar to Rueter'sdone bya churchlayman can be seen in HarryReynolds to LeadershipConference on CivilRights, May 12, 1964,"Correspondence" folder, ibid.; Caplan to Reynolds,May 19,June 17, 1964,ibid. 39 Statementsin the textare based on a surveyof the archivalrecords of fivemidwestern legislators: Senators EverettDirksen of Illinois, Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, and HubertHumphrey of Minnesota and Representatives JamesBromwell of Iowa and CharlesHalleck of Indiana. Humphrey,the onlyDemocrat, played an extremely significantpart as co-floormanager of the civil rights bill in theSenate. Dirksen's support and thatof other northern conservativesinfluenced by him assured achievement of cloture and thefinal passage of the act. Hickenlooper repre- 82 The Journal of American History June 1990

Table 1 Church-RelatedMail about the Civil RightsBill Receivedby SelectedLegislators ChurchLetters All Letters Legislator Dates N % N % James Bromwell 7/2-10/31/63, 1/1-2/25/64 312 37 854 100 Everett Dirksen 1/1-6/I30/64a 52 39 132 100 CharlesHalleck 8/29-10/1/63, 1/25-1/10/64 78 44 177 100

SOURCES:Boxes 3, 4, JamesBromwell Papers (University of Iowa Library,Iowa City);boxes 1-3, 11, 23, 28, Alpha File, 1964, EverettDirksen Papers (Dirksen Congressional Center, Pekin, Ill.); boxes 73, 74, 76, CharlesHalleck Papers (Lilly Library, Indiana University,Bloomington). a Mail fromconstituents to Dirksenis filedalphabetically within years. The filefor 1964 is divided intosix-month sections. This information is based on a sampleconsisting of all suchmail fromJanu- arythrough June 1964filed under "A," "Groat-Hahne,""Rinaldo-Robson," and "Voakes-Walker."

literallyoverwhelmed by the volumeof mail flowinginto his office,in a fewdays in earlyApril 1964, receivedletters from 67 individualsand petitionswith 410 namesattached favoring the legislation.Forty-two percent of theletter writers and fortypercent of the petitioners,all ofthem identified clearly by letterhead or text, werechurch people. And we can assumethat many others who did notidentify their churchconnections were motivatedby religiousconcerns. Roughly comparable figuresemerged from an examinationof the filesof SenatorsEverett Dirksen of Il- linoisand BourkeHickenlooper of Iowa and CongressmenJames Bromwell of Iowa and CharlesHalleck of Indiana. (See table 1.)40 The data take on added significancewhen one examinesconstituent-letter writingto thoseMidwestern legislators on comparableissues of moral import, both beforeand afterthe greatlegislative struggle over civil rights. The VotingRights Actof 1965,nuclear testing in 1961-1962,the Test Ban Treatywith the Soviet Union in 1963, the passageof Medicarein 1965, all producedvoter response, but from muchsmaller numbers, among church people and thepublic in general.41The Su-

senteda constituencyin Iowa thatepitomized the conservative,small-town and rural,overwhelmingly white and Protestantcommunities that political strategists had pinpointedfor special attention by religious groups. Halleck was the minorityleader in the House. Bromwell,a moderateRepublican, was a memberof the HouseJudiciary Committee,which played an importantrole in the deliberationsover the bill. 40 Figuresare forthe week of April6-13, 1964.Untitled envelope, box 23.K.10.7B,Hubert Humphrey Papers (MinnesotaHistorical Society, Minneapolis). See also box 23.K.10.8F,ibid. A samplingof Humphrey'scorrespon- dencefrom comparable time periods up to thefirst week ofJune 1964 suggests the days in Aprilwere representative. See box 23.K.10.9B,ibid.; and box 23.K.10.1OF,ibid. The archivalcollections of Dirksen,Hickenlooper, Halleck, and Bromwellpossess almost all constituentmail addressed to themconcerning the Civil Rights Act. Hickenlooper's mailfrom Iowa constituents (270 letters)was almost entirely from church people. See boxes9, 9B, LegislativeFile, General,Bourke Hickenlooper Papers (Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, Ia.). Because of the volumeof mail and themeans used in somecongressional offices to organizethe materials, the sampling methods did not produceexact equivalents, but the numericalresults are suggestive. 41 The VotingRights Act of 1965serves as a usefulcomparison. It hasgenerally been viewed as equal in historical significanceto the CivilRights Act of 1964,and givenits closeness in time,it mighthave provoked the sameele- Churchesand theCivil Rights Act of 1964 83 premeCourt decision in 1963 abolishingprayers in the public schoolsprovoked manychurch people to strongdemands for legislative retribution. It was the only otherissue that seemed to stirthe Midwestern faithful in suchnumbers and to such passionas the civilrights legislation of 1963-1964.But eventhat issue awakened intenseresponse only in limitedareas and seemedto representchurch constituen- cies bothpolitically and theologicallymore conservative than those activated by the racialcrisis.42 What kindof church people tookthe time to writeabout racialmatters in 1963 and 1964? About halfwere ministers, priests, or nuns (veryfew rabbis). But lay peoplewrote, too, and signedpetitions in verylarge numbers. Although Protestants wereoverwhelmingly in the majority,a significantnumber of Catholicsalso appeared, 15 percentor more.These factsunderscore the ecumenicalnature of the churches'political effort. From the firstsystematic planning of nationalstrategy at NCC headquartersin New YorkCity in June 1963,through the extendedefforts at lobbyingin Washingtonand the rapidcreation of grass-rootssupport, the work had alwaysbeen self-consciouslycast in ecumenicalterms, even though Protestants usuallypredominated.43 These eventswere part of a widersurge of ecumenismthat was affectingthe Americanreligious community and evenworldwide Christendom in the earlysixties. PopeJohn XXIII's irenictendencies and the SecondVatican Council, which he convenedin 1962,were indicators of the new ecumenicalthrust. Another sign wasthe decision of theNational Council of Churchesin 1963to admitfor the first time Roman Catholicand Jewishrepresentatives as regularparticipants in their

mentsof the electorate to vigorouspublic support. But thatlaw created little stir among midwestern letter writers. Constituentmail on thetopic addressed to Halleck,Dirksen, and Hickenlooper(Bromwell had been defeatedand Humphreyelevated to thevice-presidency) was farsmaller in volumeand includedfar fewer letters from church people thanmail on the 1964bill. See box 84, HalleckPapers; "Civil Rights, 1965, Constituent Correspondence" folder,box 10,Legislative File, General, Hickenlooper Papers; boxes 3, 39, 80, Alpha File, 1965,Dirksen Papers. Commentsabout constituents and nucleartesting, the Test Ban Treaty,and Medicareare based on materialin "Nu- clearTesting, 1961-62" folder, box 10, BromwellPapers; "Test-Ban Treaty, 1963" folder,box 15, ibid.; boxes76, 84, HalleckPapers; and box 39, Alpha File, 1965, DirksenPapers. 42 People in Halleck'sdistrict were especially active regarding this topic. Between January 1 and February10, 1964,more of his churchgoingconstituents expressed themselves on thissubject than on theracial issue, at a time whenthe CivilRights Act was beingfully debated and thengiven final approval by the House of Representatives. Votersin Bromwell'sarea of Iowa werefar less vocal. See box 76, HalleckPapers; "Prayer, 1962-64" folder,box 12, BromwellPapers. 43 The absenceof Jewish correspondents is not surprisingin the heavilyProtestant, small-town sections of the Midwest.Jews from urban areas did writeoccasionally to the congressmen.See RabbiJordan Taxon to Everett Dirksen,telegram, April 7, 1964,Alpha Series,Dirksen Papers; Halleck to Rueter,Jan. 28, 1964,box 76, Halleck Papers;Rueter to Halleck,Jan. 30, 1964,ibid.; CharlesG. Workmanto James Bromwell, Sept. 23, 1963,box 3, BromwellPapers. The correspondenceof the LeadershipConference, a nationalorganization, included a larger proportionof letters from Jewish groups and individualsthan did thepapers of thefive legislators from the Mid- west.See especiallybox 1,Leadership Conference on CivilRights Papers. See also "Correspondence,NCC-CORR" folder(National Council of Churches office, Washington); "General Correspondence on CivilRights" folder, ibid. Catholicconstituents often were connected to religiousorders and Catholiccolleges and seminaries.See Nano ByrnestoJames Bromwell, July 11, 1963,ibid.; MarilynBeales to Bromwell,July 19, 1963,ibid.; SisterMary Mar- cellusto Bromwell,Dec. 14, 1963,box 4, ibid.; SisterM. IgnatiaManhart to BourkeHickenlooper, March 2, 1964, box9, HickenlooperPapers; Sister Mary Redempta to Hickenlooper,May 22, 1964,ibid.; petitionfrom the faculty, St. Joseph'sCollege, Rensselaer,Indiana, Sept. 19, 1963, box 74, Halleck Papers;Rev. GeorgeC. Muresanto Halleck,Jan. 28, 1964, box 76, ibid.; InterracialCommittee, Blessed SacramentParish, Lafayette, Indiana, to Halleck,telegram, Feb. 5, 1964,ibid. 84 TheJournal of AmericanHistory June1990 policy-makingbodies.44 The politicalefforts of the churches in 1963and 1964both reflectedthese broad historicaldevelopments and gave added impetusto them. Womenwere very evident among the letterwriters. Catholic nuns who were schoolteachers and hospitaladministrators, Protestant and Jewishhousewives by the dozens, and womenwho werenational church leaders-all wrotetheir congressmen,signed petitions, or offered advice and supportto theLeadership Confer- encein Washington.Anna Hedgemandid importantorganizing work through the Commissionon Religionand Race, and women helped organizeand staffthe watchdogsystem in the galleriesof the House late in 1963. Womenhave always playeda prominentrole in Americanreligious communities, so it was not entirely surprisingthat they entered into the public contest over racial issues. Perhaps there werelinks between these events and the beginningsof the contemporarywomen's rightsmovement. There was, for example, a historicbreakthrough in affirmativeac- tionfor women included in Title VII of the CivilRights Act of 1964. And surely whenwomen participated so fullyin thegreat national movement toward social justicefor blacks, their experiences began to empowerthem to asserttheir own claims to equality.45 Letterwriters from the churches, having taken the time to composelengthy personal notes,often provided thoughtful rationales in supportof the pendingcivil rightslegislation. In manyways, of course,their arguments resembled those made by civilrights supporters who werenot churchmembers. But therewas one em- phasisin theletters of church people that,while not unique to them,was sounded moreinsistently than anyother. As one ministersomewhat inelegantly expressed it,"I am supremelyinterested in a CivilRights bill from the moral angle."46 Perhaps because theywere church people these writerswere often able to perceivethat dimensionof the debate, to discussit openly, and to use it as a powerfuljustification forsupport of the CivilRights Act. The argumentstook a varietyof forms.Some thoughtthat as a moralissue the pendingbill shouldtranscend party lines. It was legislationthat both Democrats and Republicansshould support because it went"to the heartof everyChristian and democraticprinciple we hold dear."Most supporters in Congressaccepted this principle.A fewof the writers pressed their reasoning even further and assertedthat themoral demands upon "anyonewho professes to be a Christian"meant they "had no otherchoice" than to support"the cause of civil rights." An executivein theLu-

44 New YorkTimes, Dec. 1, 1963,p. 69; ibid., Dec. 2, 1963,p. 16. See also ibid.,June 4, 1965,p. 35; ibid., July25, 1965,p. 24; and ibid.,July 28, 1965,p. 72. 45 See,for example, Gloria Smith to HubertHumphrey, April 9, 1964,box 23.K.10.8F, Humphrey Papers; Mrs. Paul Fordto Humphrey,April 7, 1964,ibid.; SisterM. Monique to Humphrey,April 11, 1964,ibid.; Mrs.Paul Jonesto Bromwell,July 26, 1963, box 3, BromwellPapers; Mrs. Milton Randolph to Bromwell,Aug. 16, 1963, ibid.; SisterMary Eugene to Bromwell,n.d., ibid.; petitionfrom Women's Presbyterial Society, Northeast Iowa Pres- bytery,Oct. 15, 1963,ibid. On women'srole in the"watchdog system" in thegalleries of the House, see Hamilton to Bagby, March 31, 1964, "Correspondence,NCC-CORR" folder (National Council of Churchesoffice, Washington).On suchdevelopment of an interestin women'sequality among younger women who participated moredirectly in "Movement"activities in theSouth, see SaraEvans, Personal Politics: The Roots of JWomen'sLibera- tion in the CivilRights Movement and the New Left(New York,1980). 46J.Richard Wagner to Bromwell,July 15, 1963, box 3, BromwellPapers. Churchesand the Civil RightsAct of 1964 85 theranChurch-Missouri Synod, in a letterto Bromwell,put the argumentalmost as stronglybut perhapsmore persuasively:

Pleasework with all couragetoward corrective civil rights legislation . . . [for]civil rightsare a moralissue. The God of the Gospel is also the God of justice,and holdssociety and governmentresponsible for equality under the law. If thereare risksin grantingthese rights across the board, they are not as greatas in notdoing so. Furthermore,as I am sureyou agree,when a thingis rightwe musttake the risksof right action. Law and order,and thegood commonsense of men, will take care of the rest-if we deserveit!47 Mostlay people, however, eschewed the more formal ethical arguments and spoke instead out of directexperience and a "practicaltheology" grounded in that experience.Thus a womanin Cedar Rapids,Iowa, made her appeal to her con- gressmanvery concrete: I have a feelingof sicknessinside of me that comes froma realizationof the sufferingof Negroesand the guiltof whites.I sharein the sufferingand in the guilt.I writeyou, as myrepresentative . . . to help me ridmyself and mycountry of this sufferingand this guilt. I feel that passage of the civil rightslegislation . . . will makeit possiblefor healing to begin. Anotherperson spoke with a powerfulmoral sense aboutJim Crow practices and how theymight be altered,in part by the new law:

Uim Crowism]says that I cannotfreely choose my own friends regardless of their colorwithout suffering great damage to myreputation and job opportunit[ies] .... Civilrights legislation, long overdue, will assist all ofus to movemore freely amongall kindsof people thatwe maydevelop [better] our ownwits and char- acter.... I wouldlike to be treated"equal beforethe law" withoutthis preferen- tial treatmentover those of anothercolor. What I desirefor myself I mustdesire forall to maintainmy own sense of decency.48 Somesaw, read, or heard about dramatic events that stirred them. On September 11, 1963, a Methodistminister in the Midwestresponded this way: Lifemagazine carried a verydramatic story and picturesof the greatFreedom Marchin Washington.... It wasno doubta longday for those people whocame formany miles to join in thehistoric occasion. But it has also been a longday for the people presentwho representedthe manygenerations of people who have been oppressedin America.Is it not about timefor that day to end?49 Stillothers wrote out of deeplyfelt and long-rememberedpersonal experiences.

47 RobertBernhard to Bromwell,July 25, 1963,ibid.; John W. Briggsto Bromwell,July28, 1963,ibid.; Arnold W. Bringewattto Bromwell,Aug. 23, 1963,ibid. See also RayE. Millsto Halleck,Sept. 26, 1963,box 74, Halleck Papers;and Barbaraand JonYost to Halleck,Sept. 26, 1963,ibid. 48 Mrs.Myra Ervin to Bromwell,Aug. 28, 1963, box 3, BromwellPapers; Oliver C. Hotz to Halleck,Sept. 8, 1963, box 73, HalleckPapers. 49 MiltonR. Vogelto Bromwell,Sept. 11,1963, box 3, BromwellPapers. See also Mr.and Mrs.Murl McDonald toBromwell, Sept. 1, 1963,ibid.; Mrs. Robert Sedlack to Bromwell,Sept. 22, 1963,ibid.; Bert Davison to Bromwell, Sept. 22, 1963,ibid.; Workman to Bromwell,Sept. 23, 1963,ibid.; Sister Mary Eugene to Bromwell,n.d., ibid. 86 The Journalof AmericanHistory June 1990

A man'sdirect relationships with African Americans in WorldWar II -one "easily the best instructor"in an air forceelectronics school, another "an illiterateolder teenageremployed as a kitchenworker" in Louisianawho "likedto talkto me"- causedhim to see that"Negroes vary in education,ability, and personality,but only as wewhite people do."The writerwent on: "I feelguilty that I, likeso manywhites, haveknown about racialdiscrimination all ofmy adult life and havenever tried to do anythingabout it." Thus he concludedthat "especially in the lightof recent events,the timehas nowcome for all ofus, you ... and constituentsback in Iowa like me to listento our conscienceson thisgreatest moral issue of our time"and supportpassage "of Civil RightsBill H.R. 7152."5? Clearlychurch people in manyareas of the Midwest were deeply moved both by callsfrom their religious leaders to supportthe civil rights legislation vigorously and bythe onrushof events.Evidence of thiscan be seen not onlyin the massiveout- pouringof lettersto congressmenbut also in the unprecedentedpolitical activity thatstirred the churches locally.51 These activities began almost as soonas theHouse ofRepresentatives began to considerthe bill and continueduntil final passage took place ten monthslater. On Sundaymornings some ministers preached directly on the issue of race and then lefttime duringor immediatelyafter the servicefor people to writeto Washington.In a widevariety of other local settings-in public forums,women's society gatherings, interchurch and interfaithmeetings, even in a staffmeeting at a smallCatholic hospital, and eventuallyin publicmarches and demonstrations-people had theissues presented to themand thendiscussed. Ac- tionoften followed, usually in the formof powerfullyworded resolutions or peti- tionsurging passage of the civil rights legislation. As earlyasJuly 1963, for example, nearlynine hundred members of Disciples of Christ churches in WestLafayette, In- diana, proclaimedthat "segregation is an intolerabletravesty upon the dignityof man"and urgedtheir congressman to "promotelegislation" to end thepractice. In September1963, Presbyterian ministers and eldersmeeting in Marshfield,Indiana, expressedto CharlesHalleck their "deep concern with the unequal and oftenunjust treatmentof our Negro brothersin our freesociety" and pressedHalleck to help pass "a strongcivil rights bill" that "will help the Negro . . . to makehis full contri-

50 BurtonG. Foxto Bromwell,Nov. 24, 1963,box 4, ibid. See also RichardH. Wilmerto Bromwell,Aug. 13, 1963,box 3, ibid. The HumphreyPapers contain similar letters. One man recalledhow in 1914as a studentband memberat theUniversity of Nebraska he had to allowa blackbandsman to bunkwith him on an overnighttrain to a footballgame. The youngAfrican American "never touched me all night.[To do that]he must[have] balanced overthe edge of the bed." The blackstudent eventually became a lawyer.The letterwriter concluded: "I think all thisadds up to: Let us all be good neighborsto each other."Howard A. Savageto Humphrey,April 11, 1964, box23.K.10.8F, Humphrey Papers. See also Fordto Humphrey,April 7, 1964,ibid.; Diane Schmitzto Humphrey, April9, 1964,ibid.; GeorgeSavage, Jr., to Humphrey,April 11, 1964,ibid.; and RolandA. Duerksonto Halleck, Sept. 18, 1963, box 74, HalleckPapers. 51 Letters,petitions, and postcardsin the HumphreyPapers from a wide arrayof people nationallyindicate thatthe churches were very active outside the Midwest, especially in New Englandand the MiddleAtlantic states and evenin borderareas like Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland.However, in CharlesHalleck's district in north- westernIndiana civil rights seemed to affectpeople lessthan in otherparts of the Midwest. The votersin Halleck's area wereas concernedabout SupremeCourt rulings denying prayers in thepublic schools and about a proposed nationalpark along Lake Michiganin northernIndiana as about the racialcrisis. See folderscovering September 1963 to February1964, boxes 74 and 76, HalleckPapers. Churchesand theCivil Rights Act of 1964 87 butionto ourAmerican democracy." Similar statements appear over and overagain in congressionalfiles.52 A certainspontaneity suggested how unusual such efforts were for the people involved.A largegathering organized by local clergyin DelawareCounty, Iowa, in earlySeptember 1963, was described by a localpolitician as "quiteunique" because none of the organizers"had everbeen involvedin a rallyon a publicissue so they werenot quite surehow to conductit, but theywent ahead anyway."Because no blackslived in the area,they asked a Negrodoctor from outside to be on thepro- gram.And at least in easternIowa a hintof the intensityof interestcreated can be gatheredfrom the geographicalorigins of the hundredsof churchlypeti- tioners-small townslike Clinton, Epworth, Postville, and Waukon,as wellas larger citieslike Cedar Rapidsand Iowa City.Clearly some sortof politicalalchemy was at workwithin the churchesat the grassroots.53 Latentyet deeply held personal beliefs surfaced, pushing people into the political arena.Belief in equalitybefore the law,awareness of the greatgap betweenthat ideal and currentracial practices, and a senseof moralurgency to correctthe in- justicesrevealed were central concerns of midwesternchurch people as theywrote to theirpolitical leaders in Washington.Religious persons were especially sensitive to the clearethical issues posed bythe pendinglegislation. They (and othersnot so religiouslyinclined) were ready to supportfundamental change in the law because theyhad come to realizeit was simplythe rightthing to do. The factthat substantialnumbers of Americansstill were denied the rightto voteand to have accessto publicaccommodations because of their skin color was a moralcontradic- tion thatovercame, at least forthe moment,any otherhesitancies or prejudices about racethese churchgoers possessed. Nudged byindividual conscience and belief,many were ready to writetheir congressmen and in someinstances to go directly to Washingtonor to demonstrateat home in orderto securepassage of the Civil RightsAct. A nunwriting from Dubuque, Iowa,summed up muchof this attitude: "injusticeunremedied only breedsgreater trouble. This generationcan make a noble beginning-or it can, by negligence,hand a biggerand graverproblem to a futuregeneration. We hope you[her congressman] will urge coming to gripswith the problemnow."54

52 Forquotations, seeJohnJ. Masterson to Halleck,July25, 1963,and attachedpetition, box 72, HalleckPapers; and "The Ministersand Eldersof the CrawfordsvillePresbytery . . . [a] resolution,"Sept. 16, 1963,ibid. Sedlack to Bromwell,Sept. 22, 1963,box 3, BromwellPapers; Davison to Bromwell,Sept. 22, 1963,ibid.; Workmanto Bromwell,Sept. 23, 1963,ibid.; Jack L. Zervas,Oct. 8, 1963,and attachedpetition, box 4, ibid.; petitionfrom Clinton,Iowa, interfaithgroup, Dec. 5, 1963,ibid.; petitionfrom Women's Society, Northern Iowa Presbytery, Oct. 15, 1963,ibid.; SisterMary Marcellus to Bromwell,Dec. 14, 1963,and attachedsignatures, ibid. Perhapsthe mostunusual petition among dozens in theHumphrey Papers was a statementsigned by 350 missionariesinJapan, representingsix mainlineProtestant denominations, urging passage of the civilrights bill. MauriceE. Troyerto Humphrey,April 10, 1964,and attachedpetition, box 23.K.10.8F,Humphrey Papers. 53 Petitionfrom interfaith group, Clinton, Iowa, Dec. 5, 1963, box 4, BromwellPapers; petition from Beth- lehemUnited Presbyterian Church, Postville, Iowa, Dec. 7, 1963,ibid.; petitionfrom First Presbyterian Church, Waukon,Iowa, Dec. 8, 1963,ibid.; petitionfrom First Presbyterian Church, Iowa City,Iowa, Oct. 8, 1963,ibid.; WarrenJ. Connerto Bromwell,Feb. 17, 1964, ibid. There are manysimilar items in boxes 23.K.10.7B,and 23.K.10.8F,Humphrey Papers. 54 SisterMary Marcellus to Bromwell,Dec. 14, 1963, box 4, BromwellPapers. 88 TheJournal of AmericanHistory June1990

Intimatelylinked to thesefeelings and attitudeswas the considerableeffect of the nationallobbying effort of the churches.The NationalCouncil had createda networkthat exerted pressure on Congressnot only in Washingtonand on Capitol Hill but also fromchurches and synagoguesa thousandmiles westward in small placeslike Rochester, Indiana; Farley, Iowa; and Waseca,Minnesota. It is impossible to explicatethe exactrole church leaders in New YorkCity and thenation's capital playedin stirringpeople to politicalaction in theMidwest and elsewhere.But surely thegrass-roots effort would have been far less focused and effectivewithout the early workshopsand forumsorganized by Hedgeman, without the tensof thousandsof ''actionmemos" mailed by Hamilton and similardenominational leaders in theEast to churchesin the Midwest,or withoutthe carefulcoordination and dispatching of delegationsof churchpeople from throughoutthe MississippiValley to Washingtonto pressCongress to supportthe civilrights bill. Afterextended debate throughoutthe springof 1964,the Senatefinally voted cloturewith four votes to spareon June 10. On July2, 1964, PresidentJohnson signedthe Civil Rights Act into law. Senators Frank Lausche (Ohio), EverettDirksen (Illinois),Bourke Hickenlooper and JackMiller (Iowa), Carl Curtisand Roman Hruska(Nebraska), all considereddoubtful supporters early in thebattle, voted for cloture.All wereof specialconcern to churchgroups. Of thisgroup, only Hicken- loopervoted against the bill at finalpassage, standing alone amongthe twenty-four midwesternsenators of bothparties in the finalvote.55 These results,like those in the House of Representatives,suggest that the "Midweststrategy," whether generated fromthe bottom up or fromthe top downor, most likely, through a combina- tion of such forces,had stronglyinfluenced the outcome. Six daysafter the triumphant signing session at theWhite House, Hubert Hum- phreywrote to Jim Hamilton of the National Council of Churches to express"deep appreciationfor your splendid efforts during the civil rights debate in the Senate," and to assertthat without the "unremitting support" of Hamilton and theLe'ader- ship Conference"this bill could neverhave becomelaw."56 Humphrey was correct in a sense,but hiswords oversimplified historical reality. To thesenator the clearest evidenceof the churches' presence was in themanifold forms of direct lobbying on CapitolHill. The equallysignificant grass-roots support of the churches in hishome stateof Minnesotaand throughoutthe Midwest(and elsewherein the nation)was perhapsharder to recognize. Moreover,the religious groups were only part of a broadcoalition supporting the Civil RightsAct. The churchesprobably made theirgreatest contributions in the Midwest,and to a somewhatlesser degree in Washington.But the African-American community,organized labor, the LeadershipConference, and the politicianswho

55 On the finalvotes, see CongressionalQuarterly Almanac, 20 (1964), 86. On maneuveringsin the Senate beforepassage of the bill, see Whalen and Whalen,Longest Debate, 194-229. 56 Humphreyto Hamilton,July 8, 1964,"General Correspondence on CivilRights" folder (National Council of Churchesoffice, Washington). For similarassessments, see Whalen and Whalen, LongestDebate, 233; and Caplan to RobertEschenbach, Feb. 23, 1966,"The CivilRights Act of 1964:Background Material" folder, Leader- ship Conferenceon Civil RightsPapers. Churchesand theCivil Rights Act of 1964 89 fashionedthe congressional strategies that eventually succeeded were also essential participants.Clarence Mitchell, the shrewdNAACP lobbyistin Washington,later offeredthe followingassessment of whathappened: I don'tagree with those who make it appear that the church was the decisive factor. I thinkwe needed everybody we had.... Forexample, when you get right down to thequestion of approaching individual congressmen, the labor groups have a greatdeal of know-how in thisarea. A manlike Andrew Biemiller [the American Federationof Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations lobbyist] . . . is justin- dispensable.Ifwe had, let's say, a leadingarchbishop or the head of the National Councilof Churches but had not Andy Biemiller, I don't think we could have won. Bythe same token, I thinkif we had Andy without them, we couldn't have won. So theywere all importantin myjudgment.57 Mitchellwas beinggracious and diplomatic,but he also was historicallyaccurate, and his wordssuggest the need to modifyHumphrey's judgments a bit.

ManyProtestants, usually more evangelicaland more conservativetheologically thanmost members of mainline churches, viewed the political activities of the mid- sixtieswith considerable doubt. They felt that the churches should focus their ener- gies on purelyspiritual tasks and "savingsouls" and shouldlet the secularworld solveits own problems.This attitudereflected long-standing differences between theconservative and liberalwings of American Protestantism on theissue of direct churchinvolvement in politics.Thus at thetime the mainline groups paid relatively littleattention to such arguments.58 More intriguing,perhaps, were the reactionsof the manyconservative church peoplewho did notsummarily reject the idea ofchurch involvement in thepolitical processbut who wereinactive because they did not sharedominant national attitudeson civilrights issues. A fewwere ministers in mainstreamchurches, unable to saymuch publicly about their conservative feelings. But theyrevealed themselves in lettersto theirRepublican political leaders. One, who feared"federal control whichis ridingwith the Civil Rights Bill," inJune 1964 admonished Bourke Hicken- looperto "go to the[Republican national] convention and fight,fight that we might have a clear-cutchoice at the nextpresidential election! (I don'tneed to mention names,do I?)." Supportersof BarryGoldwater for president feared that individual prerogativesof whites (especially small businessmen) might be circumscribedas the governmentmoved to protectthe rights of blacks.They expressed no overtracism, but theytended toward a moralinsensitivity that ignored or lostsight of thedeep-

7 ClarenceMitchell interview by John Stewart, Feb. 9, 1967,transcript, p. 36,John F. KennedyOral History Program(Kennedy Library). For a similarassessment by a keystaff member of the LeadershipConference, see Caplan toEschenbach, Feb. 23, 1966,"The CivilRights Act of 1964:Background Material" folder, Leadership Con- ferenceon Civil RightsPapers. 58 Forhints of suchattitudes, see MartinHoyer to Hickenlooper,May 25, 1964,box 9, HickenlooperPapers; C. D. Loehrto Hickenlooper,May 11, 1964,ibid.; JamesD. Brutonto Hickenlooper,May 25, 1964,ibid. 90 TheJournal of AmericanHistory June1990 seated inequitiesand humiliationsthat AfricanAmericans had sufferedfor so long.59 Suchpeople were not in themajority politically in 1964,and withinthe churches theyhad no organizationor advocatesto representtheir views on nationalpolitics. In parttheir interests in publicaffairs were just arising or yetto developnationally. However,even as racialissues dominated public discussion, there was intensecon- cern in some midwesternchurch circles that the SupremeCourt had declared prayersin thepublic schools unconstitutional. That issueseemed to disquietespe- ciallythe independent,evangelical churches, not the moreliberal, mainline religiousgroups. The notso shadowyoutlines of the religious politics of the late seven- tiesand eightieswere taking on shapeand substancemore than a decade earlier.60 Moreover,the mainline churches' deep involvementin racialissues in 1963 and 1964provided conservative church people with a modelshowing how direct political interventioncould achievea specificlegislative agenda. The tacticsof the liberal churcheswere a double-edgedsword, which could be used to advanceconservative as wellas liberalends. It was notlong beforeexactly that happened. Perhaps ironi- cally,then, the politicalsuccesses of the mainlinechurches in the 1960sserved as a preconditionfor the emergenceof Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson,and the Moral Majorityin the 1980s.61 As we gaindistance from and perspectiveon the decadeof thesixties, the limits of the politicalachievements of the mainlinechurches in thatera becomemore visible.The politicalpower of the liberal religious community was never again mobi- lized so fullyand effectivelyas it wasin 1963and 1964.Church people directlysup- portedthe Voting Rights Act in 1965,and othercivil rights legislation.62 But their activitieswere not so organizedand not so intense as in 1963-1964.James Hamilton'soffice continued to workclosely with the LeadershipConference, but neveragain was there an attemptto organizegrass-roots church support for a piece

59 Rev.Barton G. Murrayto Hickenlooper,June 24, 1964,ibid. See also, forexample, W. La RoyAnderson to Hickenlooper,Feb. 18, 1964,ibid.; FrankE.Jacobs to Hickenlooper,April 18, 1964,ibid.; RalphDraper to Hick- enlooper,June 12, 1964,ibid.; Mrs.Richard C. Brossto Halleck,Sept. 18, 1963,box 74, HalleckPapers; Calvin K. Smithto Halleck,Sept. 18, 1963,ibid.; AustinDrewry to Halleck,Feb. 3, 1964, box 76, ibid. 60 Forconcern about the outlawing of school prayer, see, for example, Karl E. Johnsonto Halleck,Jan. 4, 1964, box 76, HalleckPapers; R. I. Humberdto Halleck,Jan. 15, 1964,ibid. Thererecently has been a renewedinterest in church-staterelations among political scientists and otherscholars, probably generated by the developmentin the 1970sof conservative church involvement in nationalpolitics. Most of these studies ignore or pass quicklyover thepolitical activities of the mainline churches in the sixtiesand thepossible connections between those activities and church-stateissues in the Reagan era. See Reichley,Religion in AmericanPublic Life; Allen D. Hertzke, RepresentingGod in Washington:The Role ofReligious Lobbies in theAmerican Polity (Knoxville, 1988); Richard P. McBrien,Caesar's Coin: Religion and Politicsin America(New York, 1987); Kenneth Wald, Religion and Politics in America(New York, 1987). For earlier treatments, see LukeE. Ebersole,Church Lobbying in theNation's Capitol (New York,1951); and JamesL. Adams, The GrowingChurch Lobby in Washington(Grand Rapids, 1970). 61 On the reorientationin politicalconcerns of the churches,reflecting a broader shift in the last twenty-five yearsin culturalroles and institutionalpower between the "established," mainline churches and moreconservative, evangelicalreligious groups, see Wade Clark Roof and William McKinney,American Mainline Religion: Its ChangingShape andFuture (New Brunswick,1987); and especiallyWuthnow, Restructuring ofAmerican Religion. 62 See footnote40, especiallycitations from the Bromwell and Hickenlooperpapers. See also Memo,Jan.-June, 1965(National Council of Churches office, Washington); Blake for NCC Commissionon Religionand Race,tele- types,April 1, 1965,"General Correspondence on CivilRights," ibid.; Hamiltonto W. GarnerWerntz, Aug. 16, 1965,ibid.; Hamiltonto Mrs.Donald Frey,Aug. 16, 1965,ibid. Churchesand theCivil Rights Act of 1964 91 of legislationcomparable to thatmounted in 1963 and 1964.63The NCC-CORR turnedto otherprojects and by 1967 disappearedentirely, its dutiesand staffab- sorbedby the existingbureaucracy as the senseof urgencysurrounding its begin- ningsdissipated. Perhapsa massiveeffort like that of 1963-1964was not needed again because such a turningpoint is one of a kind; subsequentcivil rights legislation required less effortprecisely because the first victory was so decisive.But thereare other explana- tionsfor the loss of momentum in thechurches, related to deeperand moreencom- passingfactors. The mainlinechurches succeeded in theirpolitical efforts in 1964 in partbecause the issueswere so clearand unambiguous.The moraldimensions of thedebate, especially, were very compelling. As the racialrevolution deepened, however,the issuesbecame more complex. The debatesconcerned jobs, housing, and thereallocation of nationalresources, fundamental economic and socialques- tionsthat directly affected wider and widersegments of Americansociety. Church people could no longeragree among themselves as to propercourses of action.64 The documentssuggest that even as the churches'political involvement blos- somed,mass commitments in supportof blackscould not be pressedtoo far.For somesupporters of thecivil rights bill, especiallythose in smalltowns in theMid- west,it was all a bit of an abstractionsince they lived in communitieswithout any blacks.Scarcely concealed fears of possiblepublic disordersaroused even by the Marchon Washingtonin 1963appeared in someletters from church supporters of thenew racial legislation. The law-and-orderissue subtly intertwined itself with the manyexpressions of racialgood will in 1963 and 1964,waiting to burstinto full public viewa littlelater, when massive racial disturbances and unrestoccurred.65 The social and politicalchanges associated with the Civil RightsAct mightnot directlyaffect middle-class mainline church members in anydrastic way. Ending dis- criminationin public accommodationswas not much of a personalsacrifice. But by 1969 the churcheswere stung as deeplyas the secularwhite community by the whiplashof the BlackPower movement and specificdemands from highly self-consciousAfrican Americans. In Mayof that yearJames Forman's "Black Mani-

63 Hamiltonwas the firstchairperson of the "Compliance"committee, established by the Leadership Confer- enceto assurefollow-up to theCivil Rights Act of 1964.NCC financialcontributions to theconference, substantial in the midsixties,declined to a meretrickle and evendisappeared briefly later in the decade. See Hamiltonto Ann K. Davis, April15, 1974,"LCCR, 1974,Correspondence" folder (National Council of Churches office, Wash- ington). " Pollshave suggesteda growinggap in attitudeson politicaland social issuesbetween people in the pews and clericalleaders, especially those at the nationallevel. But muchof that data was gatheredafter the midsixties and reflectsthe divisivenessthat began in the late sixties.At least in respondingto the civil rightsdebate in 1963-1964,the clergyand laityof the mainline churches seemed closely attuned to one another.On thepolls and the issuestheir results raise, see Reichley,Religion in AmericanPublic Life, 269-81. The data presentedin this essaycontradict the assertion that as advocatesfor the Civil Rights Act "church lobbyists and ministers. . . largely neglectedto bringthe laityalong in theirpolitical witness" in Hertzke,Representing God in Washington,31. 65 Duerksento Halleck,Sept. 18, 1963,box 74, HalleckPapers; Donald B. Oranderto Halleck,Sept. 18, 1963, box 76, ibid.; C. P. Hunter,Jr., to Bromwell,July 8, 1963,box 3, BromwellPapers; Bringewatt to Bromwell,Aug. 23, 1963,ibid.; Mr. and Mrs.Murl McDonald to Bromwell,Sept. 1, 1963,ibid.; NormaT. Speer to Bromwell, Sept. 20, 1963,ibid.; JohnM. Ely to Bromwell,Sept. 8, 1963,ibid.; RichardP. Waltersto Hickenlooper,April 21, 1964,box 9, HickenlooperPapers; Hoyer to Hickenlooper,May 25, 1964,ibid.; Brutonto Hickenlooper,May 25, 1964,ibid.; GeorgeL. Gallaher,June 29, 1964, to Hickenlooper,ibid. 92 TheJournal of AmericanHistory June1990 festo,"addressed to all of the mainlinechurches and demandingfrom them $500 millionin "reparations,"met withwidespread rebuff. The contrastbetween the mainlinechurches' enthusiastic embrace of Martin Luther King, Jr., in theearly sixtiesand theirrejection of the moremilitant Forman in 1969 could not have been clearer.66Moreover, by 1969 mostof the mainlineProtestant denominations were facingstiff internal challenges from militant black clergy and laityseeking greater autonomywithin the churches.Those challenges,too, deeplyeroded the earlier senseof consensuson racequestions.67 Thus in a briefspan of fiveyears the great groundswell of support within the mainstream religious groups for a nationalmove towardimproved race relationshad crestedand was ebbingaway. Demonstratingan idealismand a senseof moralconcern stemming from their religiouscommitments, in 1963and 1964the mainline churches spoke out in a sus- tainedand constructiveway on the centraldilemma of our nationaldomestic life. But throughouttheir history, even in theheyday of the Social Gospel,the churches wereenmeshed in the verysystem of racialdiscrimination that in 1963 and 1964 theycriticized and hoped to change.68Soon theyfell back into traditional ways or seemedparalyzed, especially in the late sixties,by tumult and confusion.In their actionschurch people fora shorttime led, but thensimply did littlemore than reflect,the general course of thenation in racerelations. As historianswe can both understandwhy that was so and be sad thatthe storydid not turnout differently.

66 New YorkTimes, May 2, 1969, p. 46; ibid., May 3, 1969, pp. 1, 14; ibid., May 5, 1969, p. 1; ibid., May 6, 1969,pp. 1, 37, 42; ibid., May 10, 1969,pp. 1, 15, 32; ibid., Sept. 4, 1969,p. 1; ibid., Sept. 12, 1969,p. 1; GayraudWilmore, Black Religionand Black Radicalism:An Interpretationof the ReligiousHistory of Afro- AmericanPeople (Maryknoll,1983), 192-219. See James Forman,"Black Manifesto,"in Black Theology:A DocumentaryHistory, 1966-1979, ed. GayraudWilmore andJames Cone (Maryknoll,1979), 80-89. Fornumerous responsesof mainlinechurch people to Forman'sproposals, both individualand denominationalstatements, see RG 3, folder12, box 4, and esp. RG 5, folder16, box 13,National Council of ChurchesArchives. Late in his life MartinLuther King, Jr., made moreexplicit his own radicalcriticisms of Americansociety, but whiteAmerica, includingthe churches,largely ignored that development.On King, see Garrow,Bearing the Cross,536-37, 563-64, 567, 581-82,585, 595-96; and Adam Fairclough,"Was MartinLuther King a Marxist?"in MartinLuther King,Jr: A Profile,ed. C. EricLincoln (New York,1984), 228-42. 67 On the effectsof internaltensions in the late sixtieswithin Protestant groups and institutionsnormally at the forefrontof the strugglefor racial change, see CharlesCobb, Sr., interviewby Findlay,Nov. 22, 1988 (in Findlay'spossession); Newsletter, Dec. 1966-Nov.1969, folders 6-9, box 36, EpiscopalSociety for Cultural and Racial UnityPapers (King Center);Episcopal Society for Cultural and Racial Unity,Board of DirectorsMinutes, Jan. 1966-Nov.1969, folders 10-13, box 7, ibid.; folder14, box 75, ibid.; folder7, box 15,ibid.; Handy,History of UnionTheological Seminary in New York,259-314. This conflictand confusionover racial issues coupled with the tensionsgenerated almost simultaneously by the escalationof the VietnamWar probablywere key factors leading to the finaldemise of liberalProtestant cultural leadership in the late sixtiesand earlyseventies. See Wuthnow,Restructuring of AmericanReligion, 3-172. 68 See David Wills,"The CentralTheme of AmericanReligious History: Pluralism, Puritanism, and the En- counterof Black and White,"Religion and IntellectualLife, 5 (Fall 1987), 30-41.