A Critique of Dudziak’s Cold War Civil Rights.

Introduction.

In Cold War Civil war, Dudziak tries to account for the Civil Right Reform in post World War II America by arguing that the Cold War was a major influence of these reforms. By arguing that the Cold War indirectly led to Civil Rights reforms, Dudziak claims that her analysis is not supposed to replace, or undermine the role played by other domestic factors; however, a premise implicit in Dudziak’s historical narrative is the idea that American political motivations in domestic matters are always sensitive to America’s long-term international interest. That is on Dudziak’s view, American administrations always try to tailor their domestic policies in way that: (1) safeguard America’s image abroad and (2) help America’s international interest. This paper tries to illustrate some of the problems with Dudziak’s narrative. That is, it is not always clear that America acts in ways that are conducive for their long-term international interest. The Vietnam War is clearly an example of an instance in which America engaged in policies that directly undermined her international image as well as her long-term international interest. Even if we grant Dudziak the premise that the modus operandi of American policy is to act in ways that are beneficial to America’s long-term interest, the burden of proof will still be on Dudziak to explain-away events that do not fit her model—like the Vietnam War. The fact that America decided to invade Vietnam despite the foreseeable harm that the invasion will have on her foreign policy is a fact that anyone sympathetic to Dudziak’s argument must explain.
Setting up the Stage: Civil Rights Reform and the Cold War.
In his seminal 1946 speech Winston Churchill proclaims the beginning of what is now called the Cold War with the following word, “[f]rom Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an Iron curtain has descended across the World”(Modern History sourcebook). The Cold War will last from Churchill’s speech to the fall of the Berlin War in November of 1989 and during this period tensions between the communist nations led by Russia and capitalist/democratic regimes of the west almost led the world to a full blown nuclear war— like in the Bay of Pigs Affair. In Cold War Civil Rights, Dudziak explore the influences of the Cold War on Civil Rights reform by suggesting that “[t]he need to address international criticism[ about the inadequacies of American democracy] gave the federal government an incentive to promote social change at home”(Dudziak, p.12). Implicit in Dudziak’s arguments is something like the following model:
Domestic event + international pressure = reform; where reform is amenable to international pressure (my formalization of Dudziak’s argument)[1]

i) Dudziak’s Model at work in cold war civil war.

In Cold War Civil war Dudziak’s presents her argument according to the model outlined above that is, first she presents a domestic event and then she present the international reaction to the event and finally she shows how the international pressure forced the government to undertake social reforms that always accommodated the critics of America. To see Dudziak’s model at work consider the following domestic event: The 1946, lynching of Blacks in the south. This event was criticized by the Fiji time and China tribune reports and ultimately President Truman meet NAACP and promises to pass civil rights reform — a move that ultimately split the DNC, as the Southerners created the States’ Rights Party and choose Strum Thurman as their candidate. Similarly she argues that in McLaurin v. Oklahoma (1948), the Supreme Court warned the state attorney general that “these kind of segregation affected America image abroad” (Dudziak, p.98-99). To further illustration the effectiveness of Dudziak’s model, consider the 1958 incidence involving Jimmy Wilson a handyman from Alabama given the death sentence for stealing less than a dollar in change. The international pressure surrounding this event came from the following sources:

1) Canadian judges wrote a petition to the Governor of Alabama, James Folsom
2) Italian newspaper L’UNITA called it “a new unprecedented low in American segregation”
3) Hulda Omreit a Housewife from Norway wrote a petition to the Governor of Alabama (Dudziak).

Dudziak goes on to argue that it was as a result of the international pressure that the governor of Alabama James Folsom was forced to grant Wilson Clemency. Similarly she argues that in 1961 Kennedy’s active involvement in African matters such as the independence of Algeria, was largely an attempt to improve American bilateral relationships with Africa in the aftermath of an incident surrounding the newly appointed Ambassador of Chad Malick Sow. (Dudziak, p.153). So far I have showed how Dudziak argues for her thesis that international pressure played a crucial role in bringing about
Civil Rights reform in America during the Cold War. What follows provide evidence in support of my argument that Dudziak’s model of explanation breaks down, because it cannot be used to explain American policies in other Cold War events like the Vietnam War.
The Nature of the American Political Motivation and the change it produces.

Historically American has never been known as a country that yields to international pressure contrary to what Dudziak want us to belief. Although Dudziak gives compelling reason to explain why the Cold War played a major role in bringing about Civil Rights reform, it seems as thought her argument rely on the premise that American domestic policies are highly influenced by international pressure. However, the claim that U.S. domestic politics is sensitive to international pressure could not be established by fiat, nor could it be established by looking at a couple of historical events during the Cold war. Rather, one needs to examine other historical events in order to establish that as a general principles America would always engage in the course of action that is most suitable to her international interest. That is, Dudziak’s thesis will loose its intuitive appeal if further analysis of the Cold War reveals evidence suggesting that America made decision that undermined her long-term geopolitical interest. That is, if one could successfully show that in at least one instances American has made political decisions that jeopardizes their foreign politics then Dudziak would have to show why her theory for explaining American political motivation works for only a carefully selected set of events but fails to account or other event.
The Vietnam War is used in this paper to show contra Dudziak that, American often takes decisions which are contrary to her long-term international interest even in light of international pressure. In June of 1965, USIA Director Carl Rowan’s daily briefing suggested that “[i]ncreasing U.S. involvement in Vietnam brings growing editorial concern and divided opinion, some of it strongly critical” (National security Files, Kennedy library). The Johnson Administration’s increased its involvement in Vietnam despite the fact that America’s daily involvement in Vietnam threatened to undermine domestic Civil Rights reform. According to Dudziak’s model, one would have expected the Johnson Administration to withdraw from Vietnam due to growing international pressure along with the domestic unrest brought by the war. Thus, despite its initial appeal Dudziak’s model for understanding the motivations of American policies is far too simplistic. The problem seems to be that Dudziak fails to appreciate all the complexities underlying the political motivations of any government. As a result one gets a very static and monolithic view if U.S. political motivation.
One could object to my criticism of Cold War Civil Right, by arguing that Dudziak is not making any normative claims about American political motivation and that she is simple giving a descriptive account of historic events. I response to this objection to my critique of Dudziak by arguing that there is no such thing as “ purely descriptive claim,” because descriptive claims always entail normative implication. That is, by describing how subsequent U.S. administrations responded to international pressure, Dudziak is ultimately claiming that American policy is sensitive to international pressure as a matter of fact. Unfortunately we have found at least one instance (i.e. the Vietnam War) in which American policy did not show this sensitivity to international pressure. So the burden of proof is on Dudziak to explain why her model is not successful in explaining U.S. political motivations in Vietnam.


References
1) Dudziak L.Mary, “Cold War Civil War”
2) Kennedy Library online at http://www.jfklibrary.org/
3) Modern History sourcebook online at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook.html

[1] Note that Dudziak presents no formal argument in her book so this formal rendition of her argument is my attempt to clearly articulation some of her unstated premises. This is, her historical narrative operates under a certain model according to which domestic events plus international pressure always led to a social reform; whereby, the reforms were always meant to silence international critics of America. In what follows I will illustrate how Dudziak makes use of this model to advance her thesis by showing how the model works in a good number of domestic events that took place during the cold war. However I will show how the model breaks down when applied to the war in Vietnam.

Point of view for the ladies dealing with abortion rights

I was surfing on the internet today and came across an article saying that Chief Justice Scalia talked to "60 Minutes" recently and said that he felt the Constitution didn't prohibit abortion any more than it allowed it, and that he doesn't agree with conservatives who say the Constitution means that the states should prohibit abortions. Not sure if it'll help with your research but it is at least perhaps a different point of view on the subject for your own personal knowledge on his reasoning, being a SC Justice. Unfortunately, I did see that it doesn't air until Sunday, but you might be able to look at a transcript or something online. Good luck.

Equal Protection Clause and Women's Rights

For my research, im looking at the equal protections clause and how it changed from disallowing women to benefit from its protections in the late 19th century to concluding the exact opposite in 1971.

First of all, it is embarrassing to admit that I knew absolutely nothing about this crucial part of the Constitution before this paper. I didn’t even know where it was located or what it said. Upon a simple reading, it seems to be very straightforward in its objective. It does not cease to amaze me how it could have ever been argued that it did not apply to women, but it was, and for more than a hundred years, that is the interpretation that was generally accepted.

Although I now understand the reasoning behind how the Supreme Court managed to justify this exclusion, it is amazing to me that two such opposing sides could stem from the same short, seemingly simple text. The EPC was used in both instances to accomplish whatever means the court had in mind, in one instance to justify excluding women from possessing certain privileges and immunities and then later to decide that they do fall under the clause's protections.

I’ve been stumbling on a lot of heated feminist literature while researching for this (but not using it in my paper obviously!) so maybe im just a little bitter right now, but I don’t think women have ever been fully in control of attaining their own rights, and have been forced to rely on the whims of the Justices and whether they are up to speed with shifts in the social climate or lagging behind. The fact that there are such drastic changes in constitutional interpretation between cases, like from Plessy to Brown or Bradwell to Reed, makes it seem obvious that the Constitution really is a living Constitution and that it’s meaning changes with the times, rather than being just a flat blueprint.

These are just generalizations of course and mostly ramblings after doing research for papers for like 2 months straight, but it does all make me wonder how these decisions are being made and justified and rediscovered and justified and repealed and justified etc. Very puzzling!

D-Republican and Bank of the United States

My research is why Democratic-Republican changed their opinion about a National Bank and accepted it. When I research this subject, I found that especially Thomas Jefferson abhorred BUS(Bank of the United States) enormously calling it "one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution." However, when James Madison took office in 1809, he accepted and renew the Bank of the United States in 1816 even though protracting debates were going on for 5 years.
It really seems ironical to me when James Madison actually changed his opinion about a National Bank. However, I think we need to think about "domestic situation, Constitutional debates, Public opinion, Election of 1816" so that we can figure out why James Madison made a decision.

Privileges or Immunities Clause

Does the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporate the rights of citizens as listed in the bill of rights be protected from States? I am going to argue that it does based on historical evidence and the ever changing legal and scholarly interpretations of this Amendment.
In doing so, I will discuss the evolution of the "privileges or Immunities" Clause starting with what some would say is its origin in the comity clause in Article IV, Section II into what is known as the Incorporation Doctrine. I will show that the radical republicans who pushed this amendment, would at least in part support this doctrine because it was their original intent.

The 18th Amendment

My topic is the 18th amendment. My question is about how our country came to the 18th amendment. I am basically finished with the research. I was disappointed that the main book I wanted to use was checked out in the library, but life goes on. I have found the topic interesting. I selected it because my grandfather was a sheriff of a rural area south of Atlanta during prohibition and I have heard stories of his "liquor still busting days." Actually he busted a high school friends grandfather - we found the old still with ax marks in it.
It is interesting that the government decided to regulate morals for the country.

I am having trouble with primary sources support for my paper about the change in the Democratic-Republican's opinion on the establishment of the National Bank, particularly James Madison's citations. Does anyone know which of his papers would support this change in understanding, or any other papers relevant to the thesis?

Constitutional Processes in Texas and CSA

My paper concerns the issue of slavery in the Republic of Texas and the Confederate States Constitutions. I began my research by examining the different constitutions that were at least partially based on the U.S. Constitution, among them: Texas, CSA, West Florida, and Vermont. I narrowed it down to these two as a result of their links to slavery.

I have built my thesis around the fact that slavery was seen as an economic and social necessity and had to be protected. At the same time, the way that slavery was addressed in the constitutions was influenced by both states' rights and abolitionists. I am thinking about expanding my primary research to encompass more about the abolitionist effects on slavery.

The most fascinating thing I have discovered was that Southerners' beliefs in slavery was not absolute, they limited themselves to make it more palatable to others. The slave trade was not reopened which would have been supported if not for foreign or northern abolitionist views.

There are even a few Supreme Court cases that show up in this topic. The slavery in the territories question in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and the inter-state slavery travel question in Strader v. Graham (1850) are solved directly in the CSA Constitution. The Texas Constitution had neither issue but banned slaves from traveling in most cases. Strangely, they banned people of color from living in the country at all! If they did not leave they would be sold into slavery! Let me know what you think of my findings. Thanks and good luck on all of yours...

The Supreme Court and Substantive Due Process

I am doing my paper on the evolution in Supreme Court jurisprudence that allowed for the shift from Hurtado v. California in 1884, wherein it was decided that the Fourteenth Amendment did not encompass the Bill of Rights, to the Taft court of the 1920's, which regularly held that the Fourteenth Amendment did in fact encompass (at least some of) these same rights. In the reading that I've done so far, it seems that the Taft court operated at the zenith of the substantive due process era, and the amount of philosophical hair-splitting that occurred in many of their holdings (and dissents, for that matter) is reflective of this fact. The same court that upheld a billiard parlor's right to ban aliens would also find a state law banning the teaching of German (Meyer v. Nebraska, 1923) to be unreasonable. In another case, Gitlow v. New York (1923), the Taft court upheld a lower-court decision banning the advocacy of violent government overthrow under a state criminal anarchy law, while simultaneously acknowledging for the first time that the First Amendment was indeed protected under the auspices of the Fourteenth.
I see a pattern where the Taft court seemed focused on protecting the individual, and perhaps more importantly, individual private property ownership, against encroachment by the states. To this end, the court would strike down a state law in Arizona established to protect the rights of picketing workers against legal injunction. The case, Truax v. Corrigan (1921), would pit the owner of the business against disruptive, striking employees. Tellingly, the court chose to view the business owner's right to own property as a fundamental one protected under the aegis of the Bill of Rights, and thus, necessarily, under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause as well. While this court may have been no friend to social reform (and indeed, it was not), there were a few anomalies, most notably Nixon v. Herndon (1927), that were not so easily explained. In this case, the court struck down a Texas statute forbidding African-Americans from participating in the Democratic state primary, on the basis that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly forbade such actions by the states.
Now, as to the question of why this evolution occurred, well, that's why I'm writing this. I'm still not really sure.

Women's Rights

I started out with the research question in mind of how did women's legal rights in the US up through the 19th century. That of course was too broad, and then I narrowed it down to how did women's suffrage rights changes which has been redone into how did women gain suffrage rights. For me, this is kind of a hard subject because I know absolutely nothing about it so I'm having to start from scratch with a basic history. I'm not finding many legal cases dealing with it early on but I'm reading a lot about how the suffrage movement came together and changed over time, so I think I'm going to concentrate on that. Does anyone have any suggestions?