From the May 2010 IBDP History Paper 2 exam
Example 1
The complexities surrounding Kennedy’s civil rights record are further illuminated when considering the broader context of the Cold War and the international implications of racial discrimination in the United States. The Soviet Union frequently exploited instances of racial injustice in America to undermine US credibility on the world stage, portraying the nation as hypocritical in its advocacy for democracy and freedom. This external pressure undoubtedly influenced Kennedy’s calculations, adding another layer of urgency to the need to address civil rights concerns. However, it also meant that the administration’s rhetoric and actions were often framed in terms of national security and international prestige, rather than solely on the basis of moral principle. As Horne contends, the Cold War context shaped the administration’s approach to civil rights, transforming it into a strategic imperative rather than simply a matter of domestic justice. This strategic framing, while contributing to the advancement of civil rights, also had the effect of depoliticising the issue and obscuring the underlying systemic inequalities that perpetuated racial discrimination. The administration’s focus on presenting a positive image of the United States to the world sometimes led to a reluctance to confront the more radical demands of the Civil Rights Movement, such as calls for Black Power and economic justice. Kennedy’s relationship with civil rights leaders was often ambivalent, characterised by a mixture of support and caution. He cultivated close ties with figures like Martin Luther King Jr., recognising their leadership and influence, but he also expressed concerns about their more confrontational tactics and their potential to disrupt social order. The administration’s surveillance of civil rights activists, conducted by the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover, further illustrates this ambivalence. While ostensibly aimed at uncovering potential communist infiltration within the movement, the surveillance also served to monitor and suppress dissent, raising concerns about the protection of civil liberties.
The limitations of federal power in addressing deeply entrenched social and economic inequalities also constrained Kennedy’s ability to fully resolve the ‘moral issue’ of equal rights and opportunities. The federal government’s authority over state and local affairs was limited, and Southern states actively resisted federal intervention in matters of race relations. This resistance manifested in various forms, including defiance of court orders, the enactment of discriminatory laws, and the use of violence and intimidation against civil rights activists. Kennedy’s administration faced a constant struggle to enforce federal laws and protect the rights of African Americans in the South. The need to balance federal authority with states’ rights created a delicate political calculus, requiring careful consideration of legal and constitutional constraints. Furthermore, the economic realities of the time presented significant challenges to achieving true equality of opportunity. The legacy of slavery and segregation had created vast economic disparities between Black and white Americans, with Black communities disproportionately affected by poverty, unemployment, and lack of access to education and healthcare. Addressing these disparities required not only legal reforms but also substantial investments in social welfare programs and economic development initiatives. However, Kennedy’s administration, constrained by fiscal conservatism and political opposition, did not undertake the comprehensive economic reforms necessary to fully address these inequalities. The focus on economic growth, rather than redistribution, meant that the benefits of prosperity were not equally shared by all Americans.
The assassination of John Kennedy in November 1963 abruptly ended his presidency and left the fate of the Civil Rights Act uncertain. Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy’s successor, skillfully navigated the political obstacles and secured the passage of the Act in 1964, building upon the foundation laid by Kennedy’s administration. Johnson’s commitment to civil rights, coupled with his extensive experience in Congress, proved crucial in overcoming the opposition of Southern Democrats and securing the necessary votes for passage. However, it is important to recognise that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not solely a product of Johnson’s leadership. It was the culmination of decades of struggle by civil rights activists, legal challenges by the NAACP, and the growing public awareness of racial injustice. Kennedy’s administration played a significant role in this process, but it was not the sole architect of the Act’s passage. Moreover, the passage of the Civil Rights Act did not signify the end of the struggle for racial equality. The Act outlawed discrimination, but it did not eliminate the underlying prejudices and systemic inequalities that perpetuated racial disparities. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, passed in response to continued voter suppression in the South, further strengthened voting rights, but it did not fully address the economic and social barriers that prevented African Americans from achieving full equality. The urban riots of the 1960s, sparked by police brutality and economic deprivation, underscored the deep-seated frustrations and grievances within Black communities. These riots demonstrated that legal reforms alone were insufficient to address the complex challenges facing African Americans.
Heath’s analysis of the Kennedy era underscores the importance of understanding the limitations of presidential leadership in addressing deeply entrenched social problems. He argues that Kennedy’s actions, while significant, were often constrained by political realities and the inherent limitations of executive power. The ‘moral issue’ of equal rights and opportunities, he contends, required a more fundamental transformation of American society than Kennedy’s administration was able to achieve. The legacy of Kennedy’s civil rights record remains a subject of debate among scholars. Some emphasise his evolving commitment to racial equality and his willingness to confront the issue of segregation, while others highlight the limitations of his approach and the political calculations that shaped his actions. A nuanced assessment requires acknowledging both the advancements and the shortcomings of his presidency, recognising that Kennedy’s efforts represented a significant step forward, but not a complete solution to the ‘moral issue’ he identified. The complexities of the era, encompassing resistance from Southern Democrats, the limitations of executive power, and the evolving nature of the Civil Rights Movement itself, all contributed to a situation where Kennedy’s actions, though significant, fell short of complete resolution. The pursuit of equal rights and opportunities for all Americans remains an ongoing process, requiring continued vigilance, commitment, and a willingness to confront the systemic inequalities that continue to plague American society.
Example 2
The presidency of John F. Kennedy, though tragically cut short, marked a pivotal moment in the struggle for civil rights in the United States. His 1963 declaration that the nation faced a “moral issue” regarding the equality of all Americans framed the civil rights movement as a test of the country’s ethical and democratic foundations. While Kennedy’s rhetoric and limited legislative actions laid groundwork for future progress, his administration’s response to the demands of African Americans and other marginalised groups remained constrained by political calculations, institutional resistance, and the entrenched realities of racial segregation. Kennedy’s achievements, such as the proposed Civil Rights Act of 1963 and his support for desegregation in specific contexts, were significant but ultimately insufficient to resolve the systemic inequalities that defined American society. His legacy, therefore, lies not in the definitive resolution of the “moral issue” he identified but in the incremental steps that set the stage for more transformative reforms under his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson.
Kennedy’s approach to civil rights was shaped by the contradictions of Cold War liberalism. As Mary Dudziak has argued, the global ideological contest with the Soviet Union compelled American leaders to address racial injustice to maintain credibility abroad. The violent repression of civil rights protests, such as the 1961 Freedom Rides and the 1963 Birmingham campaign, drew international condemnation, undermining the U.S. claim to moral leadership in the fight against communism. Kennedy, acutely aware of this dynamic, framed civil rights as a matter of national security and democratic legitimacy. His June 1963 speech, delivered in the wake of the Birmingham church bombing that killed four African American girls, was the most forceful endorsement of racial equality ever made by a sitting president. In it, he condemned segregation as “morally wrong” and pledged to send Congress legislation to outlaw discrimination in public accommodations. Yet this rhetoric was not matched by commensurate action. The Civil Rights Act, introduced in June 1963, languished in Congress for months due to Southern Democratic opposition, and Kennedy’s reluctance to prioritise it over other legislative goals—such as tax cuts and trade expansion—revealed the limits of his commitment.
The administration’s cautious approach was further evident in its handling of desegregation. While Kennedy federalised the National Guard to enforce the integration of the University of Mississippi in 1962 and later deployed troops to protect African American students in Alabama, these interventions were reactive rather than proactive. As Taylor Branch notes, Kennedy viewed civil rights crises through the lens of public order rather than justice, often seeking to placate white moderates while avoiding direct confrontation with segregationist leaders. His Justice Department, led by Robert Kennedy, focused on narrow legal victories, such as the enrolment of James Meredith at Ole Miss, but failed to address the broader structures of disenfranchisement and economic exploitation that sustained racial hierarchy. The 1963 March on Washington, where Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech, was a watershed moment for the movement, yet Kennedy initially distanced himself from the event, fearing it would alienate white voters. Only after the march’s overwhelmingly peaceful success did he embrace its demands, meeting with organisers and endorsing their call for jobs and freedom.
Economic inequality, a cornerstone of the “moral issue” Kennedy invoked, remained largely unaddressed during his presidency. The poverty rate for African Americans in 1963 stood at 45%, double that of white families, while unemployment among Black workers was twice the national average. Kennedy’s economic policies, such as the 1962 Manpower Development and Training Act, were colourblind in design and failed to target the specific barriers faced by African Americans in accessing skilled labour and fair wages. As Michael Katz has observed, the administration’s emphasis on “growth liberalism”—the belief that a expanding economy would automatically uplift all citizens—ignored the entrenched discrimination in housing, education, and employment that perpetuated racial disparities. The Area Redevelopment Act of 1961, intended to stimulate job creation in depressed regions, allocated less than 5% of its funds to majority-Black counties in the South. Even the proposed Civil Rights Act, while groundbreaking in its focus on public accommodations, omitted provisions to combat discrimination in employment or housing, leaving critical aspects of the “moral issue” unaddressed.
The limitations of Kennedy’s approach were starkly illustrated by the federal government’s tepid response to voting rights. Despite the brazen suppression of Black voters across the South—through literacy tests, poll taxes, and outright violence—the administration resisted calls for sweeping legislation to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment. The 1960 Civil Rights Act, passed under Eisenhower, had created a Civil Rights Commission with limited enforcement powers, but Kennedy declined to expand its authority or pursue prosecutions of offending states. In Mississippi, where fewer than 7% of eligible African Americans were registered to vote in 1963, the Justice Department filed just four voting rights lawsuits during Kennedy’s tenure. As Steven Lawson has documented, the administration’s strategy relied on piecemeal litigation and symbolic gestures, such as the 1962 appointment of a handful of Black federal marshals, rather than a systemic challenge to disenfranchisement. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, drafted after Kennedy’s death, would ultimately address this gap, but its absence during his presidency underscored the gap between his rhetoric and the realities of racial oppression.
Critics of Kennedy’s record, including Malcolm X and elements of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), argued that his administration prioritised image over substance. The 1963 Children’s Crusade in Birmingham, where police used fire hoses and dogs against young protesters, exposed the brutality of segregation to a global audience, yet Kennedy’s public response focused on condemning “extremism on both sides” rather than unequivocally siding with the victims. As Peniel Joseph has shown, the administration’s reluctance to fully align itself with the grassroots activism of the movement reflected a deeper ambivalence about the implications of Black empowerment. Kennedy’s famous meeting with civil rights leaders in June 1963, while symbolically important, produced few concrete commitments; the proposed March on Washington Bill, which would have banned discrimination in federal hiring, was shelved after Southern Democrats threatened a filibuster. Even the Peace Corps, a signature Kennedy initiative, maintained racial quotas in its recruitment until 1964, undermining its purported mission of egalitarianism.
Yet to dismiss Kennedy’s contributions entirely would be to overlook the significance of his presidency as a catalyst for change. His endorsement of civil rights, however qualified, broke with decades of federal acquiescence to segregation and legitimised the movement’s demands in the eyes of millions of white Americans. The 1963 Civil Rights Act, though stalled in Congress at the time of his assassination, provided the blueprint for the landmark 1964 legislation that would outlaw segregation in public spaces. Kennedy’s televised speeches, particularly his June 1963 address, reached an estimated 70 million viewers and helped shift public opinion; Gallup polls recorded a 15% increase in support for civil rights legislation between 1963 and 1964. Moreover, his appointment of progressive judges, including Thurgood Marshall to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, laid the groundwork for future legal challenges to discrimination. As David Heath , Head of Humanities at the Bavarian International School has argued, Kennedy’s presidency represented a “necessary but incomplete reckoning” with America’s racial hierarchy, one that created political space for more radical reforms under Johnson.
The international dimension of Kennedy’s civil rights policy also merits consideration. While the Cold War imperative to improve America’s global image undoubtedly influenced his calculations, it also provided leverage for activists to frame segregation as a national embarrassment. The 1963 expulsion of African diplomats from a segregated Baltimore restaurant, which sparked outrage in newly independent nations like Ghana and Nigeria, forced the State Department to pressure local authorities to desegregate public facilities. Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress, which aimed to counter Soviet influence in Latin America through economic aid, included provisions to promote racial equality in recipient countries—a tacit acknowledgment that racism undermined U.S. credibility abroad. As Brenda Gayle Plummer has noted, this interplay between domestic activism and foreign policy created a “diplomatic civil rights strategy” that amplified the movement’s demands. Yet the administration’s focus on optics often overshadowed substantive action; the 1963 USIA pamphlet *The Negro in American Life*, distributed overseas to counter Soviet propaganda, celebrated token integration in the military and schools while ignoring the persistence of poverty and police violence.
The limitations of Kennedy’s approach were further exposed by the rise of Black Power activism in the mid-1960s. Figures like Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael rejected the gradualism of Kennedy’s integrationist vision, arguing that systemic racism required more radical solutions. The 1964 Harlem riot, sparked by the police killing of a Black teenager, and the 1965 Watts uprising in Los Angeles revealed the depth of frustration among African Americans who felt excluded from the promise of Kennedy’s “New Frontier.” While these events occurred after Kennedy’s death, they underscored the inadequacy of his administration’s incremental reforms in addressing the root causes of racial inequality. As Peniel Joseph has argued, the Black Power movement represented a “rejection of the liberal consensus” that Kennedy embodied, demanding not just legal equality but economic redistribution and cultural self-determination.
Yet for all its shortcomings, Kennedy’s presidency marked a turning point in the federal government’s engagement with civil rights. His 1963 Civil Rights Act, though incomplete, established the principle that discrimination in public accommodations was a federal concern—a precedent that paved the way for the 1964 Act’s sweeping prohibitions. His appointment of African Americans to key positions, including the first Black ambassador (Carl Rowan to Finland) and the first Black federal judge in the South since Reconstruction (James Parsons), signalled a break with the tokenism of previous administrations. Moreover, Kennedy’s televised speeches, particularly his June 1963 address, helped shift the national conversation about race, framing segregation as a moral stain on American democracy. As Taylor Branch has noted, Kennedy “did not create the civil rights movement, but he gave it a presidential imprimatur that no previous administration had dared to provide.”
In the final analysis, John F. Kennedy’s response to the “moral issue” of racial inequality was defined by contradictions. His soaring rhetoric and symbolic gestures raised expectations for transformative change, yet his legislative record and policy priorities fell short of the systemic reforms demanded by the civil rights movement. The Cold War imperative to improve America’s global image provided both a motivation and a constraint, pushing Kennedy to address segregation while limiting how far he was willing to challenge the racial and economic status quo. His assassination in November 1963 left the Civil Rights Act in limbo and shifted the burden of legislative action to Lyndon Johnson, whose mastery of congressional politics and willingness to invoke Kennedy’s memory secured its passage. Yet the enduring gaps in economic opportunity, voting rights, and criminal justice that persisted long after Kennedy’s death demonstrated that the “moral issue” he identified was far from resolved. His legacy, therefore, is one of unfinished ambition: a president who recognised the urgency of racial justice but lacked the political courage or vision to fully confront it.
