Scan barcode
A review by davehershey
At Canaan's Edge: America in the King Years, 1965-68 by Taylor Branch
5.0
Who Should Read This Book - People who are REALLY into American history and want a DEEP DIVE into the story of the Civil Rights movement.
What’s the Big Takeaway - I can’t imagine a better, more detailed, history of the Civil Rights era.
And a Quote - “Like America’s original Founders, those who marched for civil rights reduced power to human scale. They invested enormous hope in the capacity of ordinary people to create bonds of citizenship based on simple ideals . . They protected freedom as America’s only story in a harsh world. ‘The arc of the moral universe is long,’ King often said, quoting the abolitionist Theodore Parker, ‘but it bends toward justice.’ His oratory mined twin doctrines of equal souls and equal votes in the common ground of nonviolence, and justice refined history until its fires dimmed for a time” (771)
Okay, first off I will admit I did not read every word in this book. It is just so incredibly detailed; large portions are a day-by-day, even hour-by-hour, history. Unless you’re a major history buff, or a professional historian, I can’t imagine having the energy or desire to dive quite this deeply.
I skimmed and read and worked on getting the big picture. As I told a friend, you can probably find these books at a used bookstore (I did) and they are definitely worth having on your shelf even if you do not read every word.
Branch begins by picking up the story where he left it in the previous book, in Selma. Selma, at least in Branch’s telling, is the high point in the story. In this part of the book, Branch tells an amazing story I never heard before. ABC was showing the television premier of the movie Judgment at Nuremberg which had won two Academy Awards. In the middle of the movie two characters are having a conversation. One argues Hitler did some okay things and the people in Germany did not know about the bad stuff. This character’s husband asks what they could have done anyway, had they known.
At this moment the movie cut off and the news broke in. For fifteen minutes the millions of Americans watching this show were seen footage of the violence against Civil Rights activists going on in Selma.
No longer could people say they didn’t know what was going on here in their own country.
Branch writes, “No one, including President Johnson, foresaw America’s first loss of a war, any more than the day’s tear gas victims pictured Selma as the last great thrust of a movement build on patriotic idealism. It was a turning point. The tide of confidence in equal citizenship had swelled over decades to confront segregation as well as the Nazis, and would roll forward still, but an opposing tide of resentment and disbelief rose to challenge the overall direction of American politics, contesting the language of freedom” (57).
It was sadly amusing to read some of the criticisms of Civil Rights leaders and the movement that we still hear today. King and his supporters were accused of being Communists and Marxists. When the Civil Rights bill passed in 1964 Senators such as Strom Thurmond lamented the federal dictatorship over states rights (p. 227). I say “sadly amusing” because today everyone, on the right and on the left, quotes Dr. King with affirmation. Yet it is common to hear those on the right talk as if the only thing Dr. King ever said was a few lines from his “I Have a Dream” speech. As a recent article said, this is akin to assassinating King a second time.
The truth is, Dr. King was seen as a radical. His opposition to the Vietnam war certainly contributed to this. After Selma though, King’s call for nonviolent action was increasingly opposed. Sometimes we learn about this era, if we learn about it at all, as if King’s movement was unified and he was the unquestioned leader. But from Malcolm X (in the last book) to Stokley Carmichael in this one, his views were challenged. Even those closest to him often argued with him about methods. The point is that as great as these men and women were, they were still normal humans with flaws who didn’t always get along.
Branch summarizes this:
“By the cycles of history, a period of letdown and division was perhaps inevitable, to let the country absorb the enormous changes mandated by the letter and spirit of equal citizenship . .. Nonviolence became passé across the spectrum. Black people discarded it like training wheels to claim the full belligerent status of regular Americans . . . Almost no one honored or analyzed the broader legacy of nonviolent citizens, and King would grow ever more lonely in his conviction that the movement offered superior leadership discipline for the whole country” (558-559).
We also see here the beginning of the backlash in the form of Ronald Reagan. Reagan said he would have opposed the 1964 Civil Rights act as well as Medicare (“socialized medicine”) had he been in congress. But “Reagan hired political advisors to make his test speeches palatable to voter beyond the Goldwater base” (400). A time was on the horizon when it would not be politically expedient to be an obvious racist (like George Wallace). Yet the racist underpinnings were still there and savvy politicians could repackage their ideas to get a hearing.
Branch does not go into detail on the southern strategy of Nixon or this flip of political parties, but we read it happening. Through the 1960s white southerners grow increasingly disillusioned with Democrats as more and more black people support Democrats and from JFK to LBJ. I do wish Branch would have gone a little further in the epilogue to tell the rest of this story, as southern Democrats became Republicans with Nixon and Reagan.
Later Branch tells of how Reagan was asked how he could oppose the new Civil Rights laws and still ask for black votes. Reagan responded: “I resent the implications that there is any bigotry in my nature. . . Don’t let anyone ever imply that I lack integrity!” (480). Sound familiar? Reminds me of our last president who insisted he didn’t have a racist bone in his body while having a long history of being pretty racist. Reminds me of how people will insist they are not racist but oppose bills to strengthen voting rights.
But I digress…
Did you know the NCAA banned the “dunk” in basketball for eight years (1968-1976) “which somehow cushioned the influx of black players” (450). Some of my favorite parts of the book were when Branch took detours into sports, entertainment and culture. It gives the story a wider feel and reminds you that even in a book THIS DETAILED a lot more was still going on.
After Selma, King began to take the movement national. Branch tells of his work in Chicago where, after a riot, King said, “I have never in my life seen such hate. . . Not in Mississippi or Alabama. This is a terrible thing” (511). Often the story of racism in American history frames it as a southern problem. Even the way we tell the story of Civil Rights does this, focusing on the Montgomery bus boycott and Selma and Birmingham. It makes those of us who live in the north feel good. The reality is, this has always been a national sin.
It seems that in addition to opposing Vietnam, another reason King was not seen positively was how he shined a light on the racism not just in the south, but in the north, in his later years.
“Chicago nationalized race, complementing the impact of Watts. Without it, King would be confined to posterity more as a regional figure. The violence against Northern demonstrations cracked a beguiling, cultivated conceit that bigotry was the province of backward Southerners, treatable by enlightened but firm instruction. Already the campaign has ‘shown Chicago what it has known in its secret heart, that it has a terrifying and terrible race problem,’ wrote a Chicagoan for the Washington Post. Editors at the Saturday Evening Post confessed starkly for America at large: ‘We are all, let us face it, Mississippians” (523).
There is a lot more I could say. As I said above, the movement was full of debate. I think my biggest takeaway is what I mentioned above: the real King is much more radical and political than is often remembered. He did not just talk about equality in bland ways but opposed war and advocated for the poor. He saw injustice, poverty and war as all bound together (555). This is why he was in Memphis, supporting the garbage workers on strike, when he was assassinated.
We all need to become more familiar with our history because it still matters today.
What’s the Big Takeaway - I can’t imagine a better, more detailed, history of the Civil Rights era.
And a Quote - “Like America’s original Founders, those who marched for civil rights reduced power to human scale. They invested enormous hope in the capacity of ordinary people to create bonds of citizenship based on simple ideals . . They protected freedom as America’s only story in a harsh world. ‘The arc of the moral universe is long,’ King often said, quoting the abolitionist Theodore Parker, ‘but it bends toward justice.’ His oratory mined twin doctrines of equal souls and equal votes in the common ground of nonviolence, and justice refined history until its fires dimmed for a time” (771)
Okay, first off I will admit I did not read every word in this book. It is just so incredibly detailed; large portions are a day-by-day, even hour-by-hour, history. Unless you’re a major history buff, or a professional historian, I can’t imagine having the energy or desire to dive quite this deeply.
I skimmed and read and worked on getting the big picture. As I told a friend, you can probably find these books at a used bookstore (I did) and they are definitely worth having on your shelf even if you do not read every word.
Branch begins by picking up the story where he left it in the previous book, in Selma. Selma, at least in Branch’s telling, is the high point in the story. In this part of the book, Branch tells an amazing story I never heard before. ABC was showing the television premier of the movie Judgment at Nuremberg which had won two Academy Awards. In the middle of the movie two characters are having a conversation. One argues Hitler did some okay things and the people in Germany did not know about the bad stuff. This character’s husband asks what they could have done anyway, had they known.
At this moment the movie cut off and the news broke in. For fifteen minutes the millions of Americans watching this show were seen footage of the violence against Civil Rights activists going on in Selma.
No longer could people say they didn’t know what was going on here in their own country.
Branch writes, “No one, including President Johnson, foresaw America’s first loss of a war, any more than the day’s tear gas victims pictured Selma as the last great thrust of a movement build on patriotic idealism. It was a turning point. The tide of confidence in equal citizenship had swelled over decades to confront segregation as well as the Nazis, and would roll forward still, but an opposing tide of resentment and disbelief rose to challenge the overall direction of American politics, contesting the language of freedom” (57).
It was sadly amusing to read some of the criticisms of Civil Rights leaders and the movement that we still hear today. King and his supporters were accused of being Communists and Marxists. When the Civil Rights bill passed in 1964 Senators such as Strom Thurmond lamented the federal dictatorship over states rights (p. 227). I say “sadly amusing” because today everyone, on the right and on the left, quotes Dr. King with affirmation. Yet it is common to hear those on the right talk as if the only thing Dr. King ever said was a few lines from his “I Have a Dream” speech. As a recent article said, this is akin to assassinating King a second time.
The truth is, Dr. King was seen as a radical. His opposition to the Vietnam war certainly contributed to this. After Selma though, King’s call for nonviolent action was increasingly opposed. Sometimes we learn about this era, if we learn about it at all, as if King’s movement was unified and he was the unquestioned leader. But from Malcolm X (in the last book) to Stokley Carmichael in this one, his views were challenged. Even those closest to him often argued with him about methods. The point is that as great as these men and women were, they were still normal humans with flaws who didn’t always get along.
Branch summarizes this:
“By the cycles of history, a period of letdown and division was perhaps inevitable, to let the country absorb the enormous changes mandated by the letter and spirit of equal citizenship . .. Nonviolence became passé across the spectrum. Black people discarded it like training wheels to claim the full belligerent status of regular Americans . . . Almost no one honored or analyzed the broader legacy of nonviolent citizens, and King would grow ever more lonely in his conviction that the movement offered superior leadership discipline for the whole country” (558-559).
We also see here the beginning of the backlash in the form of Ronald Reagan. Reagan said he would have opposed the 1964 Civil Rights act as well as Medicare (“socialized medicine”) had he been in congress. But “Reagan hired political advisors to make his test speeches palatable to voter beyond the Goldwater base” (400). A time was on the horizon when it would not be politically expedient to be an obvious racist (like George Wallace). Yet the racist underpinnings were still there and savvy politicians could repackage their ideas to get a hearing.
Branch does not go into detail on the southern strategy of Nixon or this flip of political parties, but we read it happening. Through the 1960s white southerners grow increasingly disillusioned with Democrats as more and more black people support Democrats and from JFK to LBJ. I do wish Branch would have gone a little further in the epilogue to tell the rest of this story, as southern Democrats became Republicans with Nixon and Reagan.
Later Branch tells of how Reagan was asked how he could oppose the new Civil Rights laws and still ask for black votes. Reagan responded: “I resent the implications that there is any bigotry in my nature. . . Don’t let anyone ever imply that I lack integrity!” (480). Sound familiar? Reminds me of our last president who insisted he didn’t have a racist bone in his body while having a long history of being pretty racist. Reminds me of how people will insist they are not racist but oppose bills to strengthen voting rights.
But I digress…
Did you know the NCAA banned the “dunk” in basketball for eight years (1968-1976) “which somehow cushioned the influx of black players” (450). Some of my favorite parts of the book were when Branch took detours into sports, entertainment and culture. It gives the story a wider feel and reminds you that even in a book THIS DETAILED a lot more was still going on.
After Selma, King began to take the movement national. Branch tells of his work in Chicago where, after a riot, King said, “I have never in my life seen such hate. . . Not in Mississippi or Alabama. This is a terrible thing” (511). Often the story of racism in American history frames it as a southern problem. Even the way we tell the story of Civil Rights does this, focusing on the Montgomery bus boycott and Selma and Birmingham. It makes those of us who live in the north feel good. The reality is, this has always been a national sin.
It seems that in addition to opposing Vietnam, another reason King was not seen positively was how he shined a light on the racism not just in the south, but in the north, in his later years.
“Chicago nationalized race, complementing the impact of Watts. Without it, King would be confined to posterity more as a regional figure. The violence against Northern demonstrations cracked a beguiling, cultivated conceit that bigotry was the province of backward Southerners, treatable by enlightened but firm instruction. Already the campaign has ‘shown Chicago what it has known in its secret heart, that it has a terrifying and terrible race problem,’ wrote a Chicagoan for the Washington Post. Editors at the Saturday Evening Post confessed starkly for America at large: ‘We are all, let us face it, Mississippians” (523).
There is a lot more I could say. As I said above, the movement was full of debate. I think my biggest takeaway is what I mentioned above: the real King is much more radical and political than is often remembered. He did not just talk about equality in bland ways but opposed war and advocated for the poor. He saw injustice, poverty and war as all bound together (555). This is why he was in Memphis, supporting the garbage workers on strike, when he was assassinated.
We all need to become more familiar with our history because it still matters today.