User:Pleox/sandbox

Civil Rights in San Antonio
The life experience for African Americans in San Antonio was vastly different from those other deep south cities. According to one NAACP leader, San Antonio was a 'Heaven on Earth' in the comparison. Surprisingly, it wasn't just the civil rights movements that appeared to bring equality to San Antonio, unlike many other American cities where student and organizational protests were occurring, usually resulting in arrests and violence. No, San Antonio was different. The reason San Antonio's racial atmosphere was so different was due to a strategic city organization, and city government. However, with the cities goals of how to put integration into effect, the cities minorities were growing more and more restless with not seeing the effective change. Having said all that, integration came a lot easier in San Antonio as compared to other southern cities. Desegregating San Antonio was easier than other cities because of many factors; the military had been desegregated early, the religious community, but more than anything, it was political action.

Looking At The Past
This preface is an attempt to not put down the horrid nature of slavery in the United States rather than it is to serve as a explanation as to why San Antonio experienced easier segregation. San Antonio in the 1850's would not have been a Heaven on Earth, as Harry Burns, President of the NAACP had said in the 1960's. Slave codes were in use in San Antonio just like many major southern cities. Slaves were not allowed to buy liquor, for example. They were also not allowed to sell anything. Slaves were also not allowed out passed a certain time. The punishments included fines and jail time. Occasionally a whipping would occur, but in some instances the master of the given slave would have to pay one dollar to do it. The conditions being set for slaves were economic slavery for the future. A southern liberal born in San Antonio would start a governmental process to change the lives of African Americans in San Antonio about forty years later.

Maury Maverick and Economic Integration
Maury Maverick is an interesting figure in this discussion. A liberal democrat, and eventually mayor of San Antonio, he was both loved and hated. He was born on October 23, 1895, in San Antonio, Texas. He is also known for coining the term gobbledygook, expressing confusion for governmental language and the bureaucratic process. When Maury Maverick became the mayor of San Antonio, he was ill prepared to address the issue of race. Although he probably knew he was going to have to, he didn't seem to be at his best. “I do not believe in social equality of the races, and act accordingly. I have my prejudices, which are mine. However, I should not deny a negro his civil liberties, and would go down the line to see that the Constitution is obeyed.” Seeing the governor say this would have confused many people today. Seeing this liberal, almost socialist ideologist say this is a head scratcher. How could he be seen as honest if he doesn't like minorities, but believes they should have civil rights? However, even with Mr. Mavericks admitted prejudices, his idea about how to create a equal San Antonio did not seem like a bad one. “Social equality comes with not economic equality but economic superiority. In other words, when the colored people have had more than enough of the world’s goods, for a full generation, then they’ll be equal." But was this too easy? Was simply repeating this idea of economic develop a catalyst for civil rights to come to fruition in San Antonio? “The first thing to do about the question is to see the colored people eat, and have jobs. . . . If economic opportunities are fair, and the different races show restraint, other questions will work themselves out.”  The latter he wrote a time later in his autobiography. This idea, while seemingly workable, eventually disenfranchised blacks because the idea of economic change leading to equality ignored the racial and social tensions underlying segregation. While it is a step in the right direction, true social change was needed.

The Military's Example
San Antonio is and was a military city. Today, many people come here to retire. Back in the 1950's, it was still a military city. Desegregation in San Antonio among the military personnel came in the 1950's. But the order was not given locally. Harry S. Truman issued an executive order in 1948. Executive order 9981, where the President declared that "there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin." Desegregation in the military did not happen right away, but eventually it had been adopted in many areas. San Antonio's military went as far to restrict city access to military personnel is acts of blatant segregation. This atonement for African American service members must have been awe-inspiring. But in any case, the presence of a desegregated military certainly was a beneficial aspect to civil rights progress in San Antonio.

San Antonio: A Heaven on Earth
Perhaps one of the reasons that San Antonio was seen as a sort of liberal city, in terms of racial segregation, besides Maury Mavericks liberal politics, was because of how peaceful civil rights protests were. Also, blacks only made up about seven percent of the population. This could explain why tensions where never really that high. With such a small amount of a population more or less confined to a certain area of the city, problems wouldn't be as obvious. Blacks were essentially forced to the East side of San Antonio, because the housing there was practically the only affordable housing. There was segregation just like many other cities throughout the United States. Blacks had been put in their own economic bubble. "Blacks were economically depressed, with nearly 70 percent employed in semiskilled, unskilled, or domestic-service jobs." While there indeed was segregation in schools and public services, it is interesting, that White Citizens Council's or a Ku Klux Klan did not develop in San Antonio as it did in much of the rest of the deep south. It seemed as if "Whites were oblivious to the black situation in San Antonio and obeyed segregation signs as they would traffic lights." Harry Burns, from the NAACP even described San Antonio as a Heaven on Earth. He is not the only one who thought that the racial situation in San Antonio was preferable to that of other southern cities either. A black teacher from the time said “San Antonio was not a city that dictated a Martin Luther King. San Antonio was a mildly discriminatory city. No pressure had been brought on blacks by whites. . . . It was not a Birmingham, it wasn’t a deep south City".  Another way that San Antonio was not a deep south city is that it was a host to many different types of religions.

Religion
San Antonio is a largely catholic city. However, there are of course people of many different faiths that reside in San Antonio. Was religion a reason why the civil rights movement was so more or less quieter than usual in San Antonio? It seems so based on reasoning certain business owners had about how to facilitate blacks into their restaurants. Integration of lunch counters, was a major issue in San Antonio. Movements had already occurred in North Carolina that involved sit-ins are local restaurants and refusal to denied being served. One of the owners of the lunch counters that had been designated to be the site of a sit-in protest was weary. They were sent letters by students and civil rights leaders asking them to serve blacks at their lunch counters. This act of refusal to be denied service at these restaurants shows how determined civil rights activists and leaders were. They had responded, but it is easy to see that the store owners were very uneasy about the idea of letting blacks into their establishments. They needed some help from the religious community to be OK with the idea, and to feel that they were protected somehow. The collective lunch counter owners had come together and discussed their next move. They came up with the idea to allow blacks into their restaurants to eat, only if they were accompanied by the presence of various religious leaders from multiple faiths. This act was to "defuse a potential white counter reaction," as they put it. One may wonder if the presence of the religious community was sought because of fear of African Americans. Regardless of this, blacks were served and the sit-in did not happen because of the willingness of the lunch counter managers to give change a try. That is a reason San Antonio is different.

A Cities Example
But restaurants weren't the only establishments to be considered. The list included schools, pools, theaters, and most any public places. In fact, before 1960, demonstrations had already been occurring. But on March 16, 1960, with no problems whatsoever, four blacks entered a lunch room and were served food, so the sit in scheduled for the next day did not occur. Many people have heard of events like these and are so used to them. What makes this particular event in San Antonio so special is that it was the "first major southern city to integrate its lunch counters". Just three days after this event, a banquet was held in which blacks and whites alike attended. Many activists were there, including The Reverend Samuel H. James. He "expressed the thoughts of many in describing the lunch-counter victory as “just an opening wedge” and announcing that hotels, restaurants, and other public accommodations were to be the next targets." Opposition Just when things were looking up for rapid integration in San Antonio businesses, Joske's, a leading department store in San Antonio, asked for a thirty day grace period so that it could consult with its parent company. Eventually, they came to a conclusion that they would integrate their lunch counters, but their other two restaurants would stay closed off to blacks. Leaders from the NAACP did not like this idea, and began sit-in protests at the companies restaurants on April 23, 1960. During the sit-ins, blacks were refused service and the restaurant eventually would close early. A couple weeks later, on May 3, an incident occurred where a white and black person got into a bit of a fight while the black protestor was blocking the white person from entering the restaurant. No one was seriously hurt. This incident caused Joske's management to close all the lunch counters and restaurants. This led to an uproar of protests and letters being sent to Joske's, from civilians, and churches. Eventually, Joske's reopened, and integrated all of their facilities. With help from peaceful protests, the religious community, and passive resistance, Joske's had been integrated. This was a step toward the vision NAACP leaders had of integration of all facilities.

Victory?
With the leading department store, Joske's, being integrated, many would think this is a big step. It indeed was, but by this time in May of 1960, most every other restaurant in San Antonio had remained closed off for black customers. "The NAACP’s failure to generate a grass-roots protest movement stemmed from several factors. Racial moderation and gradual progress had created apathy among the majority of blacks. Although backed by the churches and on occasion given use of the pulpit for appeals, the NAACP could not convert a general sense of approval and appreciation into active participation in a mass movement. This lack of commitment was even noticeable among the young, who were the shock troops of the civil rights campaign."

But wait! It certainly seemed that with the success of the lunch counter sit-ins, and the integration of the Joske's department store, that progress was surely being made!. While these were indeed victories, as seen above, a grassroots campaign had not really been implemented. In fact, another factor in why the movement seemed to be slowing was NAACP participant numbers. In middle 1950's, membership had been somewhere around 2,500 people. in 1959, membership had fallen to just below 300 people. How could this dramatic decline in a civil rights group membership happen? One explanation is because in 1959, the NAACP was sued by Texas's attorney general, and it was demanded that the organization be no longer allowed to operate within the state. This was defeated, however, in the 1960's and later, organizations and others were still trying to convince blacks that the NAACP was not an illegal organization. This would explain why support for the NAACP in San Antonio was so slow in the beginnings of the movement in the 1960's. People were scared of backlash, and coming from a red-scare era, being a part of an illegal organization would mean, for many, to be enemies of the state. Since San Antonio was sort of a 'heaven on Earth' for blacks, it can be easy to see why the NAACP didn't have as much support here at first. If things were pretty good, why would people want change? Perhaps people were scared to protest and thought it would result in some kind of backlash against the African American community.

Further Integration: Theaters
After the integration of Joske's, theaters were a next target, but not for the NAACP at first. At the time, blacks were only let into the theater via a colored entrance, and they had to sit in the balcony. On February 12, 1961, the Students for Civil Liberties organized a stand-in at the Majestic theater in downtown San Antonio. Volunteers would stand in front of the theater in an attempt to disrupt business. Along with NAACP participants, stand-ins were "repeated again in February, twice in March, once in June, and once in July." While these events did disrupt the business, it really ended up being a long fight. The stand-in's went on until December of 1961. For all of the stand-ins, no major events happened. There was no violence and no arrests made. The use of peaceful protests definitely worked in San Antonio. In December, the majestic theater agreed to test desegregation in their theaters. There was no issue after desegregation of the theater, and in January of the rest of San Antonio's theaters were desegregated.

The Interracial Committee
The Interracial Committee was a organization designed to persuade people's opinions against segregation. After the desegregation of theaters early in 1962, the committee had grew and was actively sending out representatives to restaurants and other businesses around San Antonio to try and convince them to integrate their facilities. The organization was made up by people of multiple races and professions. Some of them included Rabbi David Jacobson, Reverend Baugh, Dr. Jose San Martin and Samuel J. Davis. They would approach these business owners in a moral and civic way and ask them to integrate their business while explaining to them economic advantages to opening up their businesses to blacks. While they did this, however, they also threatened protests and potential violence that they would not be able to control. This method apparently did not work so well, although progress was made. Within a year, twelve of the restaurants and lunch counters out of the hundreds they visited desegregated. New leadership later that year eventually managed to add another twenty five restaurants and some downtown hotels to their list of integrated businesses, and unlike the previous leadership, violence and protests were seldom used as threats. With the success of this committee, many activists still did not see change occurring fast enough. Certainly the NAACP didn't.

The NAACP's Need for Change
In October of 1962, Harry Burns, along with other major black activists in San Antonio were growing more inpatient with how civil rights progress was moving in San Antonio. Harry Burns wrote a letter to the mayor of San Antonio, Walter W. McAllister, that asked him to help pass a law that made it a crime to discriminate in San Antonio. No response was given, and eventually in February of 1963, Harry Burns went before the city council to propose a ordinance that was punishable by a $200.00 fine to any business that discriminated against anyone due to race, religion or the color of their skin. The council rejected the proposal again. The mayor "expressed sympathy for black aspirations but opposed the coercion of white businessmen as the means to integration." Even though the ordinance failed, the ambition was still there, and the city council knew it.

The Bureaucratic Process
City Council created a committee made up of liberal party members that was designed to figure out the best way to solve the integration problems in San Antonio. The committee, made up of three people, gave their report to city council on their findings on May 29, 1963. In their report they called for a “denial of complete individual freedom by the practice of discrimination.” The committee, however, again denied the NAACP and black activists of a ordinance that outlawed discrimination. The committee rather suggested an 'accelerated voluntary desegregation' program that was to be run by the city. They planned to have the city desegregated on the symbolic day of July 4th. Their campaign consisted of going around and handing out pledge cards to businesses that had not integrated. Businesses that did not pledge to desegregate were visited by other businessmen and members of the clergy. The NAACP did not like this committee, and many saw it as a "delaying action". "The city’s program was merely another example of white paternalism that robbed blacks of a sense of their own ability to effect change in their lives." Truly this is what people like Harry Burns must have thought, for he had been fighting to effect change in San Antonio for years, only to have the government be the one to do it, in a sense stripping him of the sense that he himself could effect change in his city. After the committee had started the work to desegregate San Antonio, Harry Burns and others were those who were involved in protests at San Antonio's City Hall.

Fast Integration
Although criticism over how San Antonio's government went about desegregating the city somewhat stripped civil rights activists of the credit for effecting change, many realized this was the only way it was going to happen. The "delaying action" put forth by the Committee on Desegregation actually produced results. Perhaps when James Taylor, a Committee on Desegregation member said “Just how it comes and who gets the credit is not important,” he was responding to the NAACP's statement about how the committee was a symbol of white paternalism. While in a sense it may be true, the results were quite astounding. By July 11, 1963, "95 percent of all hotel rooms, 90 percent of all motel rooms, and 90 percent of all restaurant meals served in San Antonio" were desegregated. Many businesses soon after agreed to desegregate, and later that year, San Antonio businesses had been completely racially integrated. A bit disillusioned, NAACP leadership would continue to protest over the next two years until on November 11, 1965, San Antonio's City Council passed Ordinance No. 33863 that made it for any business to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, age or handicap. It's a bit sad that this had to be passed about a year after the federal Civil Rights Act had been passed. A Reverend, Claude Black said, “It didn’t matter anymore" about the newly passed city ordinance.

Conclusion
The desegregation of San Antonio needs to be looked at more for there are many facets surrounding the topic. The presence of a desegregated military that was vigilant in halting discrimination was definitely a factor in why it was easier and less violent to integrate San Antonio. The clergy also helped as many religious leaders were also activists themselves. But the major reason why desegregation came about easier in San Antonio was the action by San Antonio's City Council, albeit bureaucratic, was effective in successfully ending and eventually outlawing discrimination within the cities limits. This is an important aspect of the overall civil rights movement because desegregating San Antonio was more diplomatic and peaceful than other cities. San Antonio set an example for other cities in the United States on how to go about changing social institutions and reinventing a city that gave thousands of people new opportunities and a more enthusiastic outlook on life.

'''