Intolerance and the Fight for Civil Rights

Prosperity did not mean equal freedom

The USA’s reputation as a land of opportunity sat uneasily alongside the treatment of many of its people. During the 1920s, Black Americans faced racial segregation and violence, while immigrants could encounter hostility towards their nationality, religion or political beliefs. These problems involved both society and the state: governments sometimes enforced discrimination, while officials sometimes failed to protect people from it.

Prejudice means judging people through assumptions about their group. Discrimination means acting on such attitudes by treating people unequally. For example, believing that an immigrant was dangerous because of their nationality was prejudice; denying them an opportunity on that basis was discrimination.

Jim Crow: inequality enforced by law

In the southern states, Jim Crow laws enforced racial segregation. Black and white Americans used separate schools, hospitals, toilets and seating on public transport. This made racial inequality part of ordinary daily life rather than simply a matter of individual hostility.

Segregation was defended through the phrase ‘separate but equal’. In practice, facilities provided for Black Americans were frequently poorer. Unequal schooling also restricted later employment opportunities, helping to keep many Black workers in low-paid jobs.

Voting restrictions reinforced this inequality. Poll taxes required people to pay before voting, while literacy tests required them to demonstrate reading ability. These barriers excluded many Black Americans from voting, reducing their ability to challenge discriminatory governments. Formal promises of equality therefore did not guarantee that people could exercise their civil rights.

Many Black Americans moved north during the Great Migration, seeking jobs and escape from southern oppression. The North offered greater access to schooling and voting, but it was not free from racism. Employers, landlords and businesses could maintain segregation through their own practices even without southern-style Jim Crow laws. Moving north changed the form of discrimination; it did not necessarily remove it.

The Ku Klux Klan: intimidation and political influence

The Ku Klux Klan, or KKK, promoted white supremacy: the belief that white people should dominate other racial groups. Originally formed after the American Civil War, it was revived in 1915 and attracted millions of members during the early 1920s.

The revived Klan portrayed itself as defending a white, native-born, Protestant America. Its hostility extended beyond Black Americans to Catholics, Jews, immigrants and people with radical political beliefs. It gained support beyond the South, particularly in the Midwest, so its influence was not confined to the areas governed by Jim Crow.

White robes, hoods and burning crosses helped create an atmosphere of intimidation. Members used threats and violence against their targets. Lynching—killing someone without a lawful trial—was also used by white mobs to terrorise Black communities. Failure to prosecute attackers allowed racial violence to continue. Klan members in influential political positions further weakened victims’ confidence that officials would protect them.

The Klan’s claims to defend morality contrasted sharply with its violence. Its influence weakened later in the decade as scandals, including the conviction of an Indiana leader for murder, damaged its reputation. Anti-masking laws and public opposition also challenged its activities. Its growth showed the strength of intolerance, but its decline demonstrated that this intolerance was contested.

Why the Red Scare developed

The Red Scare was an intense fear that communists and other radicals threatened the USA after the First World War. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 alarmed Americans who feared revolution and attacks on private property and capitalism.

Strikes in 1919 intensified these fears. Many workers were demanding better wages and conditions, but opponents interpreted industrial unrest as evidence of revolutionary activity. Anarchist bomb attacks in June 1919, including an attack on Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer’s home, made the threat seem more immediate.

These events encouraged suspicion of immigrants, especially those associated with radical organisations. Communists and anarchists were not the same, and a striking worker was not necessarily either. Nevertheless, fear encouraged people to blur these distinctions and treat foreign origins or unpopular opinions as signs of disloyalty.

The Palmer Raids: repression by the federal government

Palmer responded with raids against suspected radicals. The Palmer Raids involved arrests and the deportation of suspected foreign radicals. People without connections to the bombings were also caught up in the repression.

The raids illustrate how fear could change the relationship between individuals and the state. Federal authorities claimed to be protecting national security, but suspicion of political beliefs and immigrant communities undermined fair treatment. The wider atmosphere also discouraged some workers from joining trade unions because they feared being labelled communist.

Sacco and Vanzetti: prejudice and justice

Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were Italian immigrants and anarchists. In 1920, they were accused of involvement in a robbery and murder in Braintree, Massachusetts. They were convicted in July 1921 and executed on 23 August 1927.

Their case became a focus for criticism of American justice. The prosecution emphasised their radical beliefs, while Judge Webster Thayer displayed hostility towards them. Critics argued that their foreign origins, limited English and unpopular political views had influenced their treatment rather than the case being judged impartially on evidence.

Appeals raised doubts through disputed evidence, withdrawn testimony and another man’s confession, but the convictions stood. Protests took place internationally. The case’s significance is not that it settles whether the men committed the crime: it shows why many people believed that nativism and the Red Scare had compromised a fair trial.

Immigration restrictions: prejudice written into federal policy

Opposition to immigration drew on several fears. Some Americans believed immigrants would compete for jobs and lower wages. Others distrusted unfamiliar languages, religions and customs. The Red Scare added the claim that immigrants might bring revolutionary ideas.

Nativism favoured native-born Americans and established traditions over newcomers. It helped turn these fears into immigration restrictions.

The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 limited annual immigration from a country to 3% of the number of foreign-born residents from that country recorded in the USA in the 1910 census. This was a restriction on new arrivals, not a rule requiring existing immigrants to leave.

The Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the Johnson–Reed Act, tightened the quota to 2%, using the 1890 census as its basis. Changing the census mattered as much as reducing the percentage. Large-scale immigration from southern and eastern Europe had increased after 1890, so the earlier census gave those countries a smaller allowance. The system favoured countries with longer-established immigrant populations, particularly in northern and western Europe.

The 1924 law capped quota immigration at 164,667 people annually. This was not a ceiling on every immigrant: people born in Western Hemisphere countries, including Canada and Mexico, were exempt from the quotas. The law also generally barred immigrants who were legally ineligible for US citizenship, a restriction aimed particularly at Japanese immigrants. Applicants now had to obtain immigration visas at US consulates abroad before travelling, allowing officials to apply the restrictions before departure.

The national-origins system introduced in 1929

The 1924 law also provided for a further change, eventually implemented on 1 July 1929. Annual quota immigration was reduced to 153,879, and countries’ allowances were recalculated using the national origins of the US population recorded in the 1920 census.

This was different from simply taking a percentage of foreign-born residents. The new calculation considered the ancestry of the population, including people whose families had settled in America generations earlier. It therefore continued to favour longer-established origins rather than recent immigrant communities.

The change had concrete effects: the British Isles’ annual quota rose from 34,007 to 65,721, while Germany’s fell from 51,227 to 25,957. Western Hemisphere immigrants remained outside the quota system. Across the decade, immigration policy thus became both more restrictive and more selective about national origins.

President Coolidge’s declaration that ‘America must be kept American’ expressed the outlook behind the 1924 restrictions. There was opposition, including from congressmen Fiorello LaGuardia and Emanuel Celler, but the legislation received broad political support. Discrimination was therefore not only the work of private organisations: federal policy helped decide which newcomers were considered desirable.

The NAACP: campaigning for equal rights

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP, challenged racial discrimination and sought equal rights for Black Americans. W. E. B. Du Bois was one of its founders.

The organisation educated the public about lynching and lobbied Congress to act against it. This approach sought to make the government protect Black citizens rather than allow racial violence to go unpunished.

It also challenged racist representations. The 1915 film The Birth of a Nation glorified the KKK and portrayed Black people as a threat. The NAACP campaigned against the film and sought restrictions on its showing. These efforts demonstrated organised resistance, but local officials did not necessarily cooperate. Public campaigning could expose prejudice without immediately ending it.

Marcus Garvey and the UNIA: pride and independence

Marcus Garvey, a Jamaican immigrant, offered a different response. Disillusioned by racism and post-war racial violence, he led the Universal Negro Improvement Association, or UNIA. It attracted many lower-income working people and promoted Black pride and independence.

Garvey’s ‘Back to Africa’ movement argued that people of African descent should look towards an African homeland rather than depend on acceptance in a racist USA. He founded the Black Star Line, a shipping enterprise intended to help make this ambition possible.

The distinction from the NAACP was important. The NAACP sought equal treatment within American society; Garvey placed greater emphasis on a separate Black identity and independence. Black campaigners did not all agree about the best route to freedom, and Du Bois criticised Garvey. Garvey’s imprisonment for mail fraud and subsequent deportation weakened his movement, although its message of racial pride remained influential.

How far was intolerance challenged?

The 1920s combined organised resistance with powerful barriers to equality. The NAACP exposed injustice, the UNIA encouraged pride and independence, and opponents challenged the KKK and immigration restrictions. These activities show that victims of discrimination were not simply passive.

Yet Jim Crow, racial violence, restrictive immigration laws and the treatment of suspected radicals reveal the limits of American freedom. To assess the decade, distinguish a movement’s aims and campaigning from achieved change: challenging prejudice did not mean that discriminatory laws or practices had been removed.