SNCC vs. SCLC: Ideological Division within the Fight

  

            The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) were two major civil rights in the 1960’s. Both groups worked alongside leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr., in order to encourage and create change during the civil rights era however their ideological differences often challenged their ability to work in cohesion. SNCC was an organization formed by students who believed in the effectiveness of grassroots organizing. Following the popular use of sit-ins by these college students, leaders such as Ella Baker encouraged these activists to continue to organize from the ground up. However, SNCC never chose to align completely with the already existing SCLC. The SCLC focused more on mass movements that took place in different localities and turning them into national movements. Oftentimes, SNCC members bore resentment towards the SCLC due to the conference’s methods of entering a community where local organizers were already active, bringing attention onto the issues and then leaving once attention faded out or their goals were not reached quickly enough. These fundamental differences between the two groups led to their eventual split that began during the period of the Albany movement. Although both groups had the goal of racial equity in their platforms, the ideologies for how each believed that could be achieved were at times quite different.

            SNCC’s approach to achieving their goals was empowering southern blacks rather than adhering to SCLC’s grand speeches and marches headed by overreaching leaders. SNCC focused on getting the black vote. In 1961, SNCC leaders Charles Sherrod and Cordell canvassed across Terrell County, Albany specifically, and created voter education projects. SNCC’s 1961 manifesto for what was penned the “Albany Nonviolent Movement” was explicitly detailed at the Union Baptist Church. The committee called upon students from schools all across the city to canvass door-to-door and encourage people to register to vote. The students were also asked to request donations from citizens in the form of funds and other resources such as vehicles to the movement. “Airports, trail ways, train stations, lunch counters, city hall, boycotts at stores where Negroes buy but are not enjoyed” were listed in the SNCC manifesto under the headline, “Where Do We Go From Here?”[1]

Terrell County was rampant with racism, which fueled the desire for many Albany State students to participate in SNCC’s organizational efforts. Following protest from students who did not feel protected from white attacks by their school or law enforcement, the Albany Movement was formed joining SNCC, the NAACP, the SCLC and the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). These groups sought to initiate changes in employment practices, segregation and police brutality. The movement took the forms of protests resulting in arrests of over 400 SNCC members.[2] The Albany Movement’s platform explicitly identified Police Chief Laurie Pritchett as the main propagator of maintaining the segregationist system that the city was built upon. It was also expressed that Pritchett’s history of broken promises and “double talk” were harmful to the community and that blacks were not able to exercise their constitutional rights without being arrested or assaulted.[3] Pritchett was quoted telling the press, “We can’t tolerate the NAACP or the SNCC or any other nigger organization to take over this town with mass demonstrations.”[4]

The crisis in Albany led to the involvement of King and the SCLC. King’s association with the movement was intended to encourage the city to negotiate with the local activists.

 They led marches and canvassed against city bosses before King was eventually arrested along with fellow SCLC leader Ralph Abernathy. This arrival actually heightened tensions between the two civil rights groups. Poised to give a speech and leave Albany, King’s presence came across at the SCLC coming to take over the movement from SNCC. The movement could not fight against the actions of city administrators or local law enforcement as Chief Pritchett was given the liberty to impose segregated “justice” by continuing to jail activists in surrounding counties in an attempt to thwart King’s “fill the jails” tactic.[5] This could be seen as a defeat, but it was also a moment for both groups to restructure their methodology and focus on the power of black and poor political and economical engagement.

            The appeal of King was still undoubtedly recognizable to SNCC members. His ability not only to attract media attention but also to galvanize the poor and oppressed was useful to the efforts of the movement as a whole. Still, many in SNCC felt his capabilities were essentially superficial and lacked fundamental objectives that would continue on within each locality once he departed. SNCC leader James Forman specifically opposed of King’s involvement because he believed that it was necessary to keep the movement strictly for the people and by the people meaning the empowerment of ordinary black Americans. He also expressed that the media attention King brought was not entirely needed for the movement as it was already getting attention from outside press. He also believed that King had a “Messiah complex” that would deflate the confidence that the people already had for themselves and their ability to create change effectively. He believed that the people would put all their hope into the sensational Dr. King and lose motivation to continue doing what was necessary on their part.[6]

While King and Abernathy were incarcerated, movement leader William Anderson was thrown into a manic spell of disillusion and was bailed out; insisting that King came with him. King’s inexplicable early release from the city jail, contrary to his promise to remain there through the Christmas if necessary, created further resentment and mistrust from SNCC members.[7] Once released, King included no SNCC members in immediate public addresses. King and the SCLC outshined the efforts of the work that SNCC and local activists had put in to change the lives of the blacks and when Albany was not a success, they continued their spectacle onward to Alabama and Mississippi.

The groups’ philosophical differences became even clearer in regards to the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. New SNCC chairman John Lewis refused to change militant rhetoric addressing the federal government not doing enough for equality, despite SCLC’s wishes.  SNCC joined the march to show their opposition to the Kennedy administration’s failures and to promote their newly formed militant attitude. They aggressive rhetoric was slightly tweaked due to personal appeals from Forman and the SCLC, but SNCC made their criticisms known and showed that they were not willing to give up on what they felt was necessary to accommodate the strategies of groups such as the SCLC.[8] The original draft for John Lewis’ speech contained lines such as,

“We are now involved in a serious revolution. This nation is still a place of cheap political leaders who build their careers on immoral compromises and ally themselves with open forms of political, economic and social exploitation... where is our party?” and,  “The revolution is a serious one. Mr. Kennedy is trying to take the revolution out of the streets and put it into the courts… The time will come when we will not confine our marching to Washington. We will march through the South…We shall pursue our own scorched earth" policy and burn Jim Crow to the ground — nonviolently. We shall fragment the South into a thousand pieces and put them back together in the image of democracy. We will make the action of the past few months look petty.”[9]

            Lewis was figuratively and literally speaking in behalf of those who could not actually be in Washington. There were far fewer poor people at the march than leaders would have wanted but not everyone could afford to make the trip or take a leave from work. In fact, the vast levels of income inequality between whites and blacks in the regions that SNCC campaigned in were expressed in voter registration drive documents. SNCC described places like Albany, the rural south, where there were numerous amounts of wealthy white businessmen and planters who were financially secure as opposed to the small amounts of black landowners and the “black elite” that many of the SNCC leadership came from.[10] Lewis’ compromise with his speech showed SNCC still adhered to the larger picture. When King spoke, he received the praise from the audience and SNCC members despite the group’s resentment towards him and their dedication to swift actions.[11]

            The fundamental differences between SNCC and the SCLC was where each group felt the power came from. However both groups began promoting nonviolent action. Later on, King and the SCLC focused on nonviolent protesting and garnering attention from notional and international media. However establishing failure or success of a movement based on media coverage had its downfalls. The power of the press either losing interest, as was the case in Albany, or covering violent “onlookers” in Birmingham was recognized well enough by King to determine when it was time to “move on” from a certain locality. Birmingham began with students strategically initiated mass boycotts and refused to buy from stores that wouldn’t hire or promote blacks. Targeting the economical stability of a city was effective, however the reprisals that stemmed from the city in retaliation were far too great. The SCLC then began to utilize confrontation and determined that boycotts and sit-ins “must focus on specific targets: segregated lunch counters, and Birmingham’s business elite”.[12] When news media showed images of young people and nonviolent blacks being hosed and attacked by dogs, support came in the for of monetary funding, however when violent spectators became involved, th creditability of King’s strategy faltered allowing even the notoriously racist Police Commissioner Bull Conner to be praised for restraint and effective police work. SNCC’s divergence from conservative civil rights groups was quite clear. In the mid 1960s, the committee left behind their emphasis on nonviolence and followed the principles of Black Power under Stokely Carmichael’s leadership. The group took a separatist approach to achieving black empowerment and unity rather than trying to work within existing systems as SNCC did. The committee adhered to anti-white ideology, unlike the SCLC’s corporation with white liberals.[13]

            The existence of a rift between SNCC and the SCLC is telling of the Civil Rights Movement and how progress was actually made. Contrary to mainstream historical memory, there was not a monolithic set of strategies to bring about change. Separate ideas were necessary in order to effectively mobilize from the ground level and to encourage change from the federal level. SNCC began with students from a new generation who were educated had had no memories of slavery. They relied less on pragmatism and waiting for change and chose to take direct action in uplifting their community and achieving what they believed they were owed.

           

                                        

Works Cited

Zinn, Howard. "Albany", 1962. http://www.crmvet.org/info/6201_zinn_albany.pdf.

The Albany Movement,. 1962. Albany Manifesto. Albany, GA. http://www.crmvet.org/docs/6207_albany_manifesto.pdf.

"Civil Rights Movement Veterans - CORE, NAACP, SCLC, SNCC". 2016. Crmvet.Org. http://www.crmvet.org.

Downs, Matthew (2012). Winter 1962: Albany and the Movement Divided. Alabama Heritage, (103), 44-45. Retrieved from https://login.libproxy.uncg.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963551336?accountid=14604

Forman, James. 1972. The Making Of Black Revolutionaries. Seattle & London: University of Washington Press.

Jackson, Thomas F. 2007. From Civil Rights To Human Rights. Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press.

"SNCC 1960-1966". Ibiblio. https://www.ibiblio.org/sncc/black_power.html.

Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee,. 1961. Albany Nonviolent Movement. Albany, GA. http://www.crmvet.org/docs/611115_albany_agenda.pdf.

Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee,. 1962. Unknown. Albany, GA. http://www.crmvet.org/lets/62_sncc_albany.pdf.

---

[1] Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee,. 1961. Albany Nonviolent Movement. Albany, GA. http://www.crmvet.org/docs/611115_albany_agenda.pdf.

[2] Matthew Downs, “Winter 1962: Albany and the Movement Divided”, 2012.

[3] The Albany Movement,. 1962. Albany Manifesto. Albany, GA. http://www.crmvet.org/docs/6207_albany_manifesto.pdf.

[4] Zinn, Howard, "Albany", 1962, 14.

[5] Jackson, Thomas. From Civil Rights To Human Rights. Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007

[6] Forman, James. 1972. The Making Of Black Revolutionaries. Seattle & London: University of Washington Press, 255.

[7] Jackson, 150.

[8] ("Civil Rights Movement Veterans - CORE, NAACP, SCLC, SNCC" 2016)

[9] Lewis, John and Michael D'Orso, Walking With The Wind. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1998, 221.

[10] Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee,. 1962. Unknown. Albany, GA. http://www.crmvet.org/lets/62_sncc_albany.pdf.

[11] Jackson, 181.

[12] Ibid., 158.

[13] "SNCC 1960-1966". Ibiblio.