Detroit Riots' Significance On Lyndon B. Johnson'S Presidency

This investigation will explore the research question: “To what extent were the Detroit Riots of 1967 significant on Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency?” The Detroit Riots occurred in 1967, which was during Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency. These riots were centered on the discrimination experienced by the African-Americans of this time, as well as the frustration they felt towards the injustice and mistreatment they were met with.

Regarding this, Lyndon B. Johnson attempts to heal the damage following his heavy concern by taking initiative through the new legislation. Freedom's Pragmatist: Lyndon Johnson and Civil Rights, written by Sylvia Ellis, focuses on the actions taken by Johnson and his administration in reaction to events of the movement, providing insight on how these riots took a toll on his presidency. Moreover, The Music Has Gone out of the Movement: Civil Rights and the Johnson Administration, 1965-1968, written by David C. Carter, goes into depth on the direct action taken by the administration and the tactics they utilized towards riots.

A value of the origin of Freedom's Pragmatist: Lyndon Johnson and Civil Rights is that it comes from a historian who has a large amount of knowledge on the topic, while also having written other historic pieces. Ellis is a professor of American History, following her position as a Head of Humanities at Northumbria University. A value of the purpose is that it aims to address the ways that the administration responded to the riots. This is valuable because the source is able to provide insight on the administration’s strategies for race-related conflicts and can help historians analyze the tactics of the administration. A value of the content is that it mentions how Johnson quickly sent federal troops to Detroit, which details the strategies of the administration.

These detailed strategies are valuable as they aid in understanding the Johnson administration and the heavy stress they were put under through the riots. A limitation of the origin is that it is a book coming from almost 50 years after the riots, which is limited because the information may not be as historically accurate as one from the time period. The purpose of this source is limited because it aims to highlight the positive points of Johnson’s presidency, which can be limited because it does not fully consist the necessary details in analyzing Johnson’s presidency. The content is limited because it does not include how the government felt more of a need to prepare for war with Vietnam than to end the turmoil at home. The absence of this information is limited because this was a prominent factor in the perspectives of Americans and Johnson’s presidency, as they commonly felt Johnson lacked care for the real issues at home.

A value of the origin of the second source is that the author, David C. Carter, possesses a strong background, as an Associate Professor of History, having received his PhD from Duke University and a Bachelor of the Arts with Highest Honors in History from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, providing value in how the information he provides is accurate and relevant. A value of the purpose how it aims to touch upon how Johnson decided to take action, which is valuable because it specifically tells the resolutions that were put into place by the Johnson administration. A value of the content is its analysis of the Kerner Commission, a resolution to these riots, which is valuable because it describes the way the administration had handled the issues.

A limitation of the origin is that the source comes from 2009, which can be limited because necessary details could be omitted over time, given the 40 years in between. A limitation of the purpose is that the source does not discuss faulty ideas, which can be limited because it would further the ability to see what the administration felt was weak. A limitation of the content is that there is no discussion of the public’s perspective on Johnson during this time, which is limited because society’s view is important when assessing the success of a president.

The Detroit Riots of 1967 were a series of vicious riots that were centered around protesting the injustice and inequality faced in the African-American community. These riots amounted in numerous deaths and injuries for both white and African-American citizens. The riots began with a raid on an illegal drinking club, which then resulted in police arrival. These police officers were behaving with brutality in making the arrests, which then evoked the rioting and anger of the African-Americans. Due to the unique chaos of the riots, president Lyndon B. Johnson felt the necessity to send federal troops to Detroit. However, the way in which Johnson did not constitute an earlier resolution to urban violence created a feeling of discontent and disapproval for most Americans. The riots induced the need of Johnson to account for the turbulence occurring in not only Detroit’s riots, but other riots across the nation. The Detroit Riots of 1967 were greatly significant to the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson, through the public’s negative perception on the administration following the riots.

As a result of the Detroit Riots, the Johnson administration had received negative backlash in response to their initial reaction to the prevalent civil rights issues. For example, the public’s reaction to the Newark and Detroit riots was “extremely critical of the Johnson administration’s immediate response” (Ellis 245). The riots furthered a negative perspective of the Johnson administration through the ability to see the lack of care the administration initially experienced towards the riots and the topic of civil rights. Republican critics felt that Johnson should have acted much sooner to ensure the prevention of riots and violence. Moreover, the Johnson administration was considered “selectively hearing impaired”, meaning that the administration only chose to focus on issues that specifically mattered to them (Carter 26).

This description of the Johnson administration continues to display the negative perspective of the administration following the Detroit Riots. Society had felt that the Johnson administration chose what they felt was important and shifted all their attention towards that. Specifically, the Johnson administration continued to concentrate on issues such as the Vietnam War, rather than the recurring violence in these riots. In Johnson’s first years of presidency, he geared his focus towards the United States’ involvement in Vietnam and left the management of civil rights to his aides and cabinet agencies, rather than using his time to focus on it. The administration had received immense disapproval from the public with its lack of quick action and lack of attention towards the riots and civil rights issues.

The severity of the Detroit Riots were unknown to Johnson and his administration, however he was still aware on all the riots that were occurring throughout the United States. Before he was informed of the Detroit Riots’ distinctively harsh conditions, the administration’s initial report entailed that “the situation might be controlled without bringing the Federal troops” to Detroit (Berlatsky 19). The manner in which the administration did not feel the urgent need to pay close attention to the issue did not resonate well with the nation, as citizens continued to feel as if the administration acted too slowly. Regarding this, the nation had developed a negative perspective on Johnson and his administration for this lack of initial action. Following the outbreak of the riots, Johnson assured to the people that he took the riots “with the greatest regret”, given Governor Romney of Michigan’s inability to control the situation himself (Berlatsky 20).

The riots created a feeling of uneasiness for Johnson, as he felt the safety of his people was being tested, which is demonstrated through the regret and dissatisfaction he was feeling. The Detroit Riots were able to portray a common opinion of how the Johnson administration was lacking, which then went to provide the detrimental effect of the riots on Johnson’s presidency. The riots also displayed the large amounts of stress, concern, and nervousness Johnson had obtained during this time, furthering the negative impact the riots had on Johnson’s presidency.

Although the Johnson administration had received disapproval with their lack of initial action, the delayed response of the administration held significance for what it was able to provide to the public. For example, Johnson established the Kerner Commission to scientifically investigate “the causes of urban unrest” in locations with similar conditions as Detroit (Galster 185). The creation of the Kerner Commission possessed the ability to demonstrate how the administration was able to take meaningful action. Similarly, the Kerner Commission was said to conclude that “white racism is a central causal element” of the unrest and violence in urban areas (Fisher 442).

The Kerner Commission was able to inform the American people on the real causes of urban violence and was an important finding curated by the administration. Although the Kerner Commission was highly explanatory on the issue at hand, most people chose to ignore the prominent message it provided. The commission was not very effective in its purpose towards its target audience, as the nation had still undergone several years of urban violence and riots following the establishment of the commission. Despite how the administration was able to generate the commission in efforts to prevent future riots, the commission’s prominent message was neglected and ignored. Thus, the commission amounted to little significance, facilitating the negative effect of the Detroit Riots on Johnson’s presidency.

The Detroit Riots of 1967 were negatively impactful on the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. To elaborate, the Johnson administration was forced to correct the mistakes of Detroit’s local government. Analyzing their response, it was evident that the administration could have countered the riots sooner. With this common perspective, American citizens felt feelings of disappointment and disapproval towards Johnson’s lack of preparation for events similar to these. Although Johnson later responded with the Kerner Commission, which studied the causes of urban violence, the commission’s revelation on white racism as the cause was greatly ignored by the people, allowing the commission to lose its ability to truly be effective. Given the negative perspective and lack of action, the Detroit Riots of 1967 constituted an adverse effect on Johnson’s presidency.

While partaking in this investigation, I was able to enhance my understanding on the process historians utilize in their research. Historians play a large role in the information that is available. With their abilities to analyze sources and draw conclusions upon several sources, historians are the key contributors in providing all of the historical pieces of information we obtain today.

When comparing the methods of a historian to the methods I had used for research, both methods are similar in several ways. For example, when beginning my investigation, I started with a general topic, wanting to center my research on the Civil Rights Movement, then narrowing it down to the Detroit Riots of 1967. After realizing I wanted to study the effects the riots had on Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency, I was able to gather information taken from certain sources. This initial process of narrowing my topic down is a similar process historians take when investigating certain events in history. They also begin with a vague focus and then begin to narrow it down based on what they deem as the most important to research.

In addition, the method of exploring the values and limitations of a source is one frequently used by historians. Historians will also use this method to highlight the highest and lowest points of their sources. With this, using the method of values and limitations assists in being able to determine whether or not the source is truly credible and if it should be used in conducting further research. Historians are able to see the reason why a source is valuable or limited and can therefore choose whether or not to use it in their future research. Another similarity between the methods is the application of multiple sources. When encountering a piece of information in a source, historians often seek several other sources to ensure that the information is indeed accurate. I also utilized this process by making sure the information I encountered in one source was able to be found in others.

Given the intense methods taken by historians, they undergo certain challenges that are unique to their field. Historians often are met with several answers to their own investigation questions, as certain events are interpreted differently from historian to historian. For example, if a historian chooses to evaluate an event and considers it a success, while another historian strongly feels the opposite, their opinion can be negated.

Although this challenge is common for a historian, with the evidence they possess, they are able to justify their opinion. It is also necessary for these historians to not only establish connections between several historic events, but also draw conclusions on the reasons why an event occurred in the manner that it did. Additionally, if someone was to compare the historian to a scientist or mathematician, the historian is faced with their own challenges. This is because history is not an exact science, as there is room for interpretation when analyzing an event for its impact.