Historians have disagreed about the significance of Martin Luther King in the

achievements of the civil rights movement 1955-68.

What is your view about the significance of Martin Luther King in the
achievements of the civil rights movement 1955-68?

Martin Luther King’s significance pertaining to the achievements of the civil rights movement
has courted intense scholarly debate. Historians such as Meier, take an individualist
approach, prioritising King’s charismatic bravado and accrediting it with uniting the
movement and putting it firmly in the public eye. In ‘On the role of Martin Luther King’, he
argues that King was solely capable of presenting the aims of the movement in a way that
could appeal to all Americans, white and non-white, liberal or conservative. It is this ability,
Meier argues, that gives King the supreme significance he holds today in the modern
historical narrative. Skrentny argues that the newfound urgency to appear as a modern,
forward thinking, socially responsible society created by the Cold War catapulted King’s
ability to make demands from the federal government due to their aversion to being
embarrassed on the global stage. In order to make a judgement on each interpretation's
validity relating to King’s significance, the classification of achievements must first be
defined. While there are a wide range of hallmark achievements such as increased social
equality, better economic standing and an end to segregation, all of these factors cannot be
achieved without federal government legislation and intervention. Said intervention ensures
fair employment practices, the illegality of segregation and a recognition that the US
government sees all citizens equally. It is with this criteria then that Payne has by far the
most convincing viewpoint. His argument in ‘The View From The Trenches’ asserts that a
‘top-down’ analysis of history places far too much weight on the significance of leaders such
as King in pressuring the federal government into making change and does little to focus on
the grassroots activists affecting change from the ‘bottom-up.’ It is for this reason that Payne
holds the most wait when it comes to King’s significance to the achievements of the civil
rights movement.

Charles Payne argues that King's significance pertaining to the movement is exaggerated,
partly due to the common ‘top-down’ analysis that focuses on the leaders and personalities
such as King rather than the common black American engaging in militant direct action.
Payne asserts that a ‘homogenized version of the movement’1 fails to give proper weight to
all kinds of people, citing ‘Appalachian whites, Black professionals from quite privileged
backgrounds, quasi socialists, radical democrats…’2 Payne attributes this failing to ‘top-down
analysis’ and its shortcomings. Payne viewed the current historical narrative as primarily a
‘concentration on national institutions and leaders’3 This highlights the narrative's inadequacy
pertaining to factors aligned with the radical side of the movement's history such as militant
direct action. Payne categorises the current historical telling of the movement as riddled with
normativity, oversimplifying the multi-faceted motives and methods of the movement. Payne
compares this to the Labour movement believing us ‘a good deal less likely to invoke
normative explanations’4 and far more to see it as a struggle of privilege with both sides
claiming higher morality. This is in contrast to a normative top-down view of the movement,
which sees it as a quest to right a moral wrong. Payne instead advocates for a bottom-up
1
Charles Payne(2006)The View from the Trenches, 1945-68 p124
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid. p125
4
Ibid. p126
analysis, believing it to be better suited to examining the multitude of factors resulting in the
movement's success. Payne does, however, make clear that he is ‘not denying the critical
importance of national institutions, but (...) contending that traditional top-down scholarship
has tended to focus on them so exclusively.’5 By taking this stance, Payne hopes to
understand the dynamism of the movement and draw from a variety of perspectives. Payne
does acknowledge Meiers assertion that King’s importance was his ability to ‘articulate Black
demands in ways which resonated deeply for many audiences, Black and white.’6 King,
according to Meier, made white people understand they had to change, and part of doing
that was by appearing as no threat to them. Payne argues that Kings reassessment is a
‘correction of history’7 rather than simply a rewriting of it. Aligning our contemporary
perspective of him with ‘the views of many of those who were closest to the movement.’8
Payne attempts to challenge the top-down, normative analysis of the movement and instead
focus on the multitude of more radical and anti-establishment factors. Undermining King’s
overall importance.
​ A factor highlighting the exaggerated significance of King is the huge and
underreported involvement of local grassroots Civil Rights leaders and activists. The typical
narrative of the top-down approach paints the Montgomery bus boycott as a normal woman
refusing to give her seat up on the bus. A story of a non-violent prophet, one that King was
keen to be closely associated with. Payne instead paints the true view of the boycott as one
which was sparked by those with ‘long activist backgrounds’9 citing E. D. Nixon and Jo Ann
Robinson. While King was the media darling of Montgomery, Nixon was perhaps ‘the most
influential Black man in town.’10 Nixon had a long history of organising protests, boycotts and
targeted direct action. In 1928, he organised the Montgomery branch of the Brotherhood of
Sleeping Car Porters labour union, and was its president for many years.11 The
organisational experience Nixon wielded, learned from his almost 30 years experience being
deeply entrenched within the movement lended greatly to the bus boycott. King did very little
in terms of organising or mobilising the black community in Montgomery, something that
Nixon was far more involved in, even having ‘considered three bus incidents as potential test
cases but decided against them on various tactical grounds.’12 Displaying Nixon’s up close
involvement that King never was able to replicate. The extent of Nixon’s involvement is
concurred by the fact that it was ‘Nixon (who) bailed Parks out of jail’13 and ‘quickly began to
mobilize Montgomery’s black community.’14 The seeming under involvement of King in
comparison with Nixon and other contemporary leaders of the movement is worsened by
King’s lack of knowledge or just lack of adherence to the facts when describing the details of
how the boycott came about. King claims that Parks was ‘tracked down by the Zeitgeist–the
spirit of the times’15 is one that reflects King’s assumption that everyone would be as new to
the movement as he was, of course being appointed to head the Montgomery boycott,
without much effort to plan the boycott or mobilise the local community. When in fact Parks,

5
Ibid. p127
6
Ibid. p153
7
Ibid. p155
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid. p127
10
Ibid.
11
MLK Institute https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/nixon-edgar-daniel?utm
12
Charles Payne(2006)The View from the Trenches, 1945-68 p127
13
MLK Institute https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/nixon-edgar-daniel?utm
14
Ibid.
15
Charles Payne(2006)The View from the Trenches, 1945-68 p128
like Nixon, had ‘spent much of her adult life seeking levers of change, not waiting until the
time was right.’16 Payne here, is perhaps implying that unlike those who shaped the
movement for most their adult lives, King capitalised when the movement was gaining
popularity amongst the greater American populus and decided then that the movement
warranted his involvement, rather than in the decades preceding, when it was profoundly
more difficult to make the sort of gains and inroads King was able to. However it is
imperative to note that Payne is not attempting to undermine the successes and
achievements of King, but rather stressing the collaborative nature of the movement,
displaying how King’s national prominence was both built by and aiding the local grassroots
activists. This is a view concurred by another of Payne’s works as he comments that the
‘strength of the movement rested not on the individual leadership of one or two people, but
on the ability of ordinary people to organize themselves.’17 This perfectly reiterates the
bottom-up approach of Payne, placing far more emphasis on grassroots activism than
individualistic charismatic leaders. While said leaders may have galvanised the movement
the true grit was put in by local movement leaders. While Payne’s perspective is critical of
the mainstream historical narrative, plenty of works have reinforced Payne’s more modern
analysis, Peter Ling argues that a King-centric analysis ‘fails to capture vital aspects of what
made the movement possible,’18 instead overemphasising the role King played at the behest
of actors who were ‘invisible to the media.’19
​ Concluding, I find Payne’s ‘bottom-up’ analysis to be by far the most convincing view
pertaining to the significance of King. This is due to the multifaceted reasoning given for the
movement's success, with Payne acknowledging King’s oratory skills and ability to capture
media attention, but also being wary of the status-quo perspective of King as the sole
messianic figure of the movement. Payne’s ability to analyse the dynamism of the movement
and recognise the symbiotic relationship between the grassroots movement and King make
his perspective the most balanced and reasonable. Relating to the definition of
achievements set out at the start of the essay, Payne’s view of King’s significance being
secondary to the grassroots movement is accurate when examining federal action taken to
better the lives of Black-Americans. As the federal legislation passed can mainly be
attributed to grassroots activists, Payne is by far the most convincing view.

Meier’s view of King’s significance in relation to the movement is one of an individualist

analysis, Meier stresses King’s unique stance of being ‘amenable to compromise.’20 Allowed
him to make progress by appealing to ordinary white folk, something which comparable civil
rights leaders failed to implement. King’s main success as the charismatic leader of the
movement is derived from his ability to strike a balance between militant direct action and a
more conservative approach to appease the wider American populus. Hence his position as
a ‘conservative militant.’21 King knew that progress was made by painting grassroots activists
as victims of oppression rather than instigators of violence. It is due to this that King’s
greatest successes came when he managed to ‘precipitate violence from southern whites
against Negro and white demonstrators’22 garnering media attention and wide ranging
16
Ibid.
17
Charles Payne(1995)I've Got the Light of Freedom: The Organizing Tradition and the Mississippi
Freedom Struggle, p54
18
Ling P(1998) Martin Luther King’s HalfForgotten Dream. History Today. p1
19
Ibid.
20
MeierA(1965)On the role of Martin Luther King. New Politics.Winter Ed.p
21
Ibid. p53
22
Ibid.
support that comes with it. Meier asserts that the common criticism of King’s significance that
he would have been a non-factor but for media attention is one applicable to the movement
as a whole with Meier asserting that ‘without publicity it is hard to conceive that much
progress have been made.’23 If the movement required media coverage to see any success,
then King’s reliance on and ability to capture media attention is a hallmark factor for the
success of the movement, rather than a criticism of his significance. It is important to note
however, that rather than placing sole importance on King’s significance, Meier stresses the
importance of the relationship between the grassroots activist movement and charismatic
media drawing leaders such as King. Meier asserts that King would be ‘neither respected
nor respectable, if there were not more militant activists on his left.’24 With this, Meier is
commenting on how without King, the grassroots movement wouldn’t result in change at the
federal level, and without grassroots activists King wouldn’t have garnered the same
sympathy from the wider American population and political class.
Meier places huge importance on the effect King had on white opinion and the wider
success this garnered for the movement. Meier believes that even when local campaigns
‘ended in failure’25 they still managed to capture ‘national and international attention.’26 true
success was derived from the impact the campaigns, and more specifically King’s personal
gravitas, had on pressuring the federal government into action. Meier observes King’s view
that white opinion was not an inherent racial prejudice, and instead ‘capitalists playing white
workers against black.’27 This observation from King, allowed him to ‘exploit to maximum
effectiveness (the white mans) growing feeling of guilt’28 he did this by adhering to their good
conscience and presenting himself in a way compatible with the white man's sensibilities in
the media, or as Meier puts it, King ‘gave white men the feeling he was their good friend.’
The idea that King helped catapult the movement to the forefront of US political dialect is
reinforced by contemporary public opinion surveys, out of 11 surveys conducted between
1961 to 1965, the exact time frame where King was most prominent, 6 identified ‘Civil
Rights’ as the forefront issue plaguing the nation and it only ever ranked as low as fourth.29
This succinctly displays the direct relationship between King’s emergence and the growing
support for the movement from all sects of American society, perfectly displaying Meier’s
view. A proponent of Meier’s view of King as a consensus builder is Adam Fairclough, who
believed that King’s selection as the leader of the Montgomery bus boycott was due to the
established civil rights leaders being able to ‘accept(..) King as a neutral figure’30 describing
him as being able to ‘bridge the factions’31 of the movement. It was this very ability that
allowed King to market himself to all Americans irrespective of race, religion or background.
This ability aided the movement in innumerable ways, but perhaps most relevant is the
almost surrogate political power it afforded Black-Americans that they simply hadn’t had in a
pre-King era. As James Q. Wilson puts it the value of a post-King white liberal is in their
ability to ‘make it almost suicidal for an important Northern politician openly to court

23
Ibid.
24
Ibid. p56
25
Ibid. p52
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid. p53
28
Ibid. p54
29
Gallup(2020)
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/312875/race-relations-nation-important-problem.aspx
30
Fairclough A(2001)Better Day Coming, Blacks and Equality, 1890-2000 p230
31
Ibid. p230
anti-Negro sentiment.’32 It was in this, that King managed to make such inroads as he did in
federal legislation on Civil Rights, which at the time, was unprecedented. Throughout his
entire involvement with the movement, unlike most civil rights activists who believed it
senseless to appeal to the sensibilities of their oppressors, king continued to ‘stress(...) his
faith in the white man,’ directly leading to their view of him as a ‘responsible and moderate’
man.
To conclude the analysis of Meier’s work, while not the most convincing argument
relating to King’s significance in this essay, it does offer a different perspective on King’s
ability to capture the media. But more importantly, it displays King as the ultimate
peacemaker, being able to not only unite all factions of the movement, but also unite all of
America behind the importance of the movement. Once again, when examining from the
criteria of achievements set out earlier, King’s ability to garner white support put arguably
more pressure on the federal government to enact change than even direct action did.
However, the drawback for Meier comes from his inability to give empirical evidence to back
up his perspective, after all there could have been innumerable factors garnering both media
attention and white support and Meier accredits it all to King without much by way of
evidence. It is due to this that Meier holds less weight than Payne but is still a hugely useful
view on King’s significance.

John Skrentny holds a wildly differing view to both Payne and Meier on King’s significance
through his internationalist approach, placing much more weight on how America’s foreign
relations, and more specifically the cold war, had huge significance on the success of the
movement. Skrentny holds that it is the relationship between both national and foreign actors
in the movement that allowed it to flourish, he explores how the "United States was
embarrassed by its racial practices during (...) the cold war.’33 It is within this embarrassment
that King was able to flourish, as with both external and internal pressure on the US
government change to the long standing oppressive racial policy was inevitable. Skrentny
explores how American policy was shaped by their geopolitical aspirations, being all too
resistant to potential soviet propaganda diminishing the illusion of American supremacy. It is
in this that Skrentny stresses the ‘concern in the federal government for world opinion’34 and
their worry that an international audience to the movement would diminish positive
expectations of American liberalism in the fight against communism. Skrentny notes how the
US was greatly interested in ‘communicating to the world about positive American civil-rights
developments’35 displaying how obtaining legitimacy on the international stage on the issue
of civil rights was of paramount interest to the US government. McAdam’s view that the Cold
War gave ‘these (civil rights) groups leverage’36 supports Skrentny’s analysis and paints a
picture of continued losses to the American propaganda machine until the issue of Civil
Rights was dealt with. McAdam also asserts that in Cold War America, policy was almost
wholly dictated by the war and the issue of Civil Rights was no different with him believing
that Cold War era politics ‘dramatically changed the interpretive context of U.S. racial politics

32
Wilson, James Q. 1965. “The Negro in Politics.” In Talcott Parsons and Kenneth B. Clark, eds., The
Negro American. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 423–47.
33
SkrentnyJ(1998) ‘The effect of the Cold War on African-American civil rights: America and the world
audience, 1945–1968 p238
34
Ibid. p241
35
Ibid. p242
36
McAdamD(1982)Political Process and the Development of the Black Insurgency, 1930–1970.
and the actions that flowed from it.’37 This fear was not irrational either, with the US embassy
reporting that ‘Soviet press hammers away unceasingly on such things as lynch-law,
segregation, racial discrimination’38 displaying the great urgency with which the US needed
to sort their Civil Rights problem to ensure they retained the moral and political highground
over their Soviet counterparts. The intense need for international Civil Rights legitimacy can
be seen in full swing by the time of the Kennedy administration as ‘Secretary of State Dean
Rusk was actively recruiting blacks for foreign service.’39 These highly publicised trips, were
very clearly designed to send a message to the world that the US was heading for ‘full civil
rights for Negros.’40 Skrentny attempts to evidence his claims through a member of the US
delegation to the UN where 'spokesmen of other countries indict our own nation for the
double standard which has existed here, on the basis of race, or religion, or national origin’41
clearly conscious of America's position on the global stage at a time of more than heightened
tensions.
​ A huge drawback to Skrentny’s perspective is that he completely fails to address the
effects anti-communism, spurred on by the Cold War, had on the movement's validity in the
eyes of many Americans. This is something addressed by Gregory Briker and Justin Driver,
who aim to challenge Skrentny’s account by ‘exploring the central role that anti-communism
played in segregationists’ opposition to Brown and civil rights.’42 They convincingly assert
that there was a growing concern in the South that ‘communism and civil rights were
entangled’43 resulting in huge opposition to federal intervention in a local issue, something
which in Cold War America was bound to be interpreted as a shift to communism, forever
welding the Civil Rights movement with the malevolent communist agenda. This is
something that Skrentny completely ignores, focusing wholly on the positive aspects of
international pressure from the Cold War, displaying a huge flaw in his historical
interpretation. Briker and Driver acknowledge, like Skrentny, that the ‘Cold War exerted a
sort of gravitational pull on virtually all of American social, political, and legal life’44 they differ
then, in their opinion of how this affected the Civil Rights movement pertaining to its potential
positive and negative impacts. Briker and Driver, while definitely acknowledging how the
Cold War made codified racial separation embarrassing to the highest degree, they also
draw focus to the way in which segregationists ‘developed detailed, sophisticated
conceptions of why and how integration would benefit the communist cause.’45 This displays
how the Cold War would exacerbate these worries in the eyes of anti-communist
segregationists and act as a blockade to progress.
​ Skrentny’s perspective is perhaps the most unique interpretation of King’s
significance to the movement. Exploring how the Cold War elevated King’s allure and
importance. International pressure would definitely put pressure on the federal government
to enact legislative change, hence adhering to this essay's definition of achievements.

37
McAdamD(1999)Revisiting the U.S. Civil Rights Movement: Toward a More Synthetic
Understanding of the Origins of Contention p16
38
SkrentnyJ(1998) ‘The effect of the Cold War on African-American civil rights: America and the world
audience, 1945–1968 p248
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid. p249
42
BikerG&DriverJ(2022) Stanford Law Review; Brown and Red: Defending Jim Crow in Cold War
America p447
43
Ibid. p455
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid.
However, it is difficult to ignore Skrentny’s ignorance of the negative effects the Cold War
had on the movement and the opposition to any federal action, with it being seen as America
leaning towards communism. This anti-communism also directly hampered King and his
ability to aid the movement’s achievements as it painted him as personally culpable for the
spread of communism in the US and segregationists were fueled with ammunition to attack
the movement with that would perhaps resonate with the average american, even those that
King had managed to persuade in the past. Hence while still significant, Skrentny holds the
least weight of the three due to his inaccurate depiction of the full effects of the Cold War on
the movement.

Holding off from reaching an overall conclusion, historiographical context and provenance
must be examined and considered. The type of content, timeframe and the wider reasons for
the conclusions the authors reach all have huge implications for the validity of each of their
views and any conclusion that might be made about King’s significance. Meier’s views on
the movement are shaped by numerous factors. For example his previous work as a
historian examined the relationship between black activism and broader, seemingly
unrelated, societal structures. In previous works, he explored how previous African American
leaders such as Booker T. Washington combated a racially oppressive society by balancing
the radical demands of the wider movement, with the pragmatic approach required to ensure
change.46 It is this understanding that shaped his views on the Civil Rights movement,
seeing King as a modern iteration of leaders such as Washington, working to achieve
significant change whilst avoiding alienating any and all potential supporters. Meier’s belief
that irrespective of King’s ability to unite the movement, there was still supreme importance
in grassroots activism stems from his writing and studying of ‘new social history’ which
emphasised how ordinary people help shape political events, something which Meier has
explored in numerous writings, helping to shape his ethos regarding social history.47 This
was further reinforced by Meier’s work with Elliot Rudwick, whose joint work reinforced the
idea that national figures such as King depended on groundwork laid by activists at a local
level. The contrast between Meier’s and Skrentny’s work, can be explained primarily due to
how Meier focuses on analysing the movement historically, and in relation to previous
leaders in a similar vein to King. Skrentny however, instead opts to analyse the movement,
and King’s significance, in relation to international geo-politics and the effect it had on the
movement's success. Hence this demonstrates why they differ on the issue of King’s
significance, with Meier taking a far more favourable view on the matter than Skrentny does.
When examining Payne’s interpretation of the movement, it is of paramount
importance to explore the reasons behind his bottom-up approach, this exploration will give
insight into its validity as a historical method as well as understanding Payne’s personal
historical perspective. Payne’s own background as an Black-American scholar who grew up
in the South, albeit in a northern family, gives him unique insight into the inner workings of
events such as Montgomery, Payne’s formative childhood experiences where during the crux
of the movement and his historical perspective will no doubt have been shaped by personal
experience with local Civil Rights leaders. Payne’s belief that the movement wasn’t brought
on by mass media attention and charismatic leaders stems from his experiences seeing
grassroots activism and local resistance to oppression exist and thrive long before a national
Civil Rights movement. Payne writes about his own experience in relation to unwritten

46
MeierA(1963)Negro Thought in America, 1880-1915
47
MeierA(1971) Black Protest Thought in the Twentieth Century
histories48 referencing how the popular historical narrative ignores local ordinary people in
favour of more flashy and glamorous media compatible leaders. Payne mostly writes in
relation to a post Brown V Board era through the 1960s, said era was dominated by
grassroots activism, organising and furthering the movement. Payne explores a time period
dominated by events such as Montgomery, Greensboro and the Mississippi Freedom
Struggle, painting a clear picture of the context of Payne’s most explored period and giving
insight into the reasons pertaining to his bottom up approach. This contrasts Meier’s views,
who examined the movement in relation to old era Civil Rights advocates, rather than
exploring the events singularly. This can be utilised to explain the differences between
Payne’s bottom up approach and Meier’s more complimentary attitude towards kings
significance.
Skrentny’s perspective is affected by numerous factors, such as his adherence to a
timeframe of post WW2 right up until King’s death. He does this to allow analysis of the
effects of the Cold War and observe its influence over the entirety of the movement. This
time frame is similar to Payne, although Payne does it to observe the grassroots activists
working long before King in Montgomery, hence why he concludes that they are of
paramount importance. Skrentny is also writing in a fairly modern period, similar to Payne,
this explains their more modern ‘trans-national’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches respectively and
why they come to the conclusion there are more supreme factors than King. Where Payne
and Skrentny differ however is their contrasting ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches.
Most of Skrentny’s sourcing comes from the White House or State Department, powerful
political institutions. It concurrs then, that Skrentny comes to the conclusion that a conflict
between superpowers is of paramount importance to the movement’s success rather than
any grassroots activists. Payne, of course, places huge importance on grassroots activists
and local civil rights leaders due to his ‘bottom-up’ approach, which focuses on how change
is perpetuated from the lower levels of society rather than vice versa.

To conclude, after considering both the content and historiographical approach of each
interpretation, Payne is by far the most convincing author in regards to this debate. His focus
on local leaders and their impact on both the organisation and galvanisation of the local
movements that made King famous paint a more complete picture of the many factors that
resulted in the movements achievements. His ‘bottom-up’ approach differs from both
Skrentny and Meier, Skrentny with his use of White House conversations and federal
archives give insight into only a small piece of the movement. And Meier with his overfocus
on the media ability of King which fails to recognise his reliance on local movements,
planned and carried out by grassroots activists, to build his profile and fame. Out of all the
interpretations, Payne balances the careful interplay between governments and
internationally recognised civil rights leaders whilst still giving appropriate weight to the
grassroots activists that had been involved in direct action and protest long before King or
the government took interest.

48
Charles Payne(1995)I've Got the Light of Freedom: The Organizing Tradition and the Mississippi
Freedom Struggle, p54