What do you think?
Rate this book
From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality
A monumental investigation of the Supreme Court's rulings on race, From Jim Crow To Civil Rights spells out in compelling detail the political and social context within which the Supreme Court Justices operate and the consequences of their decisions for American race relations. In a highly provocative interpretation of the decision's connection to the civil rights movement, Klarman argues that Brown was more important for mobilizing southern white opposition to racial change than for encouraging direct-action protest. Brown unquestioningly had a significant impact--it brought race issues to public attention and it mobilized supporters of the ruling. It also, however, energized the opposition. In this authoritative account of constitutional law concerning race, Michael Klarman details, in the richest and most thorough discussion to date, how and whether Supreme Court decisions do, in fact, matter.
655 pages, Paperback
First published February 5, 2004
34 people are currently reading
626 people want to read
About the author
Michael J. Klarman
9 books22 followersAn American legal historian, and constitutional law scholar, Michael Klarman is the Kirkland & Ellis Professor at Harvard Law School.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
June 19, 2021
Written by a law professor, this academic work mainly focuses on the constitutional history of race discrimination and aims to improve our general understanding of the Supreme Court’s role in American society.
In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that railroad segregation laws were permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1954, the Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education paradoxically held that the same constitutional provision invalidated the segregation of public schools. Michael J. Klarman gives persuasive answers to three important questions: What factors explain the dramatic changes in racial attitudes and practices that occurred between 1900 and 1950? What factors explain judicial rulings such as Plessy and Brown? How much did such Court decisions influence race relations overall?
Many different sorts of factors — political, economic, social, demographic, ideological, international, and legal — contributed for the transformation in American racial attitudes and practices over time, tells us Klarman. For instance, as blacks moved from southern farms to northern cities, they gained access to the franchise, and they eventually began to influence national politics. As blacks secured better jobs and higher incomes, they acquired financial resources and heightened expectations with which to challenge segregation. As blacks moved from farms to cities, they developed social connections that helped them protest collectively, and they escaped the oppressive racial mores of the countryside. As the nation fought wars “to make the world safe for democracy” and to defeat Nazi fascism, millions of white Americans reconsidered the meaning of democracy and whether it was consistent with a racial caste system. As African and Asian nations achieved independence after World War II and the United States competed with the Soviet Union for the loyalty of the Third World, Jim Crow became "an albatross around America’s neck." "Between 1900 and 1950, Supreme Court justices grew more committed to racial equality and invalidated a variety of schemes that had segregated and disfranchised southern blacks," writes Klarman further. This book analyzes these and other factors behind the nation’s racial transformation.
Since Klarman is a law professor, his focus, understandably, is the judicial decision making in important rulings like Brown. He argues that judges are influenced by political, as well as by legal factors. (Political factors are personal preferences, the broader social and political context of the time, and external political pressure.) In other words, judges are humans and feel more strongly about some issues than about others. When the law is clear, the judges follow it. When, however, the law is indeterminate, judges make decisions based on the aforementioned political factors. "Thus, different judges, even when confronted with the same legal sources and holding the same personal preferences, might reach different legal interpretations because they prioritize the legal and political axes differently," explains Klarman. Worrisome? Kind of.
Therefore, because constitutional law is generally quite indeterminate, constitutional interpretation almost inevitably reflects the broader social and political context of the times. “Equal protection of the laws” does not plainly condemn school segregation, for example. In the absence of determinate law, interpretation necessarily implicates the values of the judges, which themselves generally reflect broader social attitudes. For instance, at a time when most white Americans thought the Fifteenth Amendment was a mistake, the justices were naturally inclined to sustain disfranchisement measures that did not flagrantly violate it. Once racial attitudes had changed, the justices reconsidered the meaning of the Constitution.
In general, judges are part of contemporary culture, and they rarely hold views that deviate far from dominant public opinion. They did not protect women under the Equal Protection Clause until after the women’s movement, and they did not invalidate racial segregation until after public opinion on race had changed dramatically as a result of World War II.
Interesting is Klarman's argument that unlike what some of us, including myself, have believed or believe, justices are unlikely to be either heroes or villains. Judges who generally reflect popular opinion usually do not have the inclination and / or capacity to defend minority rights from the majority. We should not treat them as villains because their rulings simply reflect the dominant opinion of their time and place. Yet, neither are their interventions on behalf of minority rights likely to be particularly heroic, as such decisions will usually reflect the views held by a majority or a sizable minority of the population. For the justices to have invalidated racial segregation in 1896 would have been heroic, but for the most part they were not even tempted to do so. According to Klarman, when they finally did invalidate segregation in 1954, their decisions reflected views that were held by roughly half the country.
Finally, the book studies Brown in order to present the consequences of the Court’s decision making in the race context. While Brown v. Board of Education has been considered crucial by some and insignificant by others, Klarman argues for middle ground. Brown did play a role both in provoking direct action from black activists and in shaping the response it received from white southerners. It made Jim Crow seem more vulnerable, and any social protest movement can succeed only if convinces potential participants that change is achievable. Brown raised the hopes and expectations of black Americans, which were then largely dashed by massive resistance, but also demonstrated that meaningful social change cannot be produced solely by legal proceedings. Brown inspired southern whites to try to destroy the NAACP, with some temporary success in the Deep South, and this unintentionally forced blacks to support alternative protest organizations, which embraced ideologies more sympathetic to direct action. Finally, the southern white backlash that was ignited by Brown increased the chances that once civil rights demonstrators appeared on the streets, they would be greeted with violence rather than with gradualist compromises. "[T]he ruling plainly influenced the way in which America’s racial transformation occurred," writes Klarman, which means that court decisions do matter, although often in unpredictable ways.
However, they cannot fundamentally transform a nation. The justices are too much products of their time and place to launch social revolutions. They declined to aggressively enforce the Brown decision until a civil rights movement had made northern whites as keen to eliminate Jim Crow as southern whites were to preserve it. And while Brown did play a role in shaping both the civil rights movement and the violent response it received from southern whites, at the end deep background forces ensured that the United States would experience a racial reform movement regardless of what the Supreme Court did or did not do.
Michael J. Klarman has written an impressive study of the profound changes in race relations that ocurred in the USA between 1895 and 1965 and of the role played by the constitutional rulings of the U.S Supreme Court in fascilitating those changes. While the book may appear daunting at firs with its academic style, anyone interested in the anatomy of Brown v. Board of Education and in the overall nature of judicial decision making will surely find FROM JIM CROW TO CIVIL RIGHTS highly informative and engaging. In addition, it may well be read as a concise history of the civil rights movement, for Klarman provides wonderful summaries of the key people and events related to the movement.
In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that railroad segregation laws were permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1954, the Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education paradoxically held that the same constitutional provision invalidated the segregation of public schools. Michael J. Klarman gives persuasive answers to three important questions: What factors explain the dramatic changes in racial attitudes and practices that occurred between 1900 and 1950? What factors explain judicial rulings such as Plessy and Brown? How much did such Court decisions influence race relations overall?
Many different sorts of factors — political, economic, social, demographic, ideological, international, and legal — contributed for the transformation in American racial attitudes and practices over time, tells us Klarman. For instance, as blacks moved from southern farms to northern cities, they gained access to the franchise, and they eventually began to influence national politics. As blacks secured better jobs and higher incomes, they acquired financial resources and heightened expectations with which to challenge segregation. As blacks moved from farms to cities, they developed social connections that helped them protest collectively, and they escaped the oppressive racial mores of the countryside. As the nation fought wars “to make the world safe for democracy” and to defeat Nazi fascism, millions of white Americans reconsidered the meaning of democracy and whether it was consistent with a racial caste system. As African and Asian nations achieved independence after World War II and the United States competed with the Soviet Union for the loyalty of the Third World, Jim Crow became "an albatross around America’s neck." "Between 1900 and 1950, Supreme Court justices grew more committed to racial equality and invalidated a variety of schemes that had segregated and disfranchised southern blacks," writes Klarman further. This book analyzes these and other factors behind the nation’s racial transformation.
Since Klarman is a law professor, his focus, understandably, is the judicial decision making in important rulings like Brown. He argues that judges are influenced by political, as well as by legal factors. (Political factors are personal preferences, the broader social and political context of the time, and external political pressure.) In other words, judges are humans and feel more strongly about some issues than about others. When the law is clear, the judges follow it. When, however, the law is indeterminate, judges make decisions based on the aforementioned political factors. "Thus, different judges, even when confronted with the same legal sources and holding the same personal preferences, might reach different legal interpretations because they prioritize the legal and political axes differently," explains Klarman. Worrisome? Kind of.
Therefore, because constitutional law is generally quite indeterminate, constitutional interpretation almost inevitably reflects the broader social and political context of the times. “Equal protection of the laws” does not plainly condemn school segregation, for example. In the absence of determinate law, interpretation necessarily implicates the values of the judges, which themselves generally reflect broader social attitudes. For instance, at a time when most white Americans thought the Fifteenth Amendment was a mistake, the justices were naturally inclined to sustain disfranchisement measures that did not flagrantly violate it. Once racial attitudes had changed, the justices reconsidered the meaning of the Constitution.
In general, judges are part of contemporary culture, and they rarely hold views that deviate far from dominant public opinion. They did not protect women under the Equal Protection Clause until after the women’s movement, and they did not invalidate racial segregation until after public opinion on race had changed dramatically as a result of World War II.
Interesting is Klarman's argument that unlike what some of us, including myself, have believed or believe, justices are unlikely to be either heroes or villains. Judges who generally reflect popular opinion usually do not have the inclination and / or capacity to defend minority rights from the majority. We should not treat them as villains because their rulings simply reflect the dominant opinion of their time and place. Yet, neither are their interventions on behalf of minority rights likely to be particularly heroic, as such decisions will usually reflect the views held by a majority or a sizable minority of the population. For the justices to have invalidated racial segregation in 1896 would have been heroic, but for the most part they were not even tempted to do so. According to Klarman, when they finally did invalidate segregation in 1954, their decisions reflected views that were held by roughly half the country.
Finally, the book studies Brown in order to present the consequences of the Court’s decision making in the race context. While Brown v. Board of Education has been considered crucial by some and insignificant by others, Klarman argues for middle ground. Brown did play a role both in provoking direct action from black activists and in shaping the response it received from white southerners. It made Jim Crow seem more vulnerable, and any social protest movement can succeed only if convinces potential participants that change is achievable. Brown raised the hopes and expectations of black Americans, which were then largely dashed by massive resistance, but also demonstrated that meaningful social change cannot be produced solely by legal proceedings. Brown inspired southern whites to try to destroy the NAACP, with some temporary success in the Deep South, and this unintentionally forced blacks to support alternative protest organizations, which embraced ideologies more sympathetic to direct action. Finally, the southern white backlash that was ignited by Brown increased the chances that once civil rights demonstrators appeared on the streets, they would be greeted with violence rather than with gradualist compromises. "[T]he ruling plainly influenced the way in which America’s racial transformation occurred," writes Klarman, which means that court decisions do matter, although often in unpredictable ways.
However, they cannot fundamentally transform a nation. The justices are too much products of their time and place to launch social revolutions. They declined to aggressively enforce the Brown decision until a civil rights movement had made northern whites as keen to eliminate Jim Crow as southern whites were to preserve it. And while Brown did play a role in shaping both the civil rights movement and the violent response it received from southern whites, at the end deep background forces ensured that the United States would experience a racial reform movement regardless of what the Supreme Court did or did not do.
Michael J. Klarman has written an impressive study of the profound changes in race relations that ocurred in the USA between 1895 and 1965 and of the role played by the constitutional rulings of the U.S Supreme Court in fascilitating those changes. While the book may appear daunting at firs with its academic style, anyone interested in the anatomy of Brown v. Board of Education and in the overall nature of judicial decision making will surely find FROM JIM CROW TO CIVIL RIGHTS highly informative and engaging. In addition, it may well be read as a concise history of the civil rights movement, for Klarman provides wonderful summaries of the key people and events related to the movement.
December 5, 2020
Not for the constitutional feint of heart! I'm not sure I can adequately summarize the breadth of this book as it's very dense. Because I select and annotate these dense, lengthy history books using my own handwritten notecard system, I often don't make my Goodreads yearly goals lol.
Other than reading the author's own introduction and finding the thesis for yourself, my very basic summary is that segregation was widely acceptable at the time of the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which provided the federal constitutional precedent of separate but equal or legalized segregation. From the justices' perspectives, segregated education for African Americans meant SOME education even if it was clearly going to be unequally funded and very substandard. Yet, this case also merely codified existing social discrimination, which is more difficult to combat without public support, constitutional underpinnings, and enforceable legislation because racist discrimination, however horrible, often conflicts with freedom of thought and movement in non-governmental affairs (private businesses, contracts, housing discrimination, blockbusting, white flights, etc.). Plessy was basically ignored at the time because discriminatory practices in education, labor contracts, voting, and due process were firmly in place across the country by 1896 for blacks, Asians, and even white immigrants despite the more egalitarian intentions of Reconstruction Republicans after the Civil War to bring some equality to former slaves (the 14-15th Amendments were intended for freed slaves by design, only later would they be directed to other groups).
The other bookend court case, the landmark Brown v. Board (1953), which itself is a combination of cases, wasn't as directly influential in provoking actual integration of public schools. Its power was indirect, motivational, and more reflective of decades of often understudied civil rights history. It was the result of this movement, not suddenly a cause of the justices unanimously deciding the first case to end segregation in public education. The time had come for them to change, not for them to change the times.
More directly, the effects were mixed. It led to tokenism, a few students integrated as an example, yet it provided little actual education for the kids because of the crushing social atmosphere of harassment, threats, and violence and despite the one instance of federal troops being sent to Little Rock, Arkansas. That Brown occurred at all was a result of changing attitudes about peonage (slave-like labor), voting rights, criminal justice, and much later education integration, which wasn't much on the public's radar until after WWII.
The NAACP was critical in pushing cases forward during the dark years (~1900-1945~) especially about peonage and due process, but in reality, the world wars and returning soldiers sparked new calls for change because of the increased equality of brothers in arms (despite the armed forces also being segregated until Truman ended the policy). Those conflicts may have sparked some change, but lynching, mob violence, and other extrajudicial practices continued to varying degrees for black veterans, those newly assertive, or supportive whites in the South after the world wars.
WWII and the Cold War were incredibly important in changing the opinions of the people that "mattered": white society, especially in the North where blacks settled in increasing numbers during the Great Migration. Living in closer proximity to less familiar whites did not change attitudes overnight and discrimination and violence continued even there. Yet, Hitler and the Holocaust were eye-openers to Americans, and the Cold War competition, as well as the effect of Soviet propaganda on the rest of the world, led many white Americans to conclude that they couldn't represent freedom and democracy if African Americans weren't "allowed" them at home. It’s also interesting that the counter-movement to (falsely) label the civil rights movement as communist or for the FBI to investigate its leaders was largely ineffective in stopping critical actions like legislation or swaying the public to return to segregation. Many receptive people saw the brutality of racism on their television screens for the first time and that more than anything changed the public's mind about issues like segregation.
Brown was a landmark not because it led to integration, instead it changed white perception about the issue and that mattered because they controlled the levers of power. It encouraged legal action in the short run, but this turned into disappointment as the results were slow to be realized. Instead, direct action waited until protest was more acceptable and not as violently suppressed in the late 1950s-60s. Klarman indicates that the legal win in Brown about education segregation indirectly impacted other, more activist parts of the 1950-60s civil rights movement like the Freedom Riders, bus boycotts, and sit-in. Many civil rights leaders like MLK Jr. expressly left out desegregation from their platforms during the early 1960s as they were focused on integrating public facilities and transportation. Some even felt that unsupported integration would actually harm students and black teachers more than if temporarily left segregated until the time was right.
Finally, Klarman forcefully concludes that Brown was without teeth during the Eisenhower years and during Kennedy's years alive. It required federal legislation in 1964, signed by President Johnson (and overwhelmingly supported by Republican lawmakers), not just scattered federalized troops or court cases to enforce desegregation. The existence of that willingness to enforce Brown is a testament to the change that slowly occurred in American society and also that legal change tends to lag behind social change because a democratic government is responsible to the attitudes of the people at the time, even if it has powerful racist elements. More importantly for a democracy, if the people reject an outcome imposed by government, they'll simply vote in those who’ll change it back and until that happens, they’ll be more apt to apply social pressure and use extralegal methods if they’re not put in contact with the truths behind that desire for change.
Other than reading the author's own introduction and finding the thesis for yourself, my very basic summary is that segregation was widely acceptable at the time of the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which provided the federal constitutional precedent of separate but equal or legalized segregation. From the justices' perspectives, segregated education for African Americans meant SOME education even if it was clearly going to be unequally funded and very substandard. Yet, this case also merely codified existing social discrimination, which is more difficult to combat without public support, constitutional underpinnings, and enforceable legislation because racist discrimination, however horrible, often conflicts with freedom of thought and movement in non-governmental affairs (private businesses, contracts, housing discrimination, blockbusting, white flights, etc.). Plessy was basically ignored at the time because discriminatory practices in education, labor contracts, voting, and due process were firmly in place across the country by 1896 for blacks, Asians, and even white immigrants despite the more egalitarian intentions of Reconstruction Republicans after the Civil War to bring some equality to former slaves (the 14-15th Amendments were intended for freed slaves by design, only later would they be directed to other groups).
The other bookend court case, the landmark Brown v. Board (1953), which itself is a combination of cases, wasn't as directly influential in provoking actual integration of public schools. Its power was indirect, motivational, and more reflective of decades of often understudied civil rights history. It was the result of this movement, not suddenly a cause of the justices unanimously deciding the first case to end segregation in public education. The time had come for them to change, not for them to change the times.
More directly, the effects were mixed. It led to tokenism, a few students integrated as an example, yet it provided little actual education for the kids because of the crushing social atmosphere of harassment, threats, and violence and despite the one instance of federal troops being sent to Little Rock, Arkansas. That Brown occurred at all was a result of changing attitudes about peonage (slave-like labor), voting rights, criminal justice, and much later education integration, which wasn't much on the public's radar until after WWII.
The NAACP was critical in pushing cases forward during the dark years (~1900-1945~) especially about peonage and due process, but in reality, the world wars and returning soldiers sparked new calls for change because of the increased equality of brothers in arms (despite the armed forces also being segregated until Truman ended the policy). Those conflicts may have sparked some change, but lynching, mob violence, and other extrajudicial practices continued to varying degrees for black veterans, those newly assertive, or supportive whites in the South after the world wars.
WWII and the Cold War were incredibly important in changing the opinions of the people that "mattered": white society, especially in the North where blacks settled in increasing numbers during the Great Migration. Living in closer proximity to less familiar whites did not change attitudes overnight and discrimination and violence continued even there. Yet, Hitler and the Holocaust were eye-openers to Americans, and the Cold War competition, as well as the effect of Soviet propaganda on the rest of the world, led many white Americans to conclude that they couldn't represent freedom and democracy if African Americans weren't "allowed" them at home. It’s also interesting that the counter-movement to (falsely) label the civil rights movement as communist or for the FBI to investigate its leaders was largely ineffective in stopping critical actions like legislation or swaying the public to return to segregation. Many receptive people saw the brutality of racism on their television screens for the first time and that more than anything changed the public's mind about issues like segregation.
Brown was a landmark not because it led to integration, instead it changed white perception about the issue and that mattered because they controlled the levers of power. It encouraged legal action in the short run, but this turned into disappointment as the results were slow to be realized. Instead, direct action waited until protest was more acceptable and not as violently suppressed in the late 1950s-60s. Klarman indicates that the legal win in Brown about education segregation indirectly impacted other, more activist parts of the 1950-60s civil rights movement like the Freedom Riders, bus boycotts, and sit-in. Many civil rights leaders like MLK Jr. expressly left out desegregation from their platforms during the early 1960s as they were focused on integrating public facilities and transportation. Some even felt that unsupported integration would actually harm students and black teachers more than if temporarily left segregated until the time was right.
Finally, Klarman forcefully concludes that Brown was without teeth during the Eisenhower years and during Kennedy's years alive. It required federal legislation in 1964, signed by President Johnson (and overwhelmingly supported by Republican lawmakers), not just scattered federalized troops or court cases to enforce desegregation. The existence of that willingness to enforce Brown is a testament to the change that slowly occurred in American society and also that legal change tends to lag behind social change because a democratic government is responsible to the attitudes of the people at the time, even if it has powerful racist elements. More importantly for a democracy, if the people reject an outcome imposed by government, they'll simply vote in those who’ll change it back and until that happens, they’ll be more apt to apply social pressure and use extralegal methods if they’re not put in contact with the truths behind that desire for change.
Want to read
August 18, 2024/From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality/, Michael J. Klarman
Library-of-Congress KF4757 K58 2006 Law Library
Library-of-Congress KF4757 K58 2004 Law Library and College Library Rm. 1191.
There's also an abridgement focusing on Brown v. Board:
Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights movement : abridged edition of From Jim Crow to civil rights : the Supreme Court and the struggle for racial equality, Michael J. Klarman, 2007
Library-of-Congress KF4757 .K58 2007 Historical Society Library
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
Library-of-Congress KF4757 K58 2006 Law Library
Library-of-Congress KF4757 K58 2004 Law Library and College Library Rm. 1191.
There's also an abridgement focusing on Brown v. Board:
Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights movement : abridged edition of From Jim Crow to civil rights : the Supreme Court and the struggle for racial equality, Michael J. Klarman, 2007
Library-of-Congress KF4757 .K58 2007 Historical Society Library
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
February 23, 2018
i found this book to be a bit dense and not what i was hoping for... well written, with scads of references to court cases and to the lives and decisions of politicians, legislators, and judges... spells out clearly how undeniably racist America has always been, though not necessarily as stridently as i would... basically, it absolves the Supreme Court of any responsibility for pushing back against racism and segregation and hate by making the point "the Court reflected the views of America at the time"... well, "the time" wasn't just then, it has been then and now, the entire history of the US and its judiciary... racists on the Supreme Court, would of course support/defend/ignore racist laws and racist policies and racist presidents and racist legislators... i understand the role of the courts, but find it amazing that this book makes the claim the Supreme Court felt it outside its power to rule against racism and racist laws since "most people were racists"... seriously? so America makes the claim it is the "land of the free..." and simultaneously its branches of government can sow hatred and raicst doctrine to subjugate black people? wow. anyway... the book was informative, but lacked a position, whih bothered me as a reader but was surely in line with what the author planned to do... so more my problem than the book's failure... the book doesn't energize me to understand the Supreme Court and its failure to do anything about racism, it just pisses me off because the Supreme Court in no way, shape, or form should have been supporting racism... but racists make racist laws, and racist judges support them... ugh.
July 25, 2025
Second in my series of Civil Rights era books. Was a dense look at the evolving interpretation of Constitutional civil rights protections — or lack thereof, most of the cases pre-WWII were downright terrible — over US history. The biggest takeaway is that the Supreme Court is not a force for progressive change, rather it lags behind lower court precedent and public opinion. The few times it pushed racial progress, namely declaring separate and unequal in public education a constitutional violation, in Brown v. Board of Education, its lack of institutional strength to enforce its decision is revealed (a limitation the justices are themselves keenly aware of). Many southern states refused to integrate for over 15 (!!) years after the 1954 ruling. Instead of accepting integration, the South waged a campaign of “massive resistance.” It was only until the other branches of the federal government, such as increased Executive enforcement through President Eisenhower’s deployment of troops to Little Rock and Congressional legislation in the form of the 1964 Civil Rights act, that the ruling was actually enforced on the ground.
One absolutely insanely tragic fact, between 1953-1968 there were 22 UNSOLVED bombings in Birmingham, Alabama targeting African-American homes, businesses and places of worship. One Deep South town, 22 bombings w/o justice.
One absolutely insanely tragic fact, between 1953-1968 there were 22 UNSOLVED bombings in Birmingham, Alabama targeting African-American homes, businesses and places of worship. One Deep South town, 22 bombings w/o justice.
April 4, 2021
Entry #10 in #LarryReadsTheBancroftWinners. Klarman won the award in 2005.
Oof. This is the epitome of a tome, a book not for the faint of heart. But it's also wonderful. In it Klarman tries to establish the extent to which the Supreme Court shaped policy in racial matters before or after public opinion got there. In short, did public opinion on race and the law shape the Court's rulings, or vice versa? Klarman's book is nothing if not thorough, and its conclusion: a little of both. Leaving no legal stone unturned, Klarman has provided us with the go-to source on this question. It was a deserving winner.
Oof. This is the epitome of a tome, a book not for the faint of heart. But it's also wonderful. In it Klarman tries to establish the extent to which the Supreme Court shaped policy in racial matters before or after public opinion got there. In short, did public opinion on race and the law shape the Court's rulings, or vice versa? Klarman's book is nothing if not thorough, and its conclusion: a little of both. Leaving no legal stone unturned, Klarman has provided us with the go-to source on this question. It was a deserving winner.
December 24, 2021
Wow finally finished! First and last parts were readable, the middle less so, more of a law review article than a history book in that part. That said, I understand much better how the Supreme Court operates (precedent, the influence of society, changes in public opinion).
Read
June 7, 2023For my note lol mostly just read the voting sections
November 15, 2012
Informative about the legal process to obtaining civil rights for African Americans, but extremely dry and felt quite repetitive. I read this book along with "Why We Can't Wait" by Martin Luther King Jr, which is so moving, this book seemed to say nothing by comparison.
However, it's loaded with information and aspects about the legislative and legal barriers that I knew nothing about. It's hard to imagine all of it today.
However, it's loaded with information and aspects about the legislative and legal barriers that I knew nothing about. It's hard to imagine all of it today.
May 18, 2013
This was very specific and took me awhile to finish because I was not familiar with everything so it required some research into other topics so that I could follow the readings, but it was well worth while and I will probably re-read and use a reference tool for my art and papers.
September 30, 2007
Klarman was my professor at UVa, and this book reads just like his lectures. The book is dense, but is well written and the legal history is fascinating enough to have kept me interested.
September 28, 2019
Highly recommend. VH
February 10, 2014
Did not finish.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews