About book At Canaan's Edge: America In The King Years 1965-68 (2007)
"At Canaan's Edge" is the final volume of the trilogy of Taylor Branch's masterful telling of the tumult occurring on the social and political scene in the United States in the middle of the twentieth century. The important civil rights-related struggles of 1965 to 1968 are covered. The most troubling ideological element to emerge at this time was the role of violence in resolving civil disputes. 1965 marked a continuation of the Southern-focused strategy of organized demonstrations of massed volunteers and citizens, risking physical retaliation and jailing, under the prevailing leadership of the preacher membership of the SCLC, for the purpose of bringing not only local, but national attention to the usurpation of basic citizenship rights, especially the right to vote, for blacks. The book's first chapters show how Alabama's repression of its minority citizens led to the organizing of one of the seminal events in the Civil Rights Movement, the March, 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery, which covered 54 miles over 5 days. The actual march which would witness the attendance of Martin Luther and Coretta King along with all of the leaders of SCLC and SNCC as well as celebrities actually followed an earlier attempt of March 7th, forever to be known as "Bloody Sunday" in which Alabama State Troopers and sheriff's deputies would create a spectacle of tear gassing and beatings of marching participants at the Pettis Bridge in Selma that will remain indelibly in the mind of anyone who has ever seen the newsreel footage of it. President Lyndon Johnson was following news media and Justice Department reports of what was happening in Selma. The world's reaction to the images of what was happening in the United States no doubt concerned Johnson about the country's image abroad, but he also was personally repulsed by state of affairs in the South. He had devised a great legislative initiative which made into law with the Civil Rights Act of the previous year, and he was aware that further Great Society programs needed to get acted on while he was still in favor with the citizenry, as the hard-pressed successor to the late John F. Kennedy. The cold-blooded murder of Selma marcher Viola Liuzzo was part of a continuing series of events that added to the public's outrage over the events happening in the South. It wasn't that Johnson was a greatly skillful Capital Hill manipulator, which he was; he genuinely believed in using the powers of the government to right the racial wrongs of the last hundred years. During 1965, he would savor the success of signing into law Medicare, the Voting Rights Act and the Immigration Reform Act.Things were changing significantly in the country by 1966, however. Branch seems to be saying that the driving force for a change in the public mood was an increasingly violent climate, both at home and abroad. Voting- and- other Civil Rights non violent movements were continuing to be met with overtly violent reactions from bystanders and the police, while assassins kept adding to the list of martyrs. A decision by King to take the struggle from the South to Northern Cities stretched the resources of SCLC and caused leadership rifts in the organization while not gaining much headway in the objective of racial discrimination in urban housing. The ballot struggles of poor people aligned with visiting priests, nuns, ministers, rabbi's, college students and the hierarchy's of the leading civil rights organizations became all but expunged, to use Branch's term, as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale preempted the formerly inoculous black panther ballot symbol of the Lowndes County Alabama Freedom Party and changed the tenor of urban social rebellion to militant black separatism (p. 548). And the American military was incurring heavy casualties as its presence in Southeast Asia increased significantly. The reference to Vietnam is not coincidental, as Branch weaves his story back and forth between the domestic struggles and the war. King and Johnson would be early fellow-supporters of legislative initiatives to solve racial discrimination, although Johnson would always maintain an arms-length relationship of never letting King have his ear privately on the few occassions when he was invited to the White House. After passage of the Voting Rights Law, however, King came to terms with the fact that he could not support a government which was laying another country in waste while pursuing the colonial domination of the failed French. By 1967, King was facing a situation in which the resort to violence was becoming an acceptable solution to the country's problems. Highly destructive urban race riots tore apart Detroit and Newark. SNCC was racked with discord as its leadership became more militant. Stokely Carmichael took the lead of the SNCC as he turned his back on his long history of nonviolent action with the organization. He would become one of the leading voices of Black Power, with its recognition of Malcom X's acceptance of violence as a way of life. King's nonviolent tactics were no longer considered to be cutting edge, or effective, even by some who had participated in his movement. And in Vietnam, where Johnson could not find a strategy to convince the North Vietnamese to agree to a cessation of fighting, American battle deaths averaged 770 per month in 1967 compared with 412 the previous year (p. 625). Branch writes about a fascinating meeting which grew out of this violent climate (pp 662-664). In December, 1967, a forum of a hundred intellectuals met in New York to discuss issues of violence and power. Philosopher Hannah Arendt framed the debate with her assertion, against increasingly popular belief, that a close association between power and violence does not exist. She also threw doubt on classical dogma which assigns violence as essential to natural processes. This position had been contradicted by a "New York Times" survey, showing a shift on Integration among white liberals who were finding black power doctrines to be fashionable. Against Arendt and Noam Chomsky, dissenters insisted that physical rebellion in the form of riots was a legitimate response to humiliation. One of Hannah Arendt's challengers, Tom Hayden of SDS, passionately reflected what Stokely Carmichael was saying to justify action, violent action if necessary, to end the Vietnam War and racism in America in the fastest way possible. Lyndon Johnson saw 1968 begin with cautiously optimistic military predictions that the worst may be over in Vietnam, as the Viet Cong appeared to be exhausted and battered after suffering much heavier losses than the Americans in battles. The Tet Offensive dispelled that fantasy, and Senator Eugene McCarthy came out of the wings to threaten as a formidable anti-war candidate in the upcoming Democratic Primary. Johnson was dealt a double blow when the Kerner Commission report on the previous year's urban civil disorders lambasted the government for not devoting enough resources to end poverty. It also nullified, in effect, Johnson's considerable efforts to pass civil rights laws by declaring that the nation was moving toward two unequal societies, one black and one white. The resulting resignation of the sitting President from the upcoming election, along with his liberal agenda, and the growing shift of former liberals to conservatism (the original neo-conservatives) based on reactions of fear toward the magnitude of black migration to the cities, was not good news to King. He had already been blamed in the media for complicity in the urban riots by opening racial wounds with his speeches. Now, he was proposing a change of the SCLC's focus to fighting against poverty. This change in direction was threatening to some of the organization's leadership, partly because it would no longer be a black movement; it would ally black southern sharecroppers with chicano migrant farmers, white Appalachian and multi-racial poor people, for instance. King's closest advisors were also adamant that resources didn't exist for his proposed march of poor people to Washington, where thousands would set up make-shift camps in the shadow of Congress to shame the government into an awareness of their problems. The Washington march in particular would be delayed numerous times, especially when King decided to offer leadership to the Memphis sanitation workers who were facing repression and harassment in their efforts to organize for even minimum wages and working conditions. Most distressing for King was the decline of nonviolence as a seriously considered agent of change. He attributed the widespread dismissal of his movement tactics to what he called "enemy thinking" (p. 559), the justification of violence by even religious leaders by walling off groups of people by category. According to this view, the nonviolent civil rights movement was outmoded in a society which was becoming more inured to violence. Naysayers even doubted that the great Birmingham and Selma movements did not produce results worthy of the great sacrifice in exertion and even human life involved. However, as Branch points out, the Birmingham governmental authorities' renunciation of the agreements to integrate facilities was overshadowed by its role in beginning the end of segregation sanctioned by national law, while the continuing brutality and harassment of minority voters in Alabama after Selma was accompanied by democratization of voting rights across the nation (p. 558).King refused to be relegated to the sidelines in the wake of new and troubling social movement tactics. His involvement in the establishment and running of SCLC and its agendas had always shown his tremendous vision; his skill in this regard continued with his ability to see beyond voting and housing needs to the core of poverty itself. He also never stopped showing his leadership ability, most recently in his refusal to allow his most trusted confidantes to sway him from the direction he wanted to take his organization. I think a key to his leadership ability was his decision always to go where he knew he should go in terms of fighting injustices, and somehow the organization behind him just knew it must follow. Thus with the Memphis sanitation strike. His advisors tried to get him to avoid wasting time and energy in this dispute which was hardly noticed outside of Tennessee, but he forcefully, even angrily, told them that he was not going to waver from what he knew was right. Branch mentions instances prior to the final trip to Memphis, where King was assassinated, of his having thoughts about his own death. This is not to suggest that his assassination was inevitable, but the knowledge of what had happened to Civil Rights martyrs whose deaths occurred just in the time parameters of this book, including Liuzzo, Jimmie Lee Jackson, Vernon Dahmer, Johathan Daniels and Rev. James Reeb, left no doubt of the risks that King was facing every day. His chances of growing old were slim, but King never wavered from offering his organizational skills, intellect, personal reputation and physical strength to furthering "nonviolent witness for democracy" (p. 559) as the central tenet of the Civil Rights movement.
Finished! The last of three magnificent and wonderfully sourced books on the King years. At least 1500 pages, mainly of things I didn't know. I should have known because I lived through the events and was in college for most of the time. No doubt much of the public thought King had become less active or switched to the anti-war movement after Selma. Not so. He was working all the time--targeting poverty, often in the North, and segregated housing in urban areas. I'll admit being annoyed with him for becoming involved in anti-war activities. Since we had the draft that threatened every male over 18, the anti-war movement (that I supported) did not lack for demonstrators. What finally sunk in was that King truly believed in non-violence--not as a tactic but the bedrock upon which his life and faith were built. In his mind, he had no choice but to speak out against the war. There are many fascinating stories in here--particularly of the people who were still trying to end segregation. The saddest is probably the electric Stokely Carmichael who, after many years in King's inner circle, ended up as a founder of the Black Panthers. It's a toss-up whether King or LBJ suffered more during this period. The pressure on both men, was in my view, intolerable. Although both were virtually isolated, they survived by refusing to give even an inch when it came what they believed was morally and spiritually right. Yes, LBJ was a master politician but he never yielded when his personal beliefs might be compromised. Branch is exceptional at letting us see the flawed humans behind the cardboard figures that have been created by history. Truly an unparalleled work and worth every minute spent re-living the national and international events from 1954 to 1968.
Do You like book At Canaan's Edge: America In The King Years 1965-68 (2007)?
I just finished (finally!). Either I'm older (and smarter), or this was the most readable volume in the trilogy. I didn't cry at the very end, but the "Mountaintop" speech did me in, and I'm glad to live in an internet age, since I could immediately go to YouTube and listen to the speech in its entirety. Anyway, Taylor Branch does an amazing job (and he knows it, too: there are a few troubling, ego-inflating blurbs in the dust jacket puffery and the acknowledgements, but no matter--it's still a great book and I'm still a big fan) covering what I can only imagine were frightening times. This only deepening my love of LBJ. I know a lot of people who lived through those years hate him for Vietnam, but the man you see here, while really screwing up by getting in that war over what seems like fear of being seen as weak, is obviously so plagued by what happens, and really trying to do the right things civil rights-wise, that my heart still breaks for him. And it's even more frustrating to read about King, who is trying to be non-violent while all the people around him are against it, and the movement is collapsing from within and without. This is a great series of books, and I wish more people would read and love them as I do. They aren't dry, but they aren't page turners, either. Ultimately, they are gratifying through what you learn.
—Lee Anne
This is the story of Martin Luther King's last three years. It chronicles the Selma-to-Montgomery marches of 1965, the Chicago campaigns, the voter registration drives in rural Alabama and Mississippi, King's stormy relationship with LBJ, King's struggle with the issue of the Vietnam war, the Memphis garbage workers' strike, the mountaintop speech and King's assassination. King lived during a turbulent time and this book ably discusses his struggles, within his movement and with allies like LBJ. One of the most dramatic events is LBJ's 1965 speech in favor of the voting rights act which he ends by using the phrase "we shall overcome". King tried hard to keep his movement non-violent despite the efforts of his enemies and allies alike. King got caught up in a couple of riots, in Selma, Memphis and Chicago. The narration was good. It's a little hard to tell from the package, but I am pretty sure the version is abridged. The book itself is long, 771 pages, but the narration is only 8 CDs.
—Frederick Bingham
The transformation of MLK in the American imagination is rather remarkable. In a generation, King went from one of the most divisive (if not the most divisive) figure in America to one of the few historical figures that can act as a touchstone to all mainstream ideological factions; it is one of the ironies of history that the only comparable figure is Abraham Lincoln. It is a great credit to Branch that he is able to strip away the image of King for the historical King, a personally conflicted, politically difficult figure who redefined the nature of political debate in the country, and to a degree, the world. The America described in “Pillar of Fire” is immeasurably different from the country in “At Cannaan’s Edge.” King defined the nature of politics in way no other private citizen ever has; the election of 1800 produced Jeffersonian Democracy, 1828 gave us the Age of Jackson, 1932 redefined government by the New Deal, and the middle part of the century was largely defined by a type of New Politics inspired by MLK. The promise and gains of new politics, combined with a bitter and deep backlash, helped lead to an ingrained cynicism towards political action; however, it is worth reflecting on the fundamental danger of true idealism, and how it is sometimes cool to believe in something.
—Aaron
