The Civil War failed to resolve the great social problem that had been so well analyzed by the great Alexis de Tocqueville 30 years before the War. He wrote:

"If he becomes free, independence is often felt by him to be a heavier burden than slavery; for, having learned in the course of his life to submit to everything except reason, he is too unacquainted with her dictates to obey them. A thousand new desires beset him, and he has not the knowledge and energy necessary to resist them: these are masters which it is necessary to contend with, and he has learned only to submit and obey. In short, he is sunk to such a depth of wretchedness that while servitude brutalizes, liberty destroys him."

Emancipation of the slave post-Civil War became our own national quagmire: we knew not what to do to fully assimilate him. The Reconstruction process, started tepidly by Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson (whose outward bluster failed to overcome his Southern roots), was half-hearted at best. When a tired and ineffectual Grant assumed the presidency, the Radical Republicans heated the pot with their aggressive policies but accomplished little good and fostered much ill-will: the Southern people grew resentful, then angry and then violent. Finally, the entire process drew to a grinding halt under the weak-kneed Rutherford Hayes and the shameful "Compromise of 1877." As Lincoln had said, in one of his most melancholy times of the War: "The bottom is out of the tub. What are we to do?"

What "we" did was, once again, ignore the problem. The South erected the concertina wire barricades of Jim Crow Laws and hid their faces beneath the hoods of "separate but equal." The North, merely happy to have their country back again and reunited, once again sat idle. The great losers in the process were, once again, the black citizens of America. While made "paper citizens" by the grand (if illusionary) American "justice," they remained - for the next 75 years - second-class citizens at best. All their anger and sense of injustice driven inward, at least for a time, as they patiently waited for their time to come. It has been said that no people had so much faith in God and were treated so badly by Him than the black Americans. They kept their faith and God, belatedly, answered their muffled cries for deliverance.

The path of political action, first begun by W.E.B. Du Bois and others with the "Niagra Movement," planted the seed of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). While working quietly behind the scenes of the democratic process, the NAACP was nurturing and developing a viable legal arm. The charismatic and thoroughly-effective Thurgood Marshall began working within the NAACP in 1934 and was named as its Chief Counsel in 1940. He and his colleagues (who included Charles Hamilton Houston, George Edward Chalmer Hayes and James Nabrit), began a systematic legal strategy directed at breaking the barriers of segregation, specifically overturning Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and the separatist doctrine it institutionalized. As the NAACP and Marshall gradually chipped away at the roots, the Supreme Court swayed more toward a favorable majority with the Eisenhower appointment of Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953). The stage was set for the next revolution: the battle for civil rights. I will leave it to the words of the brilliant Dr. Thomas Sowell:

"Brown v. Board of Education...represented a vision of man that touched many hearts across the land and around the world...In how many places and in how many eras could an ordinary person from a despised race challenge the duly constituted authorities, force them to publicly defend their decisions, retreat, and finally capitulate?...It was not simply a decision but the beginning of a revolution that has not yet run its course, but which has already shown the classic symptoms of a revolution taking a very different path from those envisioned by those who set it in motion." (Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?, 1984, pp. 13-14) [Emphasis mine]

Shortly after the Brown v. Board of Education battle was won, effectively delegitimizing segregation, a leader rose to take the civil rights movement to the court of public opinion. On December 1, 1955. Rosa Parks was arrested in Montgomery, AL for refusing to follow the segregated seating on local buses. A young preacher from the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Martin Luther King, was called on to lead a boycott of the bus service. With success locally, Dr. King founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) which allowed him to take the fight nationally. Following the nonviolent movement techniques of Mahatma Gandhi, King realized that winning the hearts and minds of Americans could lead to greater change than the occasional legal battle.

He was both a charismatic leader, a talented author and a gifted speaker. After several years of nonviolent protests (notably in Selma and Birmingham, AL), King joined with other civil rights leaders (Roy Wilkins, NAACP; Whitney Young, Jr., Urban League; A. Philip Randolph, Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; John Lewis, SNCC; and James Farmer of the Congress of Racial Equality) in forming the March on Washington for Freedom and Jobs in August, 1963. It was here, on the national podium, that King reached the pinnacle of his oratory. His "I Have A Dream" speech moved the hearts and won the minds of white America. The time had finally come for equality for the long-suffering American blacks. With a sympathetic new President, John Kennedy, and a nation sufficiently moved, Civil Rights had come to full blossom.

Even after the assassination of President Kennedy, the movement was carried to completion under President Johnson. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was swiftly followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It appeared, at least to white America, that the wrongs of a century had been addressed. As Dr. King turned his attention to addressing poverty and economic inequality, he was - like President Kennedy before and his brother after - felled by tragedy. And, then, things began to come off the rails.

Most of white American seemingly became complacent and self-satisfied with what had been accomplished in such a short time. Rudderless - just like the nation itself a century before just prior to the Civil War - the movement for full black equality sputtered and stalled. No one effectively stepped forward to carry on the work Dr. King had started. There were many pretenders to the throne (notably Ralph Abernathy and Jesse Jackson) but no one from the ranks of either the NAACP (which was never vested as a truly populist organization for action) or the SCLC came to articulate, as clearly or as passionately as Dr. King, the message of black equality. And the message became garbled in subsequent translations.

For example, Dr. King said in 1963:

"On the other hand, I think we must honestly face a fact if one gets behind in a race, he must eternally remain behind or run faster than the man in front. You've got to give him the equipment to catch up. Now the fact is that the Negro has had 244 years of slavery in America and working without wages and then he's had a hundred years of segregation and mistreatment generally. Now, he's faced with a very serious problem and that is that he is required to be as productive as people who have not had these conditions and the only thing that a society can do for individuals who have been deprived of something is to give them a little special treatment. Now you don't put anybody out of a job, but you just make it possible for the individuals who are behind to catch up."

This is one of the most misinterpreted and, thus, subject to mischief, of all Dr. Kings many words. In the hands of LBJ, we heard this:

"Freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries. You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race saying, 'You are free to compete with all the others', and still justly believe you have been completely fair. Thus it is not enough to open the gates of opportunity."

From this sprang the concept of "diversity" and "affirmative action." And, now after 40 years, we have begun (finally) to critically assess what these noble endeavors have wrought. And, for many social observers, it is - at the very best - a mixed bag. There are knowledgeable, concerned black writers and scholars such as Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Juan Williams, John McWhorter, and Ward Connerly who have proclaimed that "affirmative action" has been not only a complete failure but, further, has a negative effect on black self-esteem, in particular, and black culture, in general. Conversely, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who this author greatly respects, has strongly defended the continuation of these policies. Of course, those that author Norma Kelley, himself a black man, has dubbed the "niggarati" (the new black bourgeoisie intellectuals) are militantly opposed to any changes in any race-based entitlements. In fact, members of this "class" (represented, primarily, by Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson, Tavis Smiley) feel that extension of entitlements to blacks are long overdue from the U.S. Government and, indeed, reparations should be paid to American blacks for the distant ills of slavery.

Thus, the spectrum of thoughts concerning the effectiveness of past efforts at affirmative actions and, indeed, the need for its continuation are extremely contentious. And, as the government so often does once a federally-mandated program has been vested, continues to propagate and defend its programs seeking social equality. Policies that, in the minds of many, have clearly outlived their usefulness and, quite possibly, may actually be holding back black social progress.

The vacillating focus and loss of direction of the struggle for equality was clearly described by one of the most lucid thinkers on "mass movements" in world history, Eric Hoffer. In writing "The True Believer," Hoffer wrote about other populist movements that preceded the seismic shifts of the 1960s but his words apply to all such significant changes that men and nations have fostered. As Hoffer would have observed, the "mass movement" that was civil rights, was initiated through the leadership and moral vision of the "man of words" (Dr. King) and activated by the legions of "true believers" (peaceful protesters). After much struggle and sacrifice, the movement succeeded. Dr. King was there both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. He was tragically martyred - as many "men of words" in many movements throughout history - in 1968 doing what he was called to do: standing with the Memphis Sanitation Workers in their strike for a living wage.

Generalizing (and clearly not specifically referring to the Civil Rights Movements - The True Believer was published in 1951), Hoffer has summed up the natural history of such movements as follows:

"A movement is pioneered by men of words, materialized by fanatics and consolidated by men of action."

It was with the death of Dr. King that the "mass movement" that was civil rights, ultimately, lost momentum. It was, in turn, taken over by the "men of action." Hoffer observes that the appearance of the end of action "usually marks the end of the dynamic phase of the movement."

He elaborates:

"The chief preoccupation of the man of action [the last leader(s) of any mass movement] when he takes over an 'arrived' movement [as with the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act] is to fix and perpetuate its unity and readiness for self-sacrifice. His ideal is a compact, invincible whole that functions automatically. To achieve this he cannot rely on enthusiasm, for enthusiasm is ephemeral. Persuasion, too, is unpredictable. He inclines, therefore, to rely on drill and coercion. [Emphasis mine]

It is at this point that I will undertake some observations of my own while continuing to draw on some "Hofferian" parallels. The personal views that follow spring from a body of literature, quite separate from Hoffer, that I have commented on elsewhere. It will be enough, at this point, to say that these writers (in order of influence on me, personally: Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, John McWhorter, Juan Williams) have caused me to rethink the current state of racial relations in our country and where our attempts at "social engineering" have led us. My points, in brief, are as follows:

1. The civil rights "mass movement," so nobly fought for by Dr. King and many others, has been usurped and, subsequently, perverted from its principles by those that lead that movement today. Hoffer's "men of action."

2. When the "men of action" assumed leadership of the movement, they - as Hoffer observed - became more concerned with personal power and aggrandizement than with the actual goals of the revolution. As Hoffer writes: "In the hands of the man of action, the mass movement ceases to be a refuge from the agonies and burdens of an individual existence and becomes a means of self-realization for the ambitious." These means transform "a movement into an enterprise."

While Reverend King was simply seeking a time when Americans could look at their fellow citizens and see the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, his hopes have been transmogrified. His dream was principled, grounded in our own Constitution and was transcendent and clear. He wrote, as early as 1946 of his crystal-clear view of the ideal America:

"We want and are entitled to the basic rights and opportunities of American citizens: The right to earn a living at work for which we are fitted by training and ability; equal opportunities in education, health, recreation, and similar public services; the right to vote; equality before the law; some of the same courtesy and good manners that we ourselves bring to all human relations."

He succeeded on a scale for which he is, rightfully, honored. Against all odds and against a powerful, well-entrenched enemy with centuries of training - the "devil" of racism - he made it to his mountain top. Undoubtedly, Dr. King would say today that there is still a great deal of work to be done. But, in my opinion, it will not require the institutional and governmental work of the 1960s. Instead, it will require personal and individual examination and reflection in the hearts and souls of blacks and whites. That is, after all, the most difficult work of all.

But, Dr. King's movement for a principled and just government and institutions is no longer solely about equality. Civil rights, garbled and murky as it is today, has become more about quotas, affirmative action, multiculturalism, and diversity. These are just a few of the watchwords of the current "men of action." Dr. King's driving vision - the opportunity to compete equally - not as black Americans but, simply, as fellow Americans - has become, in the hands of his undisciplined successors, something much different.

The movement's second-generation "men of action" have remained extraordinarily effective if distracted. The leaders keep their followers regimented and thinking as one through tried and true means: "fervent propaganda." American citizens who coincidentally are black (not the other way around as some would have it) are encouraged to believe and vote as one mind and one race. And this is accomplished by "keeping the faith."

Again, Hoffer describes this phenomenon in terms of power:

"[The new "men of action"] cannot help being awed by the tremendous achievements of faith and spontaneity in the early days of the movement when a mighty instrument of power was conjured out of the void. The memory is still extremely vivid. He takes, therefore, great care to preserve the new institutions an impressive facade of faith, and maintains an impressive flow of fervent propaganda, though he relies mainly on persuasiveness of force. His orders are worded in pious vocabulary, and the old formulas and slogans are continually on his lips."

If anyone threatens this power consolidated by the movement, they must be silenced. If anyone - black or white - were to suggest that the old enemy is beaten and in retreat, they must be suppressed. And the tools for suppression are potent, painfully effective and well-established in the movement's history. If a black man or woman would dare to speak these words (and some have), they are called an "Uncle Tom." This moniker remains an extremely powerful culturally-negative word. The phrase depicts the speaker as a traitor to the group and calls for their being ostracized by the movement. If a white man or woman dare to hint that racism is receding in American society, the source of such a blasphemous utterance would be silenced by the all-purpose "racist" calumny. Since American whites have been relegated, in the post-civil rights era, to a "moral vacuum," they simply have no voice in matters of race.

For where there is an enemy (though it be retreating or even vanquished) to be conjured, the "men of action" can continue to lead. To admit victory would be to lose power and that, in the movement they inherited, would be untenable and would be fatal to their grip on power and control. Only by leading the charge against windmill after windmill - real or simply aggrandized for benefit - can the movement's leaders cling to power. And their power remains only as long as they are able to dictate (or at least focus) the thought processes of their followers. Let not the followers hear of individual responsibility or self-determination. Let them not hear that the battle is finished and they have won. Speak not of such things as "masters of your own destiny" or "take the tools I have given you and succeed!" If they were to do that, they would begin to see that they are, in the fullest measure, free and capable individuals.

Thus this third "revolution" in American history has stumbled to a thoroughly unsatisfying conclusion. None of the revolutions we have discussed have been completely satisfying but the Civil Rights Revolution - begun with such vigor and moral strength - has been the most disappointing of all. The nation has, by all measures, achieved more social equality than it ever has and, yet, there remains significant racial separation: economically, culturally and individually. There remains the "us against them" mentality yet today. Perhaps, this is unavoidable. But, personally, I cannot help but believe that what we have is not what Dr. King envisioned on his trip to the mountain top.

Perhaps, and if history is any predictor, the time has come for a fourth revolution.