I am late and apologize. But i do agree with the tactic that SNCC used in choosing Jail instead of bail. There are many reasons why i believe this was an effective move. By staying in jail, it didn't give the goverment any bail money, and actually cost them to house all of the sit-ins. They filled all of the jails up so they could no longer arrest students for sit-ins. This gave the police no means of threatening protestors if they can no longer arrest them. By staying in Jail, it also was a big statement, that they arent ashamed to be in jail for the sit-ins and it drew alot of attention. Overall choosing jail over bail was very effective.

Nonviolence appeals to conscience. I believe most people do have conscience; they have been brought up with moral values and among these values is, to an extent, nonviolence. When someone is struck and does not strike back, eventually, people may come around to his side. However, prejudices may be rather deeply ingrained for a while; not all people are comfortable with sudden change. But I feel that the peaceful protests of the civil rights movement were probably successful because in the eyes of many people a dignified, peaceful protest wins over hate.

Unable to get packet
If you want to, you could post a response to the other reading in the packet,
the "SNCC Statement of Purpose."

This reading was about the “Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee Statement of Purpose”. Many student leaders from around the country were chosen to represent this committee. The main goal was to get all state, local, and religious groups to choose non-violent means as the solution to the issues. The mission was to involve love as the main focus and to apply human feelings and emotion to allow problems to be solved . Martin Luther King Jr. spoke at this event and also a speech was delivered by Reverend James Lawson that the students were highly moved by and he accounted for a draft of the Temporary Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee a month later.

Unable to get packet
If you want to, you could post a response to the other reading in the packet,
the "SNCC Statement of Purpose."

This reading was about the “Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee Statement of Purpose”. Many student leaders from around the country were chosen to represent this committee. The main goal was to get all state, local, and religious groups to choose non-violent means as the solution to the issues. The mission was to involve love as the main focus and to apply human feelings and emotion to allow problems to be solved . Martin Luther King Jr. spoke at this event and also a speech was delivered by Reverend James Lawson that the students were highly moved by and he accounted for a draft of the Temporary Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee a month later.

In this article, John Lewis stated that there was "no model, no map, no blueprint for the Nashville authorities to follow." The white leaders, law enforcement officers, and judicial leaders of this city were forced to react to the high-profile situation of the Nashville student sit-ins with no clue of how to react. Consequently, many of their reactions during this period actually served to help rather than hinder the sit-in movement.
After several days of sit-ins occurring in Nashville's department stores, law enforcement officials made their first move. Many students were beaten and harassed by racist groups as they attempted their sit-ins, and hundreds were arrested and jailed for their "disorderly conduct". As the students had been completely non-violent in their protest of segregation, they came out on top in this situation despite their legal difficulties. Media coverage depicted the brutality of white racist groups, and the image of these students as innocent victims who wanted nothing more than equality spread.
There were countless other actions taken by white leaders in Nashville that helped further the cause of these student protesters. Many students were brought to court in an attempt to prove the existence of a conspiracy on their part, and they were found guilty-- given the option of paying a fine or serving additional jail time. The students chose jail; consequently, media images victimizing these students spread throughout the nation. Such images prompted the attention of powerful and influential people, thus increasing the public support of these student protesters.
Overall, the attempts by white authorities in Nashville to bring an end to these protests and the public attention that came with them did nothing more than increase that public attention and fuel the desire of the students involved in the protests. In trying to make the students appear as juvenile delinquents that were simply disrupting the peace of a harmonious southern city, authorites demonstrated how justified the students were in their cause. White leaders of Nashville were warped by their racist views and their response to the highly-publicized student sit-ins of the 1960's proved that to people all over America.

Sitins were definitly used as arguments. They were done to argue with the fact that blacks were not allowed in certain establishments. The sitins were used as a form of peaceful protest that angered white resturant and store owners and made a bold statement in support of equal treatment of blacks. These sitins as they grew larger and larger began to get media coverage making this an even larger issue than it had previously been. The sitins symbolized a change in the mood of african american from one of accepting segregation to one of doing somthing about it. The sitins were a turning point in the civil rights movement in which blacks began to fight for equal treatment.

I believe choosing jail over bail was the right way to go. By not posting bail the students were showing that they were no longer going to support the system that continually suppressed them. What's the point of having a demonstration to stress an issue, if you're going to pay the bail which only makes the white man richer and the black community poorer? This choice showed the white community that the students didn't care about how many times they went to jail. The issue was about something deeper than that. They wanted to emphasize that they were very serious and determined about getting equality. Nothing was going to deter there goals; not even the law. By choosing jail over bail it in fact made the movement very successful. Once the media saw that the students were prepared to go to jail multiple times it caused widespread media coverage. This ultimately helped the world see how severe the issue really was and to get involved which only proved even more to the white community that this organization was determined to gain justice. Most importantly, by not posting bail the students were able to overcrowd the jails sothere was no more room to arrest anyone else. This allowed even more students to participate in sit-ins which eventually led to them gaining justice at lunchcounters. Overall, this tatic was very effective because it enabled the organization to reach it's goal.

of course choosing bail over jail was a successful tactic. had they chosen to pay bail, right away they'd be giving in to the law and not proving their point. This allowed the whites to see how serious the blacks were about their sit-ins and allowed the blacks to make their point that, "you can arrest us, but we are doing this for a much bigger purpose than just wanting to eat in restaurants. we will do whatever it takes to get this point across to you, even if that includes going to jail." had they paid bail, which would have been very possible, they would have been complying with and giving in to the whites and the government. Not only did the blacks make a statement but it caused the police to stop the arrests due to lack of room in jail. This forced police to do something that had no control over and instead allowed the power to be placed in the hands of the blacks. But one has to keep in mind that choosing jail instead of bail worked and was successful because each time a group was arrested they had more people to fill those empty seats. had they not had a significant number and the available bodies to fill empty spots, this tactic would have not been successful.

As I read this account, I got chills several times. The will to succeed throughout this document is incredibly inspiring. I was enraged at the ignorance of the young white population and encouraged by the steady resolve of the young black community. Lewis displays an ethos of passionate confidence. His attitude of determination seeps from his pores and ensures the more uncertain protesters that the intended outcome is completely necessary and justified. By standing strong for his cause, Lewis illustrates the dignity that each black person deserves. The positive, peaceful approach is the backbone of the sit-ins. By appealing to each member’s logical reasoning, the leaders were able to train and teach the eager students. The call for peace during the sit-ins allowed the black members to demonstrate their rationality among adversity. Throughout the protests, the media remained critical. Because the Tennessean covered their progress fairly and accurately, the movement was seen for what it was around the nation. The statements released by the NCLC, SNLC, and/or SNCC were all logos-driven. They especially appealed to the logical members of society – those who recognized the atrocity for it was throughout the South. I thoroughly enjoyed “Nigras, Nigras Everywhere!” because it gave an inside account of the fervent wish for freedom from inequality.

The movement in Nashville most likely grew because of the urge for African Americans to do something. Seeing the four Greensboro college students stage a sit-in undoubtedly inspired many African Americans to move to action. When blacks saw other blacks protesting, they were filled with the desire to do anything that they could to help. This was probably seen as an opportune moment because it was an election year, as Lewis pointed out. Any leader that would be elected would have to respond to the civil rights issue that was occurring throughout the nation. Many of the votes would depend on how the candidates handled this issue.

I believe that choosing jail time was the more effective method of promoting the Civil Rights Movement for several reasons. First, remaining in jail demonstrated the dedication and loyalty of the participants to their cause. If they had chosen to simply pay the bail and walk out free from jail, they would not have suffered through the hardships that would come along with having to spend time in jail. Choosing to remain in jail showed that they were going to stay committed to their cause no matter what the consequences were. Second, all these students choosing jail time to promote their cause also resulted in the jails being too full for other arrests to be made. This made the lunch counter sit-ins more effective because it gave the other members of the SNCC, who participated in the sit-ins, the ability to make the sit-ins more effective because of the resulting police not making any more arrests because of lack of jail space. The idea of choosing jail time over paying bail also possibly helped because not putting all of that money into government, which could have then be turned around to fund officers or programs to prevent or fight these sit-ins, the money could be kept in the SNCC and used to promote their cause.

It would seem that the situation in Nashville escalated at such an extreme rate because of the initial success of related movements in other areas of the country. Though Lewis repeatedly mentioned that brutality was to be expected and war imagery was used, many people were attracted to the success of the four boys in North Carolina and to how smooth the sit-ins went in Tennesee as well. Occurrences like this were enough to spark the interest of previous "fence-sitters," inspiring them to join the battle for integration.
In addition to the "join the fight" mentality, previous legal battles had gone well for the black race as well. The Brown v. Board of Education case had ruled in favor of the blacks propelled by the NAACP. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was also a guiding light for these demonstrations, bringing the swirl of anti-segregation emotions to a unified desire for equality. So, as is the case with the civil rights movement as a whole, there is no one reason that these sit-ins came to a head in Tennesee; instead, however, the work of many groups and figures came together under a unified purpose: equality.

I believe the reason why the movement grew so quickly was because it turned into a violent situation. This in turn angered people who believed in these protestors and what they stood for, in turn, making them emotionally want to get involved themselves and try to take a stand.

The moment for all this to happen became ideal because the four boys from Greensboro sparked a revolution. In randomly starting a sit in themselves, they unintentionally started a trend that spread thoughout Nashville and caught on like a wildfire to those that new this movement would be successful. The white Nashville residents had no idea this was coming there for it made even more of an impact.

Rhetorically speaking, kairos, we recently learned, signifies the opportune moment in time which clearly demands judgment (krisis). The sit-ins choreographed in Nashville by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee were so effective and the movement grew so quickly because the movement was intentionally orchestrated to go into action at the ideal moment in history where temperatures were rising and radically peaceful civil disobedience could not be ignored. One of the reasons which made it the opportune moment in history to ignite such a magnanimous movement was that the movement had been so diligently and intellectually, yet passionately, planned. It would be important, leaders of the SNCC knew, to be prepared for anything thrown at them. It would be important, also, to mentally and physically train those involved, so that a peaceful movement could carry-on, even amidst the brutality of the opposition. This kairos, this "strike while the iron is hot", moment in time relied on a generation willing to forget the past and strain forward to what lay ahead. It is not in the ignorance of their pasts that this generation of activists could find their truth, but rather in the hope of communicating and finding something better. Pushing change could not, I believe, have happened any earlier because this was the first generation to thrive off and act off of independent thinking.

I think choosing to remain in jail proved to be a more powerful decision for several reasons. First of all, it created excessive media coverage which eventually spread around the country. Secondly, the money they saved could be better used on food, posters etc... Another important thing that I feel maybe have been overlooked a little, is the fact that once the jail cells were filled, nobody else could be arrested, therefore more people could sit in. This inherintly created an atmosphere where the government had decreasing power on the situation, especially compared to the increasing participation of the movement. The jail-time was well worth it, and a good decision all around, regardless of what Thurgood Marshall believed.

The popular chant, “jail without bail,” was a defining characteristic of the student’s protest of segregation. Not only did their decision to refuse bail prove their loyalty to their cause, but also it forced the world to focus their attention on the growing numbers of college students being held in prison. The world could only turn the only way for so long while an entire generation was being locked up for non-violent protesting. The individual sacrifice of many of these victims brought the vital strength and emotion to the forefront of this protest. With a prison over flowing with protesting college students refusing to pay bail, the threat of jail time was eliminated, as the city no longer had room to arrest more students. It became increasingly harder to view the herds of college students sitting willingly in prison as the publicized aggressors. In my opinion this was the essential turning point that brought much of the world onto the side of desegregation.

It was defintely an effective tactic for the students to choose jail over paying bail. This really made the students seem set in their intentions for the sit-ins. The students showed that they weren't going to give in to a system, who did nothing for them. They stood strong by their beliefs, and if that meant spending time in jail, then they were willing to do just that. Also because the students were refusing to pay the bail, the jails were getting too crowded for the police to arrest any more of the students. As more and more students were joining in on the sit-ins, the police had to give up on arresting them because of the lack of room in the jails. So by not paying bail, the students really made it clear that they stood by their actions, and weren't going to let set backs, like being arrested, stop them in their efforts for civil rights.

I believe that the white leaders, such as Mayor White and Buford Ellington, truly helped the sit-in movement by not forcing the store owners to serve the black students. By not forcing the integration of the stores, the movement just became more widely spread and known. The police also helped the movement by arresting the students and allowing them to be beaten in public without stopping the white people. The coverage of the arrests and beatings became a national topic and allowed everyone to see the allowed violence being put upon the black students. Once all of the violence was seen, more people joined the movement and more white people were stepping in and voicing their opinions against the segregation and violence. I think that the fact that the students were arrested just continued to help the movement and give more people reasons to continue the movement and try to help stop the segregation and violence towards the black students. Also, because each student was not tried seperately upon request, shows that they were treated unfairly by the judicial system which helped the students prove their point. I believe that without the white leaders such as Mayor West's resistance to integrate the stores, the movement would not have gotten so much attention, because there would not have been as much media coverage and the nation would not have been able to see the unfairness of what was happening to these black students.

This was the opportune moment for this movement because the young Black community was ready for change. They had had enough, had grown up displaced enough from the civil war and slavery to really question why they were still being subjugated. The Black community up until that point were still in the old mindset of acceptance, whereas the youth were angry, ready to fight back. Once the first sit in started, it was simply a domino effect; people joined up to be part of history, to make change really happen.

Also, the youth was energized by the works of Martin Luther King and others who were fighting the fight. These were the first voices of dissent that were heard nationally, and the most attentive ears were those of young people.

They were just ready.

I posted my response this morning but it has somehow disappeared so let's try this again:

It was an incredibly effective tactic for the students to choose jail over bail. They participated in the sit-ins to portray how strong-willed and committed to the cause they were and to force a reaction from the public and politicians. Paying bail would simply put money back into the system they were protesting against. Some action was taken after the students’ release – the mayor created a committee to study segregation in Nashville. Small successes such as that served as catalysts for many more to come.

Also, the media attention resulting from the arrests and sentencing served as a successful pathos-based argument. “The whole nation was watching” the footage of students being led to jail and this garnered an emotional reaction from many, provoking both sympathy and outrage. Proof of the success was seen in the telegrams of support from people like Eleanor Roosevelt and also in the addition of many more people to the cause.

well i guess i will start this thing. I am actually going to kind of answer two of the questions. I believe that leadership was huge in this movement. It was through strong leadership that they were able to organize and to execute the sit-ins in a non-violent fashion. I think that without strong leaders, especially those that may have been older in this situation to show that leadership and authority, the movement may have very easily turned violent. The fact that they choose to stay in jail was a huge statement in my belief. It really showed that they were not going to give money to the same people who put them there for no reason. Jail could kind of be seen as the same as segregation b/c being black during this movement with all the "laws" and "rules", everyday life was like being in jail for most of them . Being told where they could sit, eat, and do everyday activites was just as resticted in jail as it was in their city. It showed the city that they were not going to back down easily- to give up on something that they believed so strongly in.
Don't know if most of this makes sense to anyone else- hope it does!