The students movements were greatly affected by leadership. In order for them to be as succesful as they were they had to have the kinds of leaders who would take charge in organizing locations, times and actions that they would take. If they had not had this type of leadership their movement would have most likely dissolved. Violence and unorganized protests would have been the outcome, which would have not accomplished any of the goals that the groups of students were trying to accomplish.

The main conflicts that I saw, with leaders, in this article are whether or not they wish to take a side. Many political figures feared that their positions and authority would be jeopardized by taking a side. These leaders may or may not have fully agreed with all of the actions that took place during the sit in, but they were not able to express their feelings out of fear. However, once they decided that it was time to step up and take a stand; than the movement was really able to take flights. These leaders played a significant role in the success of this end to segregation.

As the author points out it was time for a new election and some steps towards desegregation had already been made. With these changes in the country it was the perfect time to create even more change. It was the “opportune moment” for pushing for change because of the state that the country was in. Foreign relations were better than they had been for many years and the economy was doing well. The only thing left for the country to act upon was domestic relations, thus creating a perfect moment to start the sit-ins. Although the group that started the sit-ins was a small one, it quickly grew. The main reason for the growth was that people that had not really considered the issue were forced to see what was happening and could either do nothing or take a side. As more and more people realized the immense problem in their community and moreover their country, they chose to get involved.

Choosing jail instead of bail was an effective tactic. This choice was a success on many different levels. Because of their refusal to leave the jail, eventually there was no more room to arrest anyone else. The police’s only defense was defeated giving the sit ins the advantage at this time. After they were found guilty and chose the workhouse route, it “seemed that almost every move the city made backfired.” The city would not receive money from these people and this caused a national outrage. It now became a national problem. Because they did not pay the bail, the nation became more interested and it became a major stepping stone in the Civil Rights Movement.

The Nashville sit-ins propelled a national attitude and an answer for injustice. It instigated an argument for peace and equality for black people. Through non-violent and "sympathetic" sit-ins, they were able to communicate their views peacefully, which is what an argument is. Lewis did, indeed, express that the sit-ins were intended to force a reaction, and therefore manifests a clear argument in itself. For example, Lewis states, "If some of these white onlookers went back to their own homes, their own jobs, their own churches, and began talking about this in heartfelt terms, about what they had seen, then we had achieved one of our objectives." These powerful lines express his pride and his spirit for change. Underneath these thoughts lies a profound arguement for justice and change and what should be done to love and live without fear.

The sitins were most definitely arguments against segregation and discrimination. The sitins displayed to America that African Americans no longer wanted to put up with segregation and felt that they should be treated as equally as everyone else. This nonviolent form of action was a creative way for African Americans to get their point across that all men are created equal and thus should all be treated equally.

It only takes a few people to start something big. I think the movement in Nashville grew so quickly partly because Nashville was very much experiencing the racism/segregation/hatred and because everyone got inspired by the sit-ins. This led to more people standing up for themselves and their rights, which led to more and more media coverage, which in return motivated even more people. Nashville was deeply affected and experiencing all the racism, and the sit-ins is what fueled everyone to stand up for themselves. The fact that there was so much media attention about the whole situation also led them to believe that they could make a difference and a change by being part of the movement.

The sit-in method of nonviolent protest used duirng the "movement" was most certainly a form of argument. The sit-ins argued that discrimination towards African Americans needed to stop. Sit-ins argued in favor of desegregation. Afters years and years of being notably treated as unequal in relation to whites, sit-ins were held to show America that African Americans were not going to put up with it anymore. These peaceful protests forced onlookers to think more about the injustices shown towards African Americans. The protestors' audience was faced with the reality that these oppressed people were not resorting to violence in order to make a point. In result, more people were given the chance to sympathize with the African American population. The Civil Rights Movement won victories with the continued use of the sit-in protest.

Religion was important in the early days of the movement because it brought people together and gave them a common ground. Important that students affiliated with Christian organizations, the church meeting places allowed for sanctuary and organization. Churches and their leaders became central in the planning and execution of various aspects of the movement. They provided a safe place to organize and meet, with loving members to guide and support. Basic Christian principles of love and nonviolence provided the basis for the begining of the movement. Being a part of Christian organizations gave people comfort and strength to achieve the necessary progress.

Although the Nashville sit-ins required the incredible participation of hundreds of students to be successful, leaders were also extremely important for the success of the movement. From the beginning, the arrangements for the sit-in required lots of planning and recruiting of students and required the organizing of volunteers for tasks such as communication between campuses and even feeding students. These leaders also prepared students for the reactions of whites through sociodramas and the establishment of behavior guidelines while sitting at the lunch counters. The leader's job is also to deal with outside black organizations, the press, and government officials. In the face of hararassment and arrests, these young leaders were necessary as sources of strength to prevent chaos and retaliation. Without the planning and organizing of the leaders, the Nashville sit-ins would have been just another isolated sit-in.

The student leaders were united in their stand on nonviolence to push the issue of segregation, thus forcing whites to deal with it also. However, adults wanted less dangerous methods, such as using the slow path of the courts as believed by Thurgood Marshal. Thus a conflict in how to achieve the same goal existed between the generations. The adult leaders of the student movement became focuses of conflict from the white community. First James Lawson was labeled an instigator of the movement and subsequently dismissed from Vanderbilt. For his defense of the students in court, the Looby house was bombed. Conflict about the leaders between the black and white community existed as a demonstration of white frustrations about what was going on.

During the days of the movement, students thought that church would be a foundation where they would deliver messages and communicate effectively with other people. It was also significant how students were associated with Christian organizations such as SCLC because this organization strongly helped in supporting the civil rights movement. Also, religion such as Christianity supported the act of nonviolence to the civil rights activists; hence, religion could be one of the reasons why people thought that using violence would not be the best tactic that would lead to their success in the movement.

Serving jail time instead of paying bail proved to be a successful tactic because it shows that these students were not giving in to the demands of the whites. If they had taken the bail money from the NCLC and spent it all, what would they have proven? The idea behind the sit-ins was to bring about desegregation, not to continue submitting to the injustices of the whites. The black students were prepared to pay the bail, but then realized that they did not want to contribute to the exact authorities they were protesting against. Among the younger generation, being arrested was not enough to prove their point. Thurgood Marshall, together with his generation, believed the only way to make change was through the courts and powerful NAACP lawyers. However, the spirit and vivacity of the masses was now the new way to break up the racial divides and end discrimination.

The tactic of Jail instead of Bail was a successful one. This is because of a couple different reasons. First off, since so many people were being arrested there simply wasn't enough space at the jails to accomidate them. This fact alone would have to make the authorities rethink whether or not arrested these people was the right thing to do. Also by not paying bail they took their protest to another level, a level in addition to the sit-in. Posting bail would only make the authorities think what they were doing was right. Along with helping the self-esteem of the authorities it would also help fund the cause that the civil rights movement was fighting against.

Lewis’s account of the sit-ins is very compelling because of his choice in structuring the text and his use of details. It is very important to tell what happened, and Lewis does this effectively by being extremely descriptive. The thing that makes this story truly engaging is the fact that in between several paragraphs of telling the sequence of events he breaks away to talk about more abstract things such as how it made him feel or the mood of the entire group. For example, by breaking away from the play-by-play details of planning for the sit-in and describing the feeling he gets the night before a sit-in, he is drawing the reader in and helping the audience not only understand what it meant to him.
It is also important to understand who is your speaker. Lewis helps the audience to understand who he is by giving details about what the sit-ins meant to him and how they affect him now. When describing the suit he wore and how he still wears a blue suit to this day, the audience gets a better understanding of their storyteller. By being better acquainted with Lewis, the audience cares more about what he has to say.

Sit-ins were arguments against segregation. They were the reaction to being so oppressed by the extreme segregation in the south. Sit-ins were arguments over the fact that even though the constitution said that all men are equal, they were not being treated as equals by the businesses or the community in general. The sit-ins definitely succeeded in effecting both the businesses and the community that African Americans were part of. A big part of sit-ins was the fact that they were non violent arguments even when violence was the response to their presence there. As it turns out, the non violent arguments proved to be the most effective.

The SNCC lists many reasons describing how nonviolence will change the face of America and bring about reform. The group believes that “through nonviolence, courage displaces fear; love transforms hate.” These are the two main issues they address, with a large focus on love as the “central motif of nonviolence.” Other benefits include acceptance, hope, peace, faith, mutual regard and justice. The SNCC believes that through nonviolence and the assertion of love, that they will destroy the hostile environment, leaving the people no choice but to reconcile and come together.

Actually using nonviolence as a tactic may be harder than simply believing in it as a philosophy. When these students are being harassed and attacked by the general public, it may be difficult to stick to the beliefs that love conquers all and will bring about reform. Since this group was a first of its kind and a harbor for radical college students who believed in the civil rights movement, the philosophy may sound great in theory but harder to live out. On the other hand, an understanding of the philosophy of nonviolence may actually encourage the students to hold on and take what was being thrown at them, because they knew reform would eventually come. John Lewis’s attitude toward nonviolence is one of acceptance; he helped increase the acknowledgement of racial equality through his workshops and worked hard to help expand the knowledge throughout the community.

The SNCC and all of the students involved in the sit-ins were a new breed of protester in their time. Being students, young and ambitious with nothing to lose, they used the power of their massive numbers to protest the discrimination in the city. When Thurgood Marshall, a prominent adult figure, addressed the students, his message conflicted with the thoughts and beliefs of the younger audience. It seems to me that the established, adult organizations wanted to do all of their fights in the courts and through small victories in distinct cases. The students felt that they needed to use their unbreakable spirit and put each and every one of their lives on the line to make their point. Though both adults and students were reaching for the same goal, they did not have a strong relationship due to their conflicted views on procedure. The students respected the adults as public figures who fight for equality, but they knew that they were involved in something that could do more good, and they weren't afraid to risk themselves for it. While the adults wanted to keep everyone safe at home, the students wanted to go out and get it.

Sit-ins were a rare occurrence before the Nashville students tried it. They did happen but were very rare and did not receive much media attention. But when Nashville tried sit-ins, it exploded into a phenomenon. Everyone started doing it. But why did get so big? I think the answer is that there were many people doing it. Although it started out with only four people, it ballooned into hundreds. Anytime you have hundreds of people doing the same thing for a common purpose, you're going to have media attention. The media caught hold of this story, spread it like wildfire, and people took notice. With the national spolight squarely on Nashville, this was definitley the opportune time to push for change because of all the attention. As the saying goes, "you have to strike while the iron is hot".