3. Strain, Christopher Barry. “Civil Rights and ... - Freedom Archives

Trey stressed that whatever force they used was defensive, rather than offensive. They
did not see their advocacy of self-protection as "violence," per se .~3
The Deacons' rapid disappearance begs an explanation . Perhaps they dissipated as
the character of the movement became more "violent" and more militant . In other words,
it is possible that the movement outgrew the Deacons. Perhaps as the goals of the larger
movement incorporated the ideals of the Deacons, the group no longer had a place within
the movement ; no longer needed for protective purposes, the Deacons became obsolete .
In the mid-to-late 1960x, fewer and fewer activists had qualms about self-defense, which
became a common assumption for blacks, or about picking up a gun to further the aims of
the movement--a trend due in large part to ~tivists such as the Deacons . It is also
possible that the Deacons recoiled from public view because of ideological differences
with other activists, exemplified by King's repudiation of the group and their own
disillusionment with 81ack Power advocates .
Sims claimed that the group had chapters all across the country, though
COIIV'fELPRO FBI files do not confirm organization on a national level . The FBI
carefully monitored black militant groups in major U.S . cities from 1967 on, and the
Bureau did not record Deacons' activity in their files. Of course, absence from FBI files
does not indicate that the Deacons did not exist in these areas. The FBI of the 1960's was
thorough but imperfect, and simply because the FBI could not detect them does not mean
the Deacons no longer existed. The Deacons' leadership insisted on the pervasiveness of
~~Noting that the Deacons toed the line of aggressive violence, Roy Rued ternxd the
Deacons' means of dealing with the oppressor "noble belligerence ." See Reed, `"fhe
Deacons, Too, Ride by Night," New York TimesMaw (August 13, 1965) : 22 .
142