Was the civil rights movement a radical progressive movement for social change? If so, do you still think it was good, despite eschewing rule of law and constitutional framework? If not, what differentiates it from radical progressive social change?

I'll give this a shot, even though the best answer in the world is going to me -100 karma.

Civil rights was not a "radical" movement in most ways. Since the inception of the US, slavery has been a hotly contested issue. 3/5ths rule easily shows this, or if needed there are federalist papers I can look up that talk about it. It took 100 years and a civil war to get slavery outlawed in any way throughout the country. It took another 100 years to get a law that laid out equal rights for blacks. So this wasn't something that just up and happened in the 60's. People had been working on it for 200+ years.

Was it progressive? In the way that progressive means a step-by-step change, yes. Was it progressive meaning a social reform, yes.

despite eschewing rule of law and constitutional framework?

I'm not really understand what you mean here? Sure some people while trying to get the word out did some illegal things, but not against the generic term "rule of law". Blacks didn't rise up and start slaughtering whites and take over the governement. Rule of Law was used to pass amendment and laws that solidified the changes sought.

So I need a bit more to answer this part of the question.