Changes

Due to the Senate under the control of Democrats, who swept elections nationwide in the wake of the [[Great Depression]] amid backlash against Republican policies, the battle for the bill's passage was uphill from the start. The fact that the [[Senate Majority Leader]] was [[Joseph T. Robinson]] of [[Arkansas]] only ensured the bill's defeat. Although mainstream sources mostly ignore his anti–civil rights role,<ref group=note>This is likely due to Robinson's indisputable reputation as a hardline progressive leftist among the Southern bloc; due to contemporary left-wing academics defining civil rights as a "left-wing" position and white supremacy as "right-wing," pointing out Robinson's role as an obstructor of civil rights legislation would destroy their own narratives.</ref> When Costigan asked Robinson to help pass the Act on the grounds that FDR voiced a limited level of support (Roosevelt issued a reply at a presidential news conference, the day after meeting with White, where he expressed lukewarm backing for a Senate vote), no reply was returned by the Arkansas Democratic leader.<ref name=archive,pp.76-77>"The Anti-Lynching Bill of 1935," pp. 76–77.</ref> The Colorado senator soon requested unanimous consent on the Senate floor to take up the bill as a means of bypassing sought-out approval from the chamber's leadership; the motion was denied when Southern Democrats Kenneth McKellar and Ellison D. "Cotton Ed" Smith refused consent.<ref name=archive,pp.76-77/>

Due to the Senate under the control of Democrats, who swept elections nationwide in the wake of the [[Great Depression]] amid backlash against Republican policies, the battle for the bill's passage was uphill from the start. The fact that the [[Senate Majority Leader]] was [[Joseph T. Robinson]] of [[Arkansas]] only ensured the bill's defeat. Although mainstream sources mostly ignore his anti–civil rights role,<ref group=note>This is likely due to Robinson's indisputable reputation as a hardline progressive leftist among the Southern bloc; due to contemporary left-wing academics defining civil rights as a "left-wing" position and white supremacy as "right-wing," pointing out Robinson's role as an obstructor of civil rights legislation would destroy their own narratives.</ref> When Costigan asked Robinson to help pass the Act on the grounds that FDR voiced a limited level of support (Roosevelt issued a reply at a presidential news conference, the day after meeting with White, where he expressed lukewarm backing for a Senate vote), no reply was returned by the Arkansas Democratic leader.<ref name=archive,pp.76-77>"The Anti-Lynching Bill of 1935," pp. 76–77.</ref> The Colorado senator soon requested unanimous consent on the Senate floor to take up the bill as a means of bypassing sought-out approval from the chamber's leadership; the motion was denied when Southern Democrats Kenneth McKellar and Ellison D. "Cotton Ed" Smith refused consent.<ref name=archive,pp.76-77/>

[[File:Wagner and Costigan 1935 hearing.png|thumb|left|220px|Wagner (left) and Costigan (right) in mid-February 1935.]]

[[File:Wagner and Costigan 1935 hearing.png|thumb|left|300px|Wagner (left) and Costigan (right) in mid-February 1935 before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.]]

In 1935, the Costigan–Wagner Act was reintroduced, particularly motivated in response to the brutal torture and lynching murder of Claude Neal.<ref name=archive,pp.76-77/> The legislation was blocked by Southern Democrats in what ''[[The New York Times]]'' designated "one of the most determined filibusters of recent years."<ref name=vassar/> Mississippi senator Pat Harrison, who previously led the white supremacist congressional circle defeating the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill of 1922, proposed allowing the bill to be taken up, whereupon he would immediately introduce a motion to lay it aside. The more radical Southern Democratic proposal, consistent with their parliamentary orthodoxy, was to directly filibuster it to death.<ref name=vassar/>

In 1935, the Costigan–Wagner Act was reintroduced, particularly motivated in response to the brutal torture and lynching murder of Claude Neal.<ref name=archive,pp.76-77/> The legislation was blocked by Southern Democrats in what ''[[The New York Times]]'' designated "one of the most determined filibusters of recent years."<ref name=vassar/> Mississippi senator Pat Harrison, who previously led the white supremacist congressional circle defeating the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill of 1922, proposed allowing the bill to be taken up, whereupon he would immediately introduce a motion to lay it aside. The more radical Southern Democratic proposal, consistent with their parliamentary orthodoxy, was to directly filibuster it to death.<ref name=vassar/>