SkipCaptcha
35,519
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: − + Line 9:
Line 9: + +
→Introduction
==Introduction==
==Introduction==
During the beginning of the New Deal era, the increasing willingness of the federal government to exercise increasing power on economic issues caused civil rights activist James Weldon Johnson to believe that the political atmosphere may also pave the way for passing legislation to combat lynching on the national level.<ref name=archive,pp.72-73>Greenbaum, Fred (1967). [https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-human-relations_third-quarter-1967_15_3 ''The Anti-Lynching Bill of 1935: The Irony of "Equal Justice—Under Law"], p. 72–73. ''Internet Archive''. Retrieved December 2, 2022.</ref> Johnson spoke to [[NAACP]] Executive Secretary Walter F. White, who subsequently requested Colorado senator Edward P. Costigan to introduce an anti-lynching bill before Congress. In his announcement of intending to introduce the legislation, Costigan stated:<ref name=archive,pp.72-73/>
During the beginning of the New Deal era, the increasing willingness of the federal government to exercise increasing power on economic issues caused civil rights activist James Weldon Johnson to believe that the political atmosphere may also pave the way for passing legislation to combat lynching on the national level.<ref name=archive,pp.72-73>Greenbaum, Fred (1967). "[https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-human-relations_third-quarter-1967_15_3 The Anti-Lynching Bill of 1935: The Irony of "Equal Justice—Under Law"]," p. 72–73. ''Internet Archive''. Retrieved December 2, 2022.</ref> Johnson spoke to [[NAACP]] Executive Secretary Walter F. White, who subsequently requested Colorado senator Edward P. Costigan to introduce an anti-lynching bill before Congress. In his announcement of intending to introduce the legislation, Costigan stated:<ref name=archive,pp.72-73/>
{{cquote|If mob violence is to run riot in America in place of orderly justice the end of free government on this continent will have to come. The sober sense of this country does not, and will not, sanction such lawlessness.|||Sen. Edward P. Costigan, November 29, 1933}}
{{cquote|If mob violence is to run riot in America in place of orderly justice the end of free government on this continent will have to come. The sober sense of this country does not, and will not, sanction such lawlessness.|||Sen. Edward P. Costigan, November 29, 1933}}
California Democratic congressman Thomas F. Ford agreed to cosponsor the bill in the U.S. House.<ref name=archive,pp.72-73/> White hoped for a Southern representative to act as a cosponsor in pursuit of reducing opposition from the region's elected politicians, though none were wiling to risk their political fortunes.
California Democratic congressman Thomas F. Ford agreed to cosponsor the bill in the U.S. House.<ref name=archive,pp.72-73/> White hoped for a Southern representative to act as a cosponsor in pursuit of reducing opposition from the region's elected politicians, though none were wiling to risk their political fortunes.
Initially, the Act faced the Senate Judiciary Committee. Many witnesses testified in favor of the anti-lynching bill during hearings held by the Van Nuys Subcommittee; most notably, NAACP leader White effectively refuted racially motivated propaganda narratives which had traditionally been exploited by Southern Democratic white supremacists to defend lynching.<ref name=archive,pp.74-75>"The Anti-Lynching Bill of 1935: The Irony of "Equal Justice—Under Law"," pp. 74–75.</ref> The only opponent appearing before the subcommittee was Texas Democratic representative Hatton W. Sumners, who defended lynching under a banner of "justice" though mostly employed attacks on alleged unconstitutionality.<ref name=archive,pp.74-75/> The Judiciary Committee soon approved the bill despite the testimony of Sumners.
==Bill provisions==
==Bill provisions==