View source for Costigan–Wagner Act

{{anti-lynching sb}}
[[File:FDRoosevelt by Perskie.png|thumb|right|230px|President Roosevelt lashed out at the leader of the NAACP when asked to support [[anti-lynching legislation]].]]
The '''Costigan–Wagner Act''', also known as the '''Anti-Lynching Bill of 1935''',<ref group=note>It was introduced in both 1934 and '35, though the prominent debates and public attention occurred in the latter, and therefore it's not as commonly referred to as the "Anti-Lynching Bill of 1934."</ref> was proposed federal legislation in 1934 which aimed to prevent lynchings in the United States by imposing punishments for law enforcement officials who failed to stop them.<ref>January 5, 1934. [https://www.nytimes.com/1934/01/05/archives/antilynching-bill-offered-in-senate-costiganwagner-plan-paves-way.html ANTI-LYNCHING BILL OFFERED IN SENATE; Costigan-Wagner Plan Paves Way to Jail Officers Who Fail Against Mobs. WOULD FINE COUNTY $1,000 Money Would Go to Victim's Kin -- Cummings Is Not Backing a Lynching Measure.] ''The New York Times''. Retrieved December 1, 2022.</ref> Introduced by U.S. senators Robert F. Wagner and Edward P. Costigan, it garnered support from Republicans and a minority faction of Democrats, though failed due to an obstruction by Southerners in addition to the overt lack of support by President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], who was more concerned with passing liberal [[New Deal]] programs than addressing white supremacist terrorism.<ref name=wapo>Masur, Louis P. (December 28, 2018). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/12/28/why-it-took-century-pass-an-anti-lynching-law/ Why it took a century to pass an anti-lynching law]. ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved December 1, 2022.</ref>

The subsequent anti-lynching bill in 1937–38, the [[Gavagan–Wagner Act]] (also known as the [[Wagner–Van Nuys Act]]), is often referred to erroneously as the "Costigan–Wagner Act" despite it being separate legislation with differing provisions.

==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/>
{{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}}

The Act was presented to Congress by Sens. Edward P. Costigan of Colorado and Robert F. Wagner of New York, both liberal, pro–New Deal Democrats.<ref group=note>Although anti-lynching bills in the 1930s were typically introduced by liberal New Deal Democrats, the New Deal Coalition itself was not united over the issue.</ref> After Costigan suffered a stroke which hindered his political efforts, he needed a Senate consponsor, which Wagner agreed to cooperating as.<ref name=archive,pp.72-73/> This stands in contrast to the leadership nature of the previous major anti-lynching bill presented in Congress, introduced by conservative Republican Leonidas C. Dyer.

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," 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==
According to a newspaper at the time reporting on the legislation in the Senate:<ref name=vassar>May 1, 1935. [https://newspaperarchives.vassar.edu/?a=d&d=miscellany19350501-01.2.7&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-------- ANTI-LYNCHING BILL ENGAGES SENATE IN LENGTHY FILIBUSTER]. ''Vassar Miscellany News'', Vol. XIX, No. 45. Retrieved December 1, 2022.</ref>
{{cquote|The Costigan-Wagner Bill provides for a Federal penalty of five years imprisonment or $5,000 fine, or both, to be placed upon any state officer who fails to protect a person in his charge from mob assaults. If he encourages a lynching, he will be subject to imprisonment for from five years to life. Any county in which a person is seized or put to death by a mob must forfeit $1,000 for the use of the victim's family. or if there is none, for the Federal government; this will bring pressure on the taxpayers who will thus be liable.|||''Vassar Miscellany News'', May 1, 1935, p. 1}}

The aim and scope of the Costigan–Wagner Act was, according to some sources,<ref>Ness, Immanuel (2004). [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_American_Social_Movement/6vwvCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=costigan-wagner+act&pg=PA134&printsec=frontcover ''Encyclopedia of American Social Movements''], p. 134. ''Google Books''. Retrieved December 2, 2022.</ref> weaker than that of the preceding [[Dyer Bill]] of 1922. It would authorize prosecution of local police officers from a federal level for the failure to prevent lynchings could only materialize under the Act if individual states failed to prosecute such officers within thirty days, though also would impose fines on communities, where lynchings occurred, that would be given to dependents of victims.<ref name=archive,pp.72-73/> The bill therefore made compromises to the traditional Jeffersonian adherence of the Democratic Party, though ultimately was opposed by anti–civil rights forces, who nonetheless viewed it as a purported infringement of "states' rights."

The reasoning behind the Act's provisions rested on the premise that the occurrence of lynchings was attributable to local police officers either directly colluding with or intentionally neglecting lynch mobs, in addition to the perception that such terrorism incidents could be prevented by community leaders if the matter was prioritized sufficiently.<ref name=archive,pp.72-73/>

==FDR's silence==
Despite the civil rights activism of his wife [[Eleanor Roosevelt]], FDR refused to publicly support the Act due to fears of alienating Southern Democrats who helped pass his [[New Deal]] agenda.<ref name=wapo/> ''The president's closest advisers also refused to support the bill.''<ref name=fdrlibrary>February 12, 2016. [https://fdr.blogs.archives.gov/2016/02/12/eleanor-roosevelts-battle-to-end-lynching/ Eleanor Roosevelt’s Battle to End Lynching]. ''Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum''. Retrieved December 1, 2022.</ref>

[[First Lady]] Eleanor Roosevelt arranged a meeting between her husband and one of the bill's cosponsors, Sen. Edward P. Costigan (D–CO), with the hope of persuading FDR to announce public support for the Costigan–Wagner Act.<ref name=fdrlibrary/> During the private [[White House]] meeting on May 7, 1934, after [[NAACP]] leader Walter F. White issued counterarguments when Roosevelt gave excuses for not supporting the Act, the president angrily exclaimed: "Somebody’s been priming you. Was it my wife?" He further stated:<ref name=fdrlibrary/>
{{cquote|'''If I come out for the anti-lynching bill now, [Southern Democrats] will block every bill I ask Congress to pass the keep America from collapsing. I just can’t take the risk.|||Franklin D. Roosevelt, May 7, 1934}}

Even when graphic images of the lynching of Rubin Stacy appeared in a number of newspapers, Roosevelt refused to support the Act.<ref>[https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/legislative-milestones/costigan-wagner-bill Costigan-Wagner Bill]. ''NAACP''. Retrieved December 2, 2022.</ref>

==Senate opponents block the Act==
[[File:Edward P. Costigan 1935 subcommittee hearing.png|thumb|right|240px|Costigan at a subcommittee hearing.]]
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 disrupt their convenient 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|280px|Wagner (left) and Costigan (right) in 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/>

Several Southern Democratic senators employed different arguments against the Act when filibustering. [[South Carolina]] senator "Cotton Ed" Smith, a virulent demagogue, spouted racially motivated diatribes while [[Walter F. George]] of [[Georgia]] denounced lynching though spoke out against the bill on professed constitutional grounds.<ref name=archive,pp.79-82>"The Anti-Lynching Bill of 1935," pp. 79–82.</ref> Alabama senator [[Hugo Black]] (previously a member of the [[Ku Klux Klan]]) regarded the Act as an attack on labor unions, and the filibustering continued from Sens. Black, [[Josiah Bailey]] of [[North Carolina]], John H. Bankhead of [[Alabama]], [[Tom Connally]] of [[Texas]], and [[James F. Byrnes]] of [[South Carolina]].<ref name=archive,pp.79-82/> Costigan and Republican leader [[Charles McNary]] diligently led the support for the bill, though faced endless tirades of Southern Democrats employing various arguments, including Bankhead's claim that the Republican Party employed it to hinder New Deal legislation.

[[File:Joseph T. Robinson of AR.jpg|thumb|right|230px|Prominent progressive leader [[Joe T. Robinson]] attempted to defeat the Act using a motion to adjourn the Senate.]]
Robinson played a crucial part in killing the Costigan–Wagner Act. He introduced a motion to adjourn the Senate until the chamber would hold a debate over a separate piece of legislation, thus indefinitely stalling off any potential passage of the Act.<ref name=vassar/> This method stood in contrast to the two other proposals by anti–civil rights forces which suggested either laying it aside or directly filibustering it to death.

On April 26, 1935, the adjourn motion was narrowly defeated by a 33–34 vote, with most Republicans voting against it while only a third of Democrats opposed it.<ref name=govtrack>[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/74-1/s53 TO ADJOURN. THE PENDING BUSINESS IS S. 24, A BILL TO PREVENT LYNCHING, ON WHICH THE SENATE WAS DEADLOCKED.] ''GovTrack.us''. Retrieved December 1, 2022.</ref> However, as reported by ''The New York Times'' two days later, the anti–civil rights forces were prepared to use "extended oratory" and "other parliamentary devices" against the Act.<ref>Catledge, Turner (April 28, 1935). [https://www.nytimes.com/1935/04/28/archives/antilynching-measure-meets-dogged-hostility-opponents-of.html ANTI-LYNCHING MEASURE MEETS DOGGED HOSTILITY; Opponents of Costigan-Wagner Bill Ready to Fight It With Extended Oratory and Other Parliamentary Devices]. ''The New York Times''. Retrieved December 1, 2022.</ref> Although the initial adjourning attempts fell short, backdoor maneuvering and political trading ultimately resulted in a motion passing on May 1.<ref name=brown>Brown, Mary Jane (2017). [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Eradicating_this_Evil/2kQ3DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=costigan-wagner+act+joseph+t.+robinson&pg=PT253&printsec=frontcover ''Eradicating this Evil: Women in the American Anti-Lynching Movement, 1892-1940'']. ''Google Books''. Retrieved December 2, 2022.</ref><ref name=may1>[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/74-1/s57 TO ADJOURN UNTIL 3:30 THE SAME DAY.] ''GovTrack.us''. Retrieved December 2, 2022.</ref> Several senators who voted against the adjourn motion in late April switched sides to support the move in early May, including [[Harry S. Truman]], [[James E. Murray]], and Champ Clark.<ref name=archive,p.83>"The Anti-Lynching Bill of 1935," p. 83.</ref>

Subsequently, former Republican congressman Leonidas C. Dyer, the author of the 1922 anti-lynching bill, stated that practical efforts to pass federal anti-lynching legislation would prove futile when Congress is controlled by the Democratic Party. Dyer believed that petition efforts by White and other prominent black leaders, which urged legislative action, faced a bleak outlook.<ref name=brown/>

===Progressive Republicans collaborate with Southern Democrats===
Southern Democrats were not the only opponents of the bill; some progressive Republicans also were frequent opponents of anti-lynching legislation due to their professed adherence to a Jeffersonian view of the federal government. Independent progressive leader and GOP maverick [[George Norris]], most notably, denounced the Costigan–Wagner Act as unconstitutional.<ref>Barnes, Harry W. (August 1969). [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED044344.pdf ''Voices of Protest: W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington''], p. 6. ''Institute of Educational Services''. Retrieved December 1, 2022.</ref>

Alongside Norris, staunch progressive Republican [[William E. Borah]] of [[Idaho]] also opposed the Costigan–Wagner Act. According to author Joseph M. Hernon:<ref>Hernon, Joseph M. (1997). [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Profiles_in_Character/tXhW2Zoj5NEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=william+borah+costigan-wagner&pg=PA154&printsec=frontcover ''Profiles in Character: Hubris and Heroism in the U.S. Senate, 1789-1990''], p. 154. ''Google Books''. Retrieved December 2, 2022.</ref>
{{quotebox|Toward the issue of civil rights for African Americans, both Borah and Norris turned a morally blind eye. They joined most of white American in benign neglect, if not active discrimination against "Negroes." And Borah's opposition to the Costigan–Wagner Antilynching Bill succeeded in preventing cloture of a southern filibuster in 1935.}}

Lynn Frazier, a prominent progressive Republican from North Dakota aligned with the state's rural left-wing populist and socialistic Nonpartisan League, was among the vote-switchers who supported the adjourn motion on May 1.<ref name=may1/><ref name=archive,p.83/>

===Huey Long's announced opposition===
[[File:HueyLong1.jpg|thumb|right|270px|Despite popular mythology, Huey Long was not ahead of his time on racial issues.]]
Sen. [[Huey Long]] (D–LA),<ref group=note>Unlike Robinson, whose anti–civil rights record is ignored by academia, Long's reputation has been directly sanitized and whitewashed by many academics (most notably T. Harry Williams) and mainstream sources into being portrayed as farsighted on racial issues.</ref> the nation's prominent far-left demagogue, was absent on the adjourn motion,<ref name=govtrack/> although he made it abundantly clear of his foremost opposition to anti-lynching legislation, stating:<ref>Jeansonne, Glen (1992). [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4232958 Huey Long and Racism], p. 280. ''JSTOR''. Retrieved December 1, 2022.</ref>
{{cquote|You can quote me as saying I'll vote 100 percent against the Costigan–Wagner anti-lynching bill that's brought up there in Washington. We just lynch an occasional n*****. No federal anti-lynching bill would help that.|||Huey P. Long, cir. 1934–35}}

In an interview with civil rights activist Roy Wilkins, Long provided excuses for not supporting [[anti-lynching law]]s:<ref>Simkin, John (September 1997). [https://spartacus-educational.com/USAcostiganwagner.htm Costigan-Wagner Act]. ''Spartacus Educational''. Retrieved December 3, 2022.</ref>
{{cquote|You mean down in Washington Parish? Oh, that? That one slipped up on us. Too bad, but those slips will happen. You know while I was governor there were no lynchings and since [Governor Allen] has been in he hasn't had any. This one slipped up. I can't do nothing about it. No sir. Can't do the dead n**** no good. Why, if I tried to go after those lynchers it might cause a hundred more n*****s to be killed. You wouldn't want that, would you?|||Huey P. Long, February 1935}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

===Notes===
{{reflist1904|group=note}}

==External links==
*[https://archives.lib.virginia.edu/repositories/3/archival_objects/205516 Anti-lynching bill (Costigan-Wagner Act), 1934] – ''Archives at UVA
*[https://www.nytimes.com/1934/06/04/archives/the-costiganwagner-bill-its-prompt-enactment-urged-as-means-to-curb.html THE COSTIGAN-WAGNER BILL.; Its Prompt Enactment Urged as Means to Curb Lynching.] – ''The New York Times'', June 4, 1934 (article behind paywall)
*[https://www.aier.org/article/how-fdr-killed-federal-anti-lynching-legislation/ How FDR Killed Federal Anti-Lynching Legislation] – ''American Institute for Economic Research'', July 31, 2020

[[Category:United States Politics]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Civil Rights]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Racism in the Democrat Party]]
[[Category:1930s]]