To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Civil Rights Act of 1957

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civil Rights Act of 1957
Great Seal of the United States
Long titleAn Act to provide means of further securing and protecting the civil rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Enacted bythe 85th United States Congress
EffectiveSeptember 9, 1957
Citations
Public law85-315
Statutes at Large71 Stat. 634
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the House as H.R. 6127
  • Committee consideration by Judiciary
  • Passed the House on June 18, 1957 (286–126)
  • Passed the Senate on August 7, 1957 (72–18) with amendment
  • House agreed to Senate amendment on August 27, 1957 (279–97) with further amendment
  • Senate agreed to House amendment on August 29, 1957 (60–15)
  • Signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on September 9, 1957
Major amendments
Civil Rights Act of 1960
Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was the first federal civil rights legislation passed by the United States Congress since the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The bill was passed by the 85th United States Congress and signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on September 9, 1957.

The Supreme Court's 1954 ruling in the case of Brown v. Board of Education brought the issue of school desegregation to the fore of public attention, as Southern Democratic leaders began a campaign of "massive resistance" against desegregation. In the midst of this campaign, President Eisenhower proposed a civil rights bill designed to provide federal protection for African American voting rights; most African Americans in the Southern United States had been disenfranchised by state and local laws. Though the civil rights bill passed Congress, opponents of the act were able to remove or weaken several provisions via the Anderson–Aiken amendment and the O'Mahoney jury trial amendment, significantly watering down its immediate impact. During the debate over the law, Senator Strom Thurmond conducted the longest one-person filibuster in Senate history. Under the direction of Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, the Senate passed a watered-down, yet also passable, version of the House bill which removed stringent voting protection clauses.[1]

Despite having a limited impact on African American voter participation, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 did establish the United States Commission on Civil Rights and the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Congress would later pass far more effective civil rights laws in the form of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    4 135 220
    849
    31 736
    748
    1 215
  • Civil Rights and the 1950s: Crash Course US History #39
  • Civil Rights Act Of 1957
  • Little Rock, 1957 - Civil Rights Battleground
  • Block 7: The Civil Rights Act of 1957
  • The Long Game: Why 1957 Civil Rights Act Still Matters

Transcription

Episode 39: Consensus and Protest: Civil Rights LOCKED Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course U.S. history and today we’re going to look at one of the most important periods of American social history, the 1950s. Why is it so important? Well, first because it saw the advent of the greatest invention in human history: Television. Mr. Green, Mr. Green! I like TV! By the way, you’re from the future. How does the X-Files end? Are there aliens or no aliens? No spoilers, Me From The Past, you’re going to have to go to college and watch the X-Files get terrible just like I did. No it’s mostly important because of the Civil Rights Movement We’re going to talk about some of the heroic figures like Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, but much of the real story is about the thousands of people you’ve never heard of who fought to make America more inclusive. But before we look at the various changes that the Civil Rights Movement was pushing for, we should spend a little time looking at the society that they were trying to change. The 1950s has been called a period of consensus, and I suppose it was, at least for the white males who wrote about it and who all agreed that the 1950s were fantastic for white males. Consensus culture was caused first, by the Cold War – people were hesitant to criticize the United States for fear of being branded a communist, and, second, by affluence – increasing prosperity meant that more people didn’t have as much to be critical of. And this widespread affluence was something new in the United States. Between 1946 and 1960 Americans experienced a period of economic expansion that saw standards of living rise and gross national product more than double. And unlike many previous American economic expansions, much of the growing prosperity in the fifties was shared by ordinary working people who saw their wages rise. To quote our old friend Eric Foner, “By 1960, an estimated 60 percent of Americans enjoyed what the government defined as a middle-class standard of living.”[1] And this meant that increasing numbers of Americans had access things like television, and air conditioning, and dishwashers and air travel. That doesn’t really seem like a bonus. Anyway, despite the fact that they were being stuffed into tiny metal cylinders and hurdled through the air, most Americans were happy because they had, like, indoor plumbing and electricity. intro The 1950s was the era of suburbanization. The number of homes in the United States doubled during the decade, which had the pleasant side effect of creating lots of construction jobs. The classic example of suburbanization was Levittown in New York, where 10,000 almost identical homes were built and became home to 40,000 people almost overnight. And living further from the city meant that more Americans needed cars, which was good news for Detroit where cars were being churned out with the expectation that Americans would replace them every two years. By 1960, 80% of Americans owned at least one car and 14% had two or more. And car culture changed the way that Americans lived and shopped. I mean it gave us shopping malls, and drive thru restaurants, and the backseat makeout session. I mean, high school me didn’t get the backseat makeout session. But, other people did! I did get the Burger King drive thru though. And lots of it. Our whole picture of the American standard of living, with its abundance of consumer goods and plentiful services was established in the 1950s. And so, for so for many people this era was something of a “golden age” especially when we look back on it today with nostalgia. But there were critics, even at the time. So when we say the 1950s were an era of consensus, one of the things we’re saying is there wasn’t much room for debate about what it meant to be an American. Most people agreed on the American values: individualism, respect for private property, and belief in equal opportunity. The key problem was that we believed in equal opportunity, but didn’t actually provide it. But some people were concerned that the cookie cutter vision of the good life and the celebration of the middle class lifestyle was displacing other conceptions of citizenship. Like the sociologist C. Wright Mills described a combination of military, corporate, and political leaders as a power elite whose control over government and the economy was such as to make democracy an afterthought. In The Lonely Crowd sociologist David Riesman criticized Americans for being conformist and lacking the rich inner life necessary to be truly independent. And John Kenneth Galbraith questioned an Affluent Society that would pay for new cars and new missiles but not for new schools. And we can’t mention the 1950s without discussing teenagers since this was the decade that gave us Rock and Roll, and rock stars like Bill Haley and the Comets, Buddy Holly and the Crickets, and Elvis Presley and his hips. Another gift of the 1950s was literature, much of which appeals especially to teenagers. Like, the Beats presented a rather drug-fueled and not always coherent criticism of the bourgeois 1950’s morals. They rejected materialism, and suburban ennui and things like regular jobs while celebrating impulsivity, and recklessness, experimentation and freedom. And also heroin. So you might have noticed something about all those critics of the 1950s that I just mentioned: they were all white dudes. Now, we’re gonna be talking about women in the 1950s and 1960s next week because their liberation movement began a bit later, but what most people call the Civil Rights Movement really did begin in the 1950s. While the 1950s were something of a golden age for many blue and white collar workers, it was hardly a period of expanding opportunities for African Americans. Rigid segregation was the rule throughout the country, especially in housing, but also in jobs and in employment. In the South, public accommodations were segregated by law, while in the north it was usually happening by custom or de facto segregation. To give just one example, the new suburban neighborhoods that sprang up in the 1950s were almost completely white and this remained true for decades. According Eric Foner, “As late as the 1990s, nearly 90 percent of suburban whites lived in communities with non-white populations less than 1 percent.” And it wasn’t just housing. In the 1950s half of black families lived in poverty. When they were able to get union jobs, black workers had less seniority than their white counterparts so their employment was less stable. And their educational opportunities were severely limited by sub-standard segregated schools. Now you might think the Civil Rights Movement began with Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott or else Brown v. Board of Education, but it really started during WW2 with efforts like those of A. Philip Randolph and the soldiers taking part in the Double-V crusade. But even before that, black Americans had been fighting for civil rights. It’s just that in the 1950s, they started to win. So, desegregating schools was a key goal of the Civil Rights movement. And it started in California in 1946. In the case of Mendez v. Westminster the California Supreme Court ruled that Orange County, of all places, had to desegregate their schools. They’d been discriminating against Latinos. And then, California’s governor, Earl Warren, signed an order that repealed all school segregation in the state. That same Earl Warren, by the way, was Chief Justice when the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education came before the Supreme Court in 1954. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund under the leadership of Thurgood Marshall had been pursuing a legal strategy of trying to make states live up to the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson that required all public facilities to be separate but equal. They started by bringing lawsuits against professional schools like law schools, because it was really obvious that the three classrooms and no library that Texas set up for its African American law students were not equal to the actual University of Texas’s law school. But the Brown case was about public schools for children. It was actually a combination of 5 cases from 4 states, of which Brown happened to be alphabetically the first. The Board of Education in question incidentally was in Topeka Kansas, not one of the states of the old Confederacy, but nonetheless a city that did restricted schooling by race. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? The rules here are simple. I read the Mystery Document. If I’m wrong, I get shocked. "Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system. [Footnote 10]"[2] Stan, the last two weeks you have given me two extraordinary gifts and I am thankful. It is Earl Warren from Brown v. Board of Education. Huzzah! Justice Warren is actually quoting from sociological research there that shows that segregation itself is psychologically damaging to black children because they recognize that being separated out is a badge of inferiority. Alright, let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The Brown decision was a watershed but it didn’t lead to massive immediate desegregation of the nation’s public schools. In fact, it spawned what came to be known as “Massive Resistance” in the South. The resistance got so massive, in fact, that a number of counties, rather than integrate their schools, closed them. Prince Edward County in Virginia, for instance, closed its schools in 1959 and didn’t re-open them again until 1964. Except they didn’t really close them because many states appropriated funds to pay for white students to attend “private” academies. Some states got so into the resistance that they began to fly the Confederate Battle flag over their state capitol buildings. Yes, I’m looking at you Alabama and South Carolina. On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama and got arrested, kicking off the Montgomery Bus Boycott that lasted almost a year. A lot of people think that Parks was simply an average African American working woman who was tired and fed up with segregation, but the truth is more complicated. Parks had been active in politics since the 1930s and had protested the notorious Scottsboro Boys case. She had served as secretary for the NAACP and she had begun her quest to register to vote in Alabama in 1943. She failed a literacy test three times before becoming one of the very few black people registered to vote in the state. And in 1954 she attended a training session for political activists and met other civil rights radicals. So Rosa Parks was an active participant in the fight for black civil rights long before she sat on that bus. The Bus Boycott also thrust into prominence a young pastor from Atlanta, the 26 year old Martin Luther King Jr. He helped to organize the boycott from his Baptist church, which reminds us that black churches played a pivotal role in the Civil Rights Movement. That boycott would go on to last for 381 days and in the end, the city of Montgomery relented. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So that was, of course, only the beginning for Martin Luther King, who achieved his greatest triumphs in the 1960s. After Montgomery, he was instrumental in forming the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a coalition of black civil rights and church leaders who pushed for integration. And they needed to fight hard, especially in the face of Massive Resistance and an Eisenhower administration that was lukewarm at best about civil rights. But I suppose Eisenhower did stick up for civil rights when forced to, as when Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus used the National Guard to prevent the integration of Little Rock’s Central High School by 9 black students in 1957. Eisenhower was like, “You know, as the guy who invaded Normandy, I don’t think that’s the best use for the National Guard.” So, Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division (not the entirety of it, but some of it) to Little Rock, Arkansas, to walk kids to school. Which they did for a year. After that, Faubus closed the schools, but at least the federal government showed that it wouldn’t allow states to ignore court orders about the Constitution. In your face, John C. Calhoun. Despite the court decision and the dispatching of Federal troops, by the end of the 1950s fewer than two percent of black students attended integrated schools in the South. So, the modern movement for Civil Rights had begun, but it was clear that there was still a lot of work to do. But the emergence of the Civil Rights Movement shows us that the picture of consensus in the 1950s is not quite as clear-cut as its proponents would have us believe. Yes, there was widespread affluence, particularly among white people, and criticism of the government and America generally was stifled by the fear of appearing to sympathize with Communism. But there was also widespread systemic inequality and poverty in the decade that shows just how far away we were from living the ideal of equal opportunity. That we have made real progress, and we have, is a credit to the voices of protest. Next week we’ll see how women, Latinos, and gay people added their voices to the protests and look at what they were and were not able to change in the 1960s. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you then. Crash Course is made with the help of all of these nice people and it’s possible because of your support through Subbable.com. Subbable is a voluntary subscription service that allows you to subscribe to Crash Course at the price of your choosing, including zero dollars a month. But hopefully more than that. There are also great perks you can get, like signed posters. So if you like and value Crash Course, help us keep it free for everyone for ever by subscribing now at Subbable. You can click on my face. Now, my face moved, but you can still click on it. Thanks again for watching Crash Course and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome. ________________ [1] Foner Give me Liberty ebook version p. 992 [2] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/case.html

Background

Following the Supreme Court ruling in Brown, which eventually led to the integration of public schools,[2] Southern whites began a campaign of "Massive Resistance". Violence against black people rose; in Little Rock, Arkansas where President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered U.S. paratroopers of the 101st Airborne Division to protect nine black teenagers integrating into a public school, the first time federal troops were deployed in the South to settle civil rights issues since the Reconstruction Era.[3] There had been continued physical assaults against suspected activists and bombings of schools and churches in the South. Partly in an effort to defuse calls for more far-reaching reforms, President Eisenhower proposed a civil rights bill that would increase the protection of African American voting rights.[4]

By 1957, only about 20% of black people were registered to vote. Despite being the majority in numerous counties and congressional districts in the South, most black people had been effectively disfranchised by discriminatory voter registration rules and laws in those states since the late 19th and early 20th centuries that were heavily instituted and propagated by Southern Democrats. Civil rights organizations had collected evidence of discriminatory practices, such as the administration of literacy and comprehension tests and poll taxes. While the states had the right to establish rules for voter registration and elections, the federal government found an oversight role in ensuring that citizens could exercise the constitutional right to vote for federal officers: electors for president and vice president and members of the US Congress.

Legislative history

President Dwight D. Eisenhower signing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 on September 9, 1957

The Democratic Senate majority leader, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who would play a vital role in the bill's passage in the Senate,[5] realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, as southern Democrats vehemently opposed civil rights, and its northern members were strongly in favor of them. Southern Democratic senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees because of their long seniority. As, in the near-century between the end of Reconstruction and the 1960s, white Southerners voted solidly as a bloc for the Democrats, Southern Democrats in Congress rarely lost their seats in elections, ensuring that they had more seniority than Democratic members of Congress from other parts of the country. Johnson sent the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Democratic Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, who drastically altered the bill.[6] Democratic Senator Richard Russell Jr., of Georgia had denounced the bill as an example of the federal government seeking to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill as well as recognition from the anti-civil rights Democrats for weakening the bill so much as to make it toothless.[7]

Anderson–Aiken amendment

A bipartisan group of Senators realized that Southerners would not allow passage of the act with Title III, which authorized the US Attorney General to seek preventive relief in civil rights cases. Majority Leader Johnson convinced Senator Clinton Anderson (D-NM) to introduce an amendment to strip out the enforcement provisions of Title III.[8] Anderson's initial hesitancy to be associated with the anti-civil rights bloc was met with Johnson's urging to introduce the amendment along with a Republican colleague. Anderson approached George Aiken (R-VT), who agreed to co-sponsor the amendment.[8]

President Eisenhower did not express enthusiasm for the provisions in Title III. In a press conference, he referred to it as going "too far too fast in laws", and instead placed an emphasis on the voting rights provisions in Title IV.[8] This diminished the already-waning support for the title among Republicans, many of whom opposed its expansion of federal power on conservative grounds in spite of their sympathy towards civil rights causes. Senator Bourke Hickenlooper (R-IA) referred to Title III as a "violation of the civil rights of the white race."[8]

The Anderson–Aiken amendment passed by a 52–38 vote.[9] The vote on the amendment did not split purely along partisan or ideological lines; it was opposed by conservative William Knowland (R-CA) and supported by liberal Frank Church (D-ID).[8]

Jury trial amendment

Majority Leader Johnson, who was intent on passing a fully weakened act in contrast to overseeing a legislative graveyard at the hands of a Southern filibuster, moved to effectively weaken the voting rights-related provisions in Title IV.[10] Alleged violators of civil rights injunctions are normally entitled to jury trials, with the exception of civil contempt actions. A jury trial amendment that included the guarantee of jury trials in civil contempt actions would, in the South, result in perpetrators of voter suppression being acquitted by an all-white jury, thus ensuring no resulted accomplishment to enfranchise blacks.[10]

The jury trial amendment was not introduced by a Southern Democrat, instead being spearheaded by Wyoming senator Joseph C. O'Mahoney.[10] The motivation for Western liberal Democrats to spearhead the cause of weakening the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was attributed to their traditional populist disdain for the perceived disproportionate power wielded by judges to quell labor causes in the Western United States, thus contributing to a resonance with the expansion of jury trial rights.[10]

On August 2, 1957, the Senate passed the jury trial amendment with majority support from Democratic members, both Northern and Southern.[11] Following the vote, many Republicans were visible in their bitterness, having failed in an opportunity to spearhead the cause of civil rights against a deceitful, partisan Democratic effort. According to Johnson biographer Robert A. Caro:[10]

In the wake of the vote, emotions spilled over. Richard Nixon could not contain his frustration and rage. When, as he was leaving the Chamber, reporters asked his reaction, the Vice President said, "This is one of the saddest days in the history of the Senate. It was a vote against the right to vote." Clarence Mitchell went to [William Knowland]'s office to discuss what to do now, and could hardly believe what he saw there. "That big, strong, brusque Knowland actually broke down and cried," Mitchell was to recall.

Several conservative Republican senators who voted for the Anderson–Aiken amendment on small-government grounds opposed the jury trial amendment for its intent of weakening civil rights efforts. Idaho senator Henry Dworshak decried that it "practically scuttled any hope of getting an effective civil rights bill."[12]

Final passage

The bill passed 285–126 in the House of Representatives with a majority of both parties' support (Republicans 167–19, Democrats 118–107).[13] It then passed 72–18 in the Senate, again with a majority of both parties (Republicans 43–0, Democrats 29–18).[14] Despite large opposition from Southern Democrats, the Democratic U.S. Senators from Tennessee and Texas would support the law.[15] President Eisenhower signed the bill on September 9, 1957.

Filibuster

Then-Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, an ardent segregationist, sustained the longest one-person filibuster in history in an attempt to keep the bill from becoming law.[16] His one-man filibuster lasted 24 hours and 18 minutes; he began with readings of every US state's election laws in alphabetical order. He later read from the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and George Washington's Farewell Address.

To prevent a quorum call that could have relieved the filibuster by allowing the Senate to adjourn, cots were brought in from a nearby hotel for the legislators to sleep on while Thurmond discussed increasingly irrelevant and obscure topics. Other Southern senators, who had agreed as part of a compromise not to filibuster this bill, were upset with Thurmond. They believed his defiance made them look incompetent to their constituents. Other constituents were upset with their senators because they were seen as not helping Thurmond.[17]

Thurmond pointed out that there was already a federal statute that prosecuted citizens who denied or intimidated voters at voting booths under a fine and/or imprisonment but that the bill then under consideration could legally deny trial by jury to those that continued to do so.[18]

Democratic Representative Charles A. Boyle of Illinois, a member of the powerful Appropriations Subcommittee of Defense, pushed the bill through the House of Representatives.

Parts

Part I – establishment of Commission on Civil Rights

Section 101 set up a six-member Civil Rights Commission in the executive branch to gather information on citizens' deprivation of voting rights based on color, race, religion, or national origin as well as the legal background, the laws, and the policies of the federal government. The commission was to take testimony or written complaints from individuals on the difficulties in registering and voting. It would submit a final report to the President and the Congress within two years and then cease to exist.

Part II – additional assistant attorney general

Part III – strengthen civil rights statutes and other purposes

Part IV – further securing and protecting the right to vote

Part IV, Section 131, banned intimidating, coercing or otherwise interfering with the rights of persons to vote for electors for president and members of Congress. The United States attorney general was allowed to institute actions, including injunctions and charges of contempt of court, with fines not to exceed $1,000 and six months imprisonment. Extensive safeguards for the rights of accused were provided by the statute. United States federal judges were allowed to hear cases related to the Act with or without juries.

Not being able to vote in most of the South, blacks were then excluded from state juries there. Federal jury selection had been tied to state jury selection rules, thus in some instances excluding both blacks and women as federal jurors. Section 161 freed federal courts from state jury rules and specified qualifications for jurors in federal courts. "Any citizen" 21 years or older, literate in English, who had resided in the judicial district for a year, excluding convicts and persons with mental or physical infirmities severe enough to make them unable to serve, was eligible. Since neither race nor sex was listed among the qualifications, the provision allowed both blacks and women to serve on juries in trials in federal courts.

Part V – provide trial by jury and to amend the judicial code

The final version of the act established both the Commission on Civil Rights and the office of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Subsequently, on December 9, 1957, the Civil Rights Division was established within the Justice Department by order of US Attorney General William P. Rogers, giving the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights a distinct division to command. Previously, civil rights lawyers had enforced Reconstruction-era civil rights laws from within the Department's Criminal Division.[19]

Future Acts

The Civil Rights Act of 1960 addressed some of the shortcomings of the 1957 Act by expanding the authority of federal judges to protect voting rights and by requiring local authorities to maintain comprehensive voting records for review so that the government could determine if there were patterns of discrimination against certain populations.[20]

The Civil Rights Movement continued to expand, with protesters leading nonviolent demonstrations to mark their cause. As president, John F. Kennedy called for a new bill in his televised Civil Rights Address of June 11, 1963,[21] in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments" as well as "greater protection for the right to vote". Kennedy delivered the speech after a series of civil rights protests, most notably the Birmingham campaign, which concluded in May 1963.

In the summer of 1963, various parts of the civil rights movement collaborated to run voter education and voter registration drives in Mississippi. During the 1964 Freedom Summer, hundreds of students from the North and West came to participate in voter drives and community organizing. Media coverage, especially of the violent backlash exemplified by the murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner near Philadelphia, Mississippi, contributed to national support for civil rights legislation.

After the Kennedy assassination, President Lyndon Johnson helped secure passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made racial discrimination and segregation illegal,[22] as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and 24th amendment, which abolished the poll tax and other means of keeping blacks and the poor from registering to vote and from voting, established record-keeping and oversight, and provided for federal enforcement in areas with documented patterns of discrimination or low voter turnout.

Legacy

Although the Act's passage seemed to indicate a growing federal commitment to the cause of civil rights, the legislation was limited. Alterations to the bill made the Act difficult to enforce; by 1960, black voting had increased by only 3%.[3] Its passage showed varying degrees of willingness to support civil rights. The Act restricted itself to protecting participation in federal elections.

Martin Luther King Jr., then 28, was a developing leader in the Civil Rights Movement and spoke out against white supremacists. Segregationists had burned black churches, which were centers of education and organizing for voter registration, and physically attacked black activists, including women. King sent a telegram to Eisenhower to make a speech to the South and asked him to use "the weight of your great office to point out to the people of the South the moral nature of the problem". Eisenhower responded, "I don't know what another speech would do about the thing right now."

Disappointed, King sent another telegram to Eisenhower stating that the latter's comments were "a profound disappointment to the millions of Americans of goodwill, north and south, who earnestly are looking to you for leadership and guidance in this period of inevitable social change". He tried to set up a meeting with the President but was given a two-hour meeting with Vice President Richard Nixon. It is reported that Nixon was impressed with King and told Eisenhower that he might enjoy meeting King later.[23]

References

  1. ^ "The Civil Rights Act of 1957". U.S. House of Representative History, Art, and Archives. Archived from the original on April 7, 2022. Retrieved April 13, 2022.
  2. ^ McNeese, Tim (2008). The Civil Rights Movement: Striving for Justice. New York: Infobase Publishing.
  3. ^ a b James A. Miller, "An inside look at Eisenhower's civil rights record" Archived January 7, 2012, at the Wayback Machine The Boston Globe, November 21, 2007, accessed October 28, 2011
  4. ^ Pach & Richardson, pp. 145–146.
  5. ^ "Congress Approves Civil Rights Act of 1957". CQ Almanac. Archived from the original on August 29, 2022. Retrieved April 13, 2022.
  6. ^ The Civil Rights Act of 1957 Archived March 7, 2022, at the Wayback Machine. US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives. Retrieved February 20, 2022.
  7. ^ Caro, Robert, Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Chapter 39
  8. ^ a b c d e Caro, Robert A. (2003). Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, pp. 910–43.
  9. ^ HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. AMENDMENT TO DELETE AUTHORITY FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SEEK PREVENTIVE RELIEF IN CIVIL RIGHTS CASES UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT. Archived February 20, 2022, at the Wayback Machine GovTrack.us. Retrieved February 20, 2022.
  10. ^ a b c d e Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, p. 944–89.
  11. ^ HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. AMENDMENT TO GUARANTEE JURY TRIALS IN ALL CASES OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AND PROVIDE UNIFORM METHODS FOR SELECTING FEDERAL COURT JURIES. Archived February 20, 2022, at the Wayback Machine GovTrack.us. Retrieved February 20, 2022.
  12. ^ August 3, 2021. The Strange Division On Civil Rights Archived February 20, 2022, at the Wayback Machine. The Lewiston Tribune. Retrieved February 20, 2022.
  13. ^ "HR 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. – House Vote #42 – Jun 18, 1957". GovTrack.us. Archived from the original on March 31, 2019. Retrieved August 15, 2019.
  14. ^ "HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. – Senate Vote #75 – Aug 7, 1957". GovTrack.us. Archived from the original on December 5, 2020. Retrieved August 15, 2019.
  15. ^ "HR. 8601. PASSAGE OF AMENDED BILL". GovTrack. Archived from the original on November 23, 2020. Retrieved April 13, 2022.
  16. ^ "Senate.gov web site". Archived from the original on February 24, 2017. Retrieved February 16, 2018.
  17. ^ Caro, Robert (2002). Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson. New York: Knopf. ISBN 0-394-52836-0.
  18. ^ "Congressional Record" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on April 23, 2018. Retrieved January 22, 2020.
  19. ^ "Civil Rights Act of 1957". crdl.usg.edu. Archived from the original on October 6, 2013. Retrieved April 15, 2020.
  20. ^ Civil Rights Act of 1960 Archived October 24, 2008, at archive.today
  21. ^ "Transcript from the JFK library". the JFK library. June 11, 1963. Archived from the original on February 5, 2007. Retrieved October 28, 2011.
  22. ^ "Civil Rights Act of 1964". Archived from the original on October 21, 2010. Retrieved May 29, 2009.
  23. ^ Nichols, David. A. (2007). A Matter of Justice: Eisenhower and the Beginning of the Civil Rights Revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1416541509. OCLC 123968070.

Bibliography

External links

This page was last edited on 12 February 2024, at 16:55
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.