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
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
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 1960

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civil Rights Act of 1960
Great Seal of the United States
Long titleAn Act to enforce constitutional rights, and for other purposes.
Acronyms (colloquial)CRA
Enacted bythe 86th United States Congress
EffectiveMay 6, 1960
Citations
Public law86-449
Statutes at Large74 Stat. 86
Codification
Acts amendedCivil Rights Act of 1957
Titles amendedTitle 18—Crimes and Criminal Procedure
U.S.C. sections amended
Legislative history
Major amendments

The Civil Rights Act of 1960 (Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 86–449, 74 Stat. 89, enacted May 6, 1960) is a United States federal law that established federal inspection of local voter registration polls and introduced penalties for anyone who obstructed someone's attempt to register to vote. It dealt primarily with discriminatory laws and practices in the segregated South, by which African Americans and Mexican-American Texans had been effectively disenfranchised since the late 19th and start of the 20th century. This was the fifth Civil Rights Act to be enacted in United States history. Over an 85-year period, it was preceded only by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, whose shortcomings largely influenced its creation. This law served to more effectively enforce what was set forth in the 1957 act through eliminating certain loopholes in it, and to establish additional provisions. Aside from addressing voting rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1960 also imposed criminal penalties for obstruction of court orders to limit resistance to the Supreme Court's school desegregation decisions,[1] arranged for free education for military members' children, and banned the act of fleeing to avoid prosecution for property damage. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 was signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    3 606 381
    3 885 561
    681 076
    761
    573
  • Civil Rights and the 1950s: Crash Course US History #39
  • The 1960s in America: Crash Course US History #40
  • Civil Rights Act of 1964 | Montgomery Bus Boycott for Kids | Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King
  • The Civil Rights Movement and the Early 1960's | The Century, with Peter Jennings
  • Civil Rights in the 1960's, PART 1

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

Reconstruction Era

In American history, the Reconstruction era was the period from 1865-1877 following the end of the American Civil War. This period was marked by various attempts made to redress the inequities imposed on African Americans through slavery.[2] As a result, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution were ratified. These amendments were established to provide African Americans the same civil rights as white Americans, and are collectively referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments.[3] This time period marked the beginnings of the Civil Rights Movement.[4]

Mid and Post-Reconstruction

By 1873, Supreme Court decisions began to limit the scope of Reconstruction legislation, and many whites resorted to intimidation and violence to undermine African Americans' voting rights.[2] The Compromise of 1877, an informal agreement to resolve a political dispute, marked the end of the Reconstruction era.[5] Southern Democrats largely stopped adhering to the provisions of Reconstruction legislation, ceasing to intervene in Southern voting practices, which prompted widespread disenfranchisement of African American voters. The Jim Crow Laws were established during the 19th century and served to block African American votes, ban integration in public facilities such as schools, and forbid interracial marriage in the South. The enactment of these laws was able to vastly undermine the progress toward equality which was made during the Reconstruction era.

Public Opinion

During the 1950s, much of United States public opinion was still marked by a resistant attitude toward desegregation and racial equality, particularly in the South. Near the end of the decade, however, activists and proponents of the Civil Rights Movement had begun pressuring Congress to enact legislation which would more effectively protect the constitutional civil rights of African Americans.

Brown v. Board of Education

On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court unanimously declared and established that racial segregation within schools was unconstitutional.[6] This was the final outcome of Brown v. Board of Education.

Subsequently, Southern white political leaders sought to defy the decision. Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia, the head of the Byrd Machine (Virginia's most influential political organization), described the decision as "the most serious blow that has yet been struck against the rights of the states in a matter vitally affecting their authority and welfare.”[7] Two years after the decision, Senator Byrd had gathered almost 100 Southern politicians' signatures for his Southern Manifesto, an agreement to resist the decision. On February 25, 1956, he proposed Massive Resistance, a set of laws created in efforts to block integration.[7]

Aside from politicians, large groups of Southern white Americans also mobilized in efforts to prevent integration. Some white citizens elected to educate their children through private academies, which initially ran on public funds until this was found faulty in court. Some of these citizens also used threats of violence to intimidate black families.[7]

The Civil Rights Act of 1957

By 1957, only about 20% of African Americans were registered to vote, largely due to the active disenfranchisement they had been facing. That year, President Eisenhower sent Congress a proposal for civil rights legislation.[8] As a result, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was enacted by the 85th Congress. This was the first federal civil rights law enacted since the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and was the first major piece of civil rights legislation passed by Congress. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was also signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on September 9, 1957.

While aiming to enforce the voting rights of African Americans set out in the Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the 1957 act had several loopholes that allowed civil rights resistors to continue preventing minorities from exercising their right to vote. Southern states continued to discriminate against African Americans in application of voter registration and electoral laws, in segregation of school and public facilities, and in employment, despite the orders of the law. As the law had not resolved these issues, its outcomes highlighted a need for improved civil rights legislation,[9] which was later fulfilled in part by the Civil Rights Act of 1960.

Presidential Involvement

President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Toward the end of his presidency, President Eisenhower publicly supported civil rights legislation. In his message to Congress on February 5, 1959, he called for further advancements within it, stating that “every individual regardless of his race, religion, or national origin is entitled to the equal protection of the laws."[10] Within this message, he proposed a mandate including seven recommendations for the protection of civil rights, as listed below.

Eisenhower's Mandate

State of the Union Address

In the annual presidential State of the Union speech on January 7, 1960, Eisenhower spoke out about the necessity for advancement in civil rights legislation, referencing constitutionality as justification. He discussed the fact that some citizens were still deprived of their right to vote, despite constitutional guarantees, and that protecting this right should be a top priority. With reference to the recommendations he made to Congress, he stated, "I trust that Congress will thus signal to the world that our Government is striving for equality under law for all our people."[12]

Statement Upon Signing

President Eisenhower also issued a statement upon signing the Civil Rights Act of 1960, stating that he felt the law would serve as a "historic step forward in the field of civil rights."[13] Also within this statement, he emphasized the importance of certain provisions put forth by the law. He also discussed his predictions of what favorable outcomes would occur in result of these provisions:

Of Title II: "By authorizing the FBI to investigate certain bombings or attempted bombings of schools, churches and other structures, the Act will deter such heinous acts of lawlessness."

Of Title VI: "It holds great promise of making the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution fully meaningful."[13]

Legislative history

House of Representatives

The bill, H.R. 8601, began in the House of Representatives under jurisdiction of the House Judiciary Committee, which was chaired by Representative Emanuel Celler of Brooklyn. The bill was initially introduced to the House on August 10, 1959.[14] The bill was swiftly approved by the Judiciary Committee, but the Rules Committee attacked the Judiciary Committee to prevent the bill coming to the floor of the House of Representatives,[15] and the bill remained stagnant for six months as a result.[16] Hoping to prompt further action on the bill, Celler filed a discharge position to bypass the Rules Committee, as he felt that the Rules Committee intended to pigeonhole the bill.[17] The petition originally required a majority (219) of House signatures, but was instituted prematurely with 209 signatures.[17]

The "voter referees" plan was part of a House amendment to the original bill to substitute Representative Robert Kastenmeier's "enrollment officers" plan. After several amendments, the House of Representatives approved the bill on March 24, 1960 by a vote of 311–109.179 Democrats and 132 Republicans voted Aye. 93 Democrats, 15 Republicans, and 1 Independent Democrat voted Nay. 2 Democrats and 1 Republican voted present.[18]

Senate

The bill was referred to the Senate on 24 March 1960,[14] and sent to the Judiciary Committee for consideration. Southern Democrats on the Committee tied up the bill. (Southerners had long acted as a voting bloc to stop any federal civil legislation[15] In January 1960, liberal non-Southern Democrats pushed for a discharge petition to move the bill from the Committee to the Senate floor.[19]

After adding amendments to the bill, the Senate approved H.R. 8601 on 8 April 1960 by a vote of 71–18. 42 Democrats and 29 Republicans voted Aye. 18 Democrats voted Nay.[20] No Republican Senators voted against the bill.[21] Despite fierce opposition from Southern Democrats, the Democrat Senators from Tennessee and Texas voted in favor.[21] The House of Representatives approved the Senate amendments on 21 April 1960 by a vote of 288-95. The bill was then signed into law by President Eisenhower on 6 May 1960.[11]

Titles

Title I—obstruction of court orders

Title I which amended Chapter 17 of title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1509, outlawed obstruction of court orders. It introduced criminal penalties for all willful attempts to interfere with the due exercise of rights or the performance of duties under any court order. If convicted, one could be fined no more than $1,000, imprisoned for up to one year, or both.[22]

Title II—flight from prosecution, explosives, threats and false information

Title II outlawed fleeing a state for damaging or destroying a building or property, illegal possession or use of explosives, and threats or false threats to damage property using fire or explosives.

Section 201 amended Chapter 49 of title 18 (18 U.S.C. § 1074). The amendment outlaws interstate or international movement to avoid prosecution for damaging or destroying any building or structure. The section also outlaws flight to avoid testimony in a case relating to such an offense. If convicted, one could be fined no more than $5,000 and/or imprisoned for no more than five years.

Section 203 amended Chapter 39 of title 18 (18 U.S.C. § 837). The amendment dealt with the illegal use or possession of explosives. The section outlaws transportation or possession of any explosive with intent to damage a building or property. The section also makes the conveying of false information or threats to damage or destroy any building or property illegal.[22]

Title III—federal election records

Section 301 calls for the preservation of all election records and papers which come into an officer or custodian's possession relating to poll tax or other act regarding voting in an election (except Puerto Rico). If an officer fails to comply, he/she could be fined no more than $1,000 and/or imprisoned for no more than one year. Section 302 declares that any person that intentionally alters, damages, or destroys a record shall be fined no more than $1,000 and/or imprisoned for no more than one year. Section 304 establishes that no person shall disclose any election record. Section 306 defines the term "officer of election".[22]

Title IV—extension of powers of the civil rights commission

Section 401 of Title IV amended Section 105 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (71 Stat. 635) by declaring in an added subsection that "each member of the Commission shall have the power and authority to administer oaths or take statements of witnesses under affirmation."[22]

Title V—education of children of members of armed forces

Title V amended section 6 of Public Law 874 of the Federal Impact Aid. As amended, Title V arranged for free education for children of members of the armed forces in the case that they were residing on Federal property wherein local academic institutions were unable to provide such education.[23]

Title VI—protection of voting rights

Title VI amended section 131 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (71 Stat. 637) to address the issue of depriving African-Americans the right to vote.

Section 601 declares that those given the legal right to vote shall not be deprived of that right on account of race or color. Any person denying that right shall "constitute contempt of court."[22] The section also states that the courts can appoint "voting referees" to report to the court their findings of voting infringement. The section also defines the word "vote" as the entire process of making a vote effective--registration, casting a ballot, and having that ballot counted.[24]

Title VII—separability

Title VII established the separability of the act, affirming that the rest of the act shall go unaffected if one provision is found invalid.[22]

Subsequent history

The Civil Rights Act of 1960, being the fifth American civil rights law enacted, foreshadowed an increased emphasis on civil rights legislation and paved the way for subsequent civil rights laws in 1964 and 1965.[25] Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, the act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 were deemed ineffective for the firm establishment of civil rights. The later legislation had firmer ground for the enforcement and protection of a variety of civil rights, where the acts of 1957 and 1960 were largely limited to voting rights.[26]

The Civil Rights Act of 1960 dealt with race and color but omitted coverage of those discriminated against for national origin, although Eisenhower had called for it in his message to Congress.[27] Eisenhower also proposed extending the life of the Civil Rights Commission, which was unfulfilled in the Civil Rights Act of 1960, but was later instituted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[28] The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 worked to fulfill the seven goals suggested by President Eisenhower in 1959.[28][29] These two subsequent laws, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1968, satisfied proponents of the civil rights movement to end state-sponsored racial discrimination and protect legal equality in the United States.

See also

References

  1. ^ "Civil Rights Act of 1960 - Document - Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints". go.gale.com. Retrieved November 20, 2021.
  2. ^ a b "Reconstruction | Definition, Summary, Timeline & Facts | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved December 14, 2021.
  3. ^ "U.S. Senate: Landmark Legislation: Thirteenth, Fourteenth, & Fifteenth Amendments". www.senate.gov. Retrieved December 14, 2021.
  4. ^ "Civil Rights Movement". HISTORY. Retrieved December 14, 2021.
  5. ^ "Compromise of 1877". HISTORY. November 27, 2019. Retrieved December 14, 2021.
  6. ^ "May 17, 1954: Supreme Court Rules Racial Segregation in Schools Unconstitutional". www.colorlines.com. May 17, 2013. Retrieved December 13, 2021.
  7. ^ a b c "The Southern Manifesto and "Massive Resistance" to Brown v. Board". NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Retrieved December 13, 2021.
  8. ^ "Civil Rights Act of 1957 | Eisenhower Presidential Library". www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov. Retrieved December 14, 2021.
  9. ^ "Civil Rights Act of 1960 - Document - Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints". go.gale.com. Retrieved December 14, 2021.
  10. ^ Eisenhower, Dwight (January 9, 1959). "Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union". The American Presidency Project. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. Archived from the original on May 2, 2019. Retrieved December 14, 2021.
  11. ^ a b Schwartz, Bernard, ed. (1970). Statutory History of the United States. Chelsea House. pp. 933–1013. ISBN 0-07-055681-4.
  12. ^ Eisenhower, Dwight (January 7, 1960). "Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union". The American Presidency Project. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. Archived from the original on May 2, 2019. Retrieved December 11, 2021.
  13. ^ a b Eisenhower, Dwight (May 9, 1960). "Statement by the President Upon Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1960". The American Presidency Project. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. Archived from the original on August 6, 2020. Retrieved December 13, 2021.
  14. ^ a b Congressional Record (August 10, 1959). H.R. 8601: In the House of Representatives.
  15. ^ a b Berman, Daniel Marvin (1966). A Bill Becomes a Law: Congress Enacts Civil Rights Legislation. Macmillan.
  16. ^ "The Voting Rights Act of 1965 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives". history.house.gov. Retrieved December 11, 2021.
  17. ^ a b Baker, Russell (February 18, 1960). "Special to the New York Times: House Unit Agrees to Send Civil Rights Bill to Floor". The New York Times.
  18. ^ "H.R. 8601".
  19. ^ Lewis, Anthony (January 14, 1960). "Special to the New York Times: EISENHOWER COOL TO A RIGHTS PLAN; Says He Isn't Sure a Proposal for Federal Registrars Is Constitutional". The New York Times. Retrieved December 14, 2021.
  20. ^ "HR. 8601. PASSAGE OF AMENDED BILL. -- Senate Vote #284 -- Apr 8, 1960". GovTrack.us. Retrieved December 14, 2021.
  21. ^ a b "HR. 8601. PASSAGE OF AMENDED BILL". GovTrack. Retrieved April 13, 2022.
  22. ^ a b c d e f "Civil Rights Act of 1960". Ashbrook Center, Ashland University.
  23. ^ "86 H.R. 8601 (Public Law 86-449)". May 6, 1960. Retrieved December 13, 2021.
  24. ^ "Before the Voting Rights Act". Retrieved March 20, 2012.
  25. ^ "Civil Rights Act of 1960, May 6, 1960". U.S. Capitol Visitor Center. Retrieved December 13, 2021.
  26. ^ Bardolph, Richard (1970). The Civil Rights Record: Black Americans and the Law, 1849-1970. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, Inc. pp. 311, 352–3, 395, 403–5, 493, 495. ISBN 0-690-19448-X.
  27. ^ Perea, Juan F. "Ethnicity and Prejudice: Reevaluating "National Origin" Discrimination Under Title VII". William and Mary Law Review.
  28. ^ a b "Civil Rights Act of 1964" (PDF). 1964. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 6, 2011.
  29. ^ "Voting Rights Act of 1965" (PDF). 1965. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 29, 2017. Retrieved March 21, 2012.

External links

This page was last edited on 7 April 2024, at 00:36
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.