More than a century ago, the NAACP established an Anti-Lynching Committee to record statistics on the epidemic of lynchings of African Americans and to press for legislative change.
Here's a page from their report in 1921, for instance:
The NAACP also sought to raise public awareness of lynchings, through public acts like this famous banner, which all too often flew outside the NAACP headquarters on Fifth Avenue in New York.
(This particular photo is from 1936)
In Washington, the NAACP efforts initially focused on the anti-lynching bill first introduced by Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-Missouri) in 1918.
The House passed a version in 1922, but it was killed by a filibuster by Southern Democrats in the Senate.
By the mid-1930s, Dyer had lost his seat in Congress, but his anti-lynching cause continued, thanks to a new bill introduced in 1934 by Senators Edward Costigan (D-Colorado) and Robert Wagner (D-New York).
Here's a section on the Costigan-Wagner bill from Ira Katznelson's fantastic FEAR ITSELF.
As you can see, when it became clear that the bill might split the Democratic Party and cost FDR the South in the 1936 election, the party as a whole moved to kill the bill.
With Congress refusing to take action, lynchings continued across the South.
In 1937, a particularly gruesome lynching in Duck Hill, Mississippi -- which involved the use of a blowtorch to torture the two victims -- shocked the nation.
The story from the Chicago Defender:
The story broke as Congress was considering yet another anti-lynching bill, this time sponsored by Rep. Joseph Gavagan (D-New York).
The brutal details of the Duck Hill lynching were read into the record during the debate, helping sway the Democratic House to pass it, 277-118.
Democrats dominated the House -- it was 334 D, 88 R -- and so the fight over the bill was largely one waged inside their ranks.
For decades, southern conservative Democrats had stymied any action on civil rights, but now they came up short: 189 Dems voted for the bill, 115 no.
The House was one thing; the Senate, another.
Southern Democrats waged a filibuster there for six long weeks.
"I believe in white supremacy," said Sen. Allen Ellender (D-Louisiana), "and as long as I am in the Senate, I expect to fight for white supremacy."
Sen. Josiah Bailey (D-NC) said the bill was "studiously cultivated by agitators ... for the purpose of introducing the policy of Federal interference in local affairs."
Southern Democrats would fight it. "I give you warning," he said, "no administration can survive without us."
The Southern filibuster dragged on for six weeks, stalling everything in Congress and effectively holding the nation hostage.
Asked if they could keep it going until Christmas, Sen. Tom Connally (D-Texas) snorted "Why not?"
Polls showed a strong majority in support of anti-lynching legislation that year across the country, with even a majority in the South.
But as long as Southern Democrats were able to abuse the Senate's rules, they were able to keep the bill -- or anything else -- from passing.
But now today, more than eight decades later, the Senate has finally passed an anti-lynching law.
(The Senate did this in December too, but that bill was never taken up by the House. This one will surely be passed by the Democratic House and sent to Trump for his signature.)
The fact that an anti-lynching law -- stymied from 1918 on -- will finally be passed a century later truly is historic.
But the fact that the three sponsors of the Senate bill are all African-Americans -- Booker (D-NJ), Harris (D-CA), and Scott (R-SC) -- is even more so.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This site has gotten steadily worse with every "improvement" Elon has made, but this weekend made it clear that it's no longer a place to get and discuss breaking news.
It's just a cesspool for the worst people on social media and it's getting worse every week.
I've been telling myself for months that the good here outweighs the bad, but I don't believe that anymore.
There's no better way to announce that you've read literally nothing on the party realignment over civil rights than to ask about congressional delegations.
That's not how realignment happened, and anyone pushing this "rebuttal" is either an idiot or a liar.
Again, as I've discussed many times before, the power of sitting congressmen depended entirely on their seniority in the Democratic Party, which held dominant majorities in Congress. That's why they're the lagging indicator in this process.
So let's look at a state, but all the politics of a state, not just the senior southern Democrats determined to hang on to their perks in Congress.
@CheesedHammer @ericjorgenson8 @flakingbaking @quiltsbypagan @Katb4animals @RickLaManna1 @RepJasonCrow I'm a historian who's worked on this for 25 years, so I could point you to a lot of my published work, starting with my chapter in MYTH AMERICA:
@CheesedHammer @ericjorgenson8 @flakingbaking @quiltsbypagan @Katb4animals @RickLaManna1 @RepJasonCrow But I'm happy to provide some primary sources as well.
Here's some news coverage of Prentiss Walker, the segregationist Republican whose first appearance after winning the election was to speak before Americans for Preservation of the White Race:
@CheesedHammer @ericjorgenson8 @flakingbaking @quiltsbypagan @Katb4animals @RickLaManna1 @RepJasonCrow As I've noted here before, Prentiss Walker was an outspoken opponent of civil rights, voted against the Voting Rights Act, and insisted civil rights activists were worse than the Klan:
The House GOP has been riling up its base by repeatedly insisting it has the goods to get Joe Biden.
This works fine in the short term, but repeatedly overpromising and underdelivering is only going to make the base mad at them, more than anyone else.
You can see this with today's tweets from the Oversight Committee.
It's framed as a huge hit on Biden but once you read it, it's clear the "Biden FAMILY AND ASSOCIATES" framing is a load-bearing beam.
It's a showy announcement meant to suggest much more than is actually there.
But the base doesn't get that -- they're riled up and they expect action.
Action that Republican politicians can't *actually* deliver because they (or at least their very patient legal counsel) understand there's really no there there.
Any discussion of Florida's effort to replace the original AP standards for African American history with the state's own version should directly compare and contrast the two.
One thing is readily apparent from even a quick comparison between the two standards -- the claims that Florida's standards are "robust" quickly fall apart when you line them up next to the much more substantial program the AP has put together with specific sources and plans.
A lot of attention has been given to the slavery section -- which in Florida is strongly focused on discussing abolitionism while the AP standards are much more direct on the lived experiences for the enslaved -- but for me the 20th century material is more of an issue.