Swap the party labels, and this headline/description could have run in 1890-1, when Congress almost passed the Lodge Election Bill.
Designed to protect black voters in the South, it narrowly passed the US House but stalled in the Senate.
theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
Designed to protect black voters in the South, it narrowly passed the US House but stalled in the Senate.
theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
Some Republicans had other priorities and feared electoral fallout.
Senate Democrats filibustered. Key GOP Senators defected, sealing defeat.
A wave of constitutional disfranchisement followed in the South. American democracy didn't recover for decades.
nytimes.com/2021/03/05/opi…
Senate Democrats filibustered. Key GOP Senators defected, sealing defeat.
A wave of constitutional disfranchisement followed in the South. American democracy didn't recover for decades.
nytimes.com/2021/03/05/opi…
To be clear on a few things:
1. No, the current crop of voter suppression laws don’t threaten the kind of wholesale disfranchisement that Black Americans suffered at peak Jim Crow.
But they’re enough to swing key states, and success likely begets more attempts.
1. No, the current crop of voter suppression laws don’t threaten the kind of wholesale disfranchisement that Black Americans suffered at peak Jim Crow.
But they’re enough to swing key states, and success likely begets more attempts.
That’s what happened after Reconstruction.
Years of chipping away at voting rights preceded and made possible the state disfranchising conventions of the 1890s-1900s.
The success of the 1st—Mississippi’s, in 1890—encouraged imitation.
Years of chipping away at voting rights preceded and made possible the state disfranchising conventions of the 1890s-1900s.
The success of the 1st—Mississippi’s, in 1890—encouraged imitation.
2. So - would the Lodge Bill have stopped all this?
Since historians deal in what *did* happen—not what didn’t—the only honest answer is "I don't know."
But it was a key moment, and the bill’s failure only made things harder for voting rights advocates afterwards.
Since historians deal in what *did* happen—not what didn’t—the only honest answer is "I don't know."
But it was a key moment, and the bill’s failure only made things harder for voting rights advocates afterwards.
Some Republicans—esp. those who had been lukewarm to the Lodge Bill in the 1st place—blamed it for the party’s poor showing in the 1890 elections.
The national GOP accelerated its retreat from the protection of voting rights. Disfranchisers redoubled their attacks.
The national GOP accelerated its retreat from the protection of voting rights. Disfranchisers redoubled their attacks.
tl;dr
The point of comparing #HR1 to the 1890 Lodge Bill isn’t that we’re headed for a full-on Jim Crow 2.0.
It’s that today's attacks on democracy, if unchecked, are likely to have effects that are a) self-reinforcing and b) of long duration.
And that's plenty bad enough.
The point of comparing #HR1 to the 1890 Lodge Bill isn’t that we’re headed for a full-on Jim Crow 2.0.
It’s that today's attacks on democracy, if unchecked, are likely to have effects that are a) self-reinforcing and b) of long duration.
And that's plenty bad enough.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
