Analysis: Southern Legislators Protest Proposed Anti-lynching Legislation
The proposed anti-lynching legislation in the United States, initiated in response to recommendations from President Harry Truman and the Commission on Civil Rights, aimed to address the historical violence primarily targeting African Americans in the South. The legislation sought to make lynching a federal crime, reflecting a growing national concern over racial violence and injustice during the post-World War II era. Support for the bills came from various civic organizations, including the NAACP, advocating for stronger protections against racially motivated violence.
However, Southern legislators opposed the legislation, arguing that existing state laws were sufficient and that federal intervention was unconstitutional. They claimed that lynching, while illegal, was a declining problem and framed the proposed laws as an infringement on states' rights. The opposition was characterized by emotional appeals, with some representatives arguing that federal involvement would disrupt harmonious race relations in the South.
The debate highlights the deep-seated tensions around civil rights and the differing perceptions of racial justice between Northern and Southern lawmakers, with implications that extend into contemporary discussions about federal versus state authority in matters of civil rights. This historical context remains significant in understanding ongoing issues related to race, legislation, and the legacy of lynching in America.
Analysis: Southern Legislators Protest Proposed Anti-lynching Legislation
Date: January 24, 1950
Authors: Charles E. Bennett; Boyd A. Tackett; John E. Rankin; Joseph R. Bryson
Genre: speech
Summary Overview
Spurred by recommendations from President Harry Truman and the Commission on Civil Rights he appointed in 1946, in July 1949 and January 1950 a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives held hearings on several bills designed to provide protection against lynchings, which for decades had been carried out principally against minorities in the South. Many in Congress and a number of private and civic organizations, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), supported passage of anti-lynching legislation. However, senators and representatives from Southern states argued that the legislation was unnecessary, claiming that existing state laws provided adequate protection. Furthermore, they viewed the proposed legislation as unconstitutional because it represented a usurpation by the federal government of powers vested in the individual states.
Defining Moment
Lynching, a form of vigilante justice in which an individual is punished for an alleged crime without benefit of trial, has always been illegal in the United States. Historically, while lynchings occurred in many places outside the South, notably in the American West, the surge in this form of vigilantism rose precipitously in southern states after post–Civil War Reconstruction efforts ended in 1877. Beginning in 1882 officials at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama began collecting data on lynchings. Earliest records show that, before 1890, a greater number of whites were lynched, but by the 1920s, the proportion of African American to white victims was as high as ten to one.
Because lynching was considered a form of murder or attempted murder, responsibility for arresting and prosecuting those accused of lynching fell to the individual states. Unfortunately, for many years communities in the South did not engage in vigorous pursuit of perpetrators or bring them to trial very often. In the few instances where people were tried, acquittals were common.
Efforts to pass federal laws protecting individuals from lynching began in the late nineteenth century. In 1919, the NAACP initiated a vigorous lobbying campaign to convince members of Congress to pass federal legislation that would curb lynching and bring perpetrators to justice. Most proposals also included stiff penalties (usually financial) for communities that failed to pursue alleged perpetrators of this crime. Several attempts were undertaken, most notably in 1922 and 1935, to pass anti-lynching laws in Congress, but Southern legislators managed to stymie action, largely through Senate filibusters.
Many Southerners saw efforts to create federal laws against lynching as part of a larger scheme to eradicate what they considered a time-honored regional lifestyle, where de jure segregation enabled continued economic and social privilege for white people. For example, during World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt created the Fair Employment Practices Commission to ensure that discrimination was not practiced in awarding jobs related to the war industry and government posts. Although this provision was narrow in scope, southerners feared that President Truman would make similar attempts to expand the powers of the federal government. In fact, President Truman did continue his predecessor's reformist agenda on civil rights; in December 1946 he appointed a President's Commission on Civil Rights to recommend appropriate changes to federal laws in order to guarantee equal protection to all citizens. A year later the committee published its final report, To Secure These Rights; in it they proposed sweeping changes to federal statutes, including legislation to provide federal protections against lynching.
In February 1948, President Truman forwarded proposed legislation to incorporate the commission's recommendations into federal statutes. The president's proposal was sent to the appropriate committees in the Senate and House. In July 1949 and again in January 1950, a House judiciary subcommittee held hearings on twelve separate bills that would have made lynching a federal crime. During these hearings, legislators from southern states presented arguments that lynching should remain a crime punishable under state laws and not be subject to federal jurisdiction.
Author Biography
Four members of the House of Representatives, all Democrats and attorneys, testified against the proposals to make lynching a federal crime. The first, Charles E. Bennett (1910–2003) of Florida, a veteran of World War II, was elected to Congress in 1948 and served until 1993. The second, Boyd Tackett (1911–85) served in the Arkansas House of Representatives before enlisting during World War II. He represented Arkansas in the US House of Representatives from 1949 to 1952. John E. Rankin (1882–1960) of Mississippi, the third to speak against anti-lynching legislation, was known throughout the country as a leading opponent of civil rights legislation. He argued against earlier attempts to pass anti-lynching laws. Rankin served in World War I before being elected to Congress in 1920. The fourth to testify, Joseph R. Bryson (1893–1953), also served in World War I before being elected to the South Carolina state senate. He served in the US House of Representatives from 1939 until 1953.
Document Analysis
Although the four representatives who spoke against anti-lynching legislation in 1950 did not coordinate responses before testifying, certain issues come up in each one's testimony. Several points of argumentation are similar, if not identical, and language used to categorize race relations in the South and describe the motives of those supporting the legislation is remarkably consistent. Given these similarities, the four presentations reveal much about Southerners' attitudes toward civil rights at this crucial time in American history.
Representative Bennett invokes an argument made consistently by southerners for three decades: this form of civil rights legislation is unconstitutional, as it violates the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution, which grants to states all powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution. He appeals to reason in asking that Congress consider the facts and provides some to support his claim that lynching—which he says increased in the late nineteenth century because of the white majority's frustration with corrupt Reconstruction governments—is actually declining. He also points out that what is called “lynching” in the South is merely another form of murder, which occurs in the North as well, and that state laws are adequate for dealing with those who commit this crime. Representatives Tackett and Rankin echo this line of reasoning, providing examples to support claims that race relations in their communities are generally harmonious and that African Americans are prospering under existing laws.
Despite calls for reasonable assessment of the facts, all four representatives rely heavily on emotional appeal to make their cases and resort to name-calling or finger-pointing in one form or another in criticizing supporters of anti-lynching laws. Bennett notes that Northern cities are plagued with race riots, while Southern communities remain calm. Tackett suggests that this form of legislation is simply “meddling” and will do more harm than good for African Americans. Rankin makes this point directly, accusing Northern legislations of not “giv[ing] a tinker's damn” about “the Negroes in the South”; instead, they are creating “political furor for political purposes in the North”—to win votes from minority constituencies. Additionally, he argues that these efforts are doomed to backfire and cause problems for northern legislators at the polls.
Representative Bryson is perhaps the most derogatory. He first appeals to religion to support existing Southern practices of segregation, claiming that “God Almighty in his Infinite Wisdom” created the races differently; the implication is that attempts to alter the status quo go against God's plan. He uses the rhetorical devise of synecdoche, describing supporters of the legislation as “long-haired men and short-haired women” (implying that they are deviants) of trying to “dictate and force their alleged advanced ideas upon our people.” All four believe that such efforts are, as Bryson says, “retarding the progress” being made in the South.
Glossary
filibuster: the use of irregular or obstructive tactics by a member of a legislative assembly to prevent the adoption of a measure generally favored or to force a decision against the will of the majority.
Posse: a body or group armed with legal authority
tinker: a person skilled in various minor kinds of mechanical work; jack-of-all-trades
Bibliography and Additional Reading
Dray, Philip. At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America. New York: Random, 2002. Print.
Finley, Keith M. Delaying the Dream: Southern Senators and the Fight against Civil Rights, 1938–1965. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP, 2008. Print.
Gardner, Michael R. Harry Truman and Civil Rights: Moral Courage and Political Risks. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2002. Print.
Geselbracht, Raymond, ed. The Civil Rights Legacy of Harry S. Truman. Kirksville: Truman State UP, 2007. Print.
Zangrando, Robert. The NAACP Crusade against Lynching, 1909–1950. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1980. Print.