Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Racial Disparities in the American Judicial System
Racial discrimination and judicial
Racial discrimination and judicial
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Racial Disparities in the American Judicial System
“I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches” (Strom Thurmond”). One of Strom Thurmond's many controversial quotes, shows one of the racial slurs he's made towards people of color. Strom Thurmond was known for being racially aggressive towards people of color. In the longest filibuster in U.S. history with a time of 24 hrs and 18 mins against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 Strom Thurmond showed his absolute hatred and utter dislike toward people of color, and yet unsuccessful, will be stamped into our U.S. history as a defined moment.
Being
…show more content…
elected to congress Strom Thurmond held a strong opposition to civil rights of colored people. “Although relatively progressive as a governor, with a platform that included aid to black educational institutions, fair wages for women and rent control, he was opposed to his party's Civil Rights program and led the walkout of the Southern Democrats at the 1948 convention” (Strom Thurmond Biography 1). Even though strom thurmond helped in the aid of black people he was still ultimately opposed to their rights. Strom thurmond's Background and biography shows a strong support on segregation in public schools. Going against the Brown v.s. Board of education decision, Strom thurmond with others, helped compose a manifesto against the ruling, which was signed by many southern senators which pushed against the Supreme Court decision to desegregate schools (Strom thurmond Biography 1). This action take by Strom Thurmond helped advance his stance against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of the oldest senators, Strom Thurmond did make many public statements against the rights of black people. “Thurmond made public statements that advocated staunchly barring African-American citizens from predominantly white establishments during the Civil Rights Movement, though he would later recognize that part of his constituency was African-American due to expansion of voting rights” (Strom Thurmond Biography 2). The term filibuster defined by senate.gov states an action that is meant to, “delay or block legislative action” In 1917 senators adopted a 2/3rds rule for filibustering, which allowed the senate to end a debate with 2/3rds majority rule. This was called a cloture but was reevaluated and changed in 1975 to a 3/5ths majority vote because of long filibusters trying to block civil rights legislation. Being one of those senators, Strom Thurmond holds the record for longest filibuster with a time of 24 hrs and 18 mins protesting against the civil rights act of 1957. On August 28th 1957 at precisely 8:54 Strom Thurmond started his filibuster against the Civil Rights act of 1957. Strom Thurmond prepared for this long filibuster by taking steam baths to dehydrate his body in that he would not have to go to the bathroom. And according to Business insider, “armed with cough drops and malted milk tablets.” Strom Thurmond Started his filibuster by reading the voting laws for each state verbatim, than the criminal code, jury trials, the declaration of independence and other national documents. Strom Thurmond's filibuster although he longest was not supported by other democrat members. Strom Thurmond had to fight the civil rights act alone because other democrats agreed not to run an organized filibuster. Strom Thurmond was bent on fighting this civil rights bill so he completed a filibuster on his own. Strom Thurmond did not even intend to stay on the senate floor for 24 hrs and 18 mins. According to time magazine “Arizona Republican Barry Goldwater approached Thurmond's desk, asked in a whisper how much longer Strom would last. Back came the answer: 'About another hour” (Mark Memmott) Turmond would have left the floor if it were not for Gold water, in fact Goldwater asked Thurmond to yield the floor so he could talk about the congressional record. While Goldwater was talking Thurmond temporarily yielded the stage to take a bathroom brake. Because of this some people say Thurmond does not hold the record for the longest filibuster. Some say it should go to sen. Alphonse D’mato who spoke for 23 hrs and 30 minutes. Strom Thurmond even held backup in case he had to relieve himself on the stage. Village Voice says his staff had come up with a solution: "Aides tried to avoid defeat by the toilet by setting up a bucket in the cloakroom where Thurmond could pee, keeping one foot on the Senate floor while doing so” (Mark Memmott). Strom Thurmond hated this bill because of the usual list of things put on it, like no segregation, public transportation, and being able to eat in public restaurants, the thing that stood out to him was the area of voting rights.
Thurmond filibuster against the part that states Federal judges, not local would determine if these voting rights were being infringed upon. This is what gave the Civil Rights Act of 1957 major ground and also sunk in with many other southern senators and politicians (Kauffmann, Bruce). According to the article written by Bruce Kauffmann, “In the 1950s, most Southern politicians couldn't have cared less about what a civil rights "law" actually said because they knew that all-white juries in their states would decide the outcome as they saw fit. Putting that decision-making power in the hands of federal judges was another matter entirely. BEcause of that the article states, “entire southern contingent of the Senate began a filibuster, and when the filibuster stretched into its third week, pro-civil rights senators finally agreed to remove the language that gave federal judges total judicial review over civil rights violations. Satisfied, the Senate's southern bloc ended its filibuster” (Kaufmann Bruce). But Strom Thurmond continued with his filibuster. Another reason was because of segregation and less privilege for colored people. He also protested section 104 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 that states, “the commission shall investigate allegations in writing under oath or affirmation that certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, region, or national origin; which writing under oath or affirmation shall set forth these facts upon which such belief or beliefs are based” Strom Thurmond did not want the same rights to for white men to be applied to colored men in a trial of jury. According to the takeaway, “It is a lyric of hatred and
an endorsement of violence and bigotry that stands as a national shame” (Ira Gay Sealy). At the end of his filibuster he said "I am convinced that this is bad proposed legislation, which never should have been introduced, and which never should have been approved by the Senate. I urge every member of this body to consider this bill most carefully. I hope the Senate will see fit to kill it." This statement was disguised as “state rights” and was a cover up for segregation, vigilantism, death, and hatred of colored people (Iga Gay Sealy). The outcome of Strom Thurmond's Filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was little to nothing. According to an article by the post gazette, “By the time Thurmond began his filibuster, the bill already had been heavily watered down, including an amendment supported by Southern senators to guarantee a jury trial for anyone accused of violating the law, said Joseph Crespino, an Emory University historian who is writing a biography of Thurmond.” Thurmond's Filibuster, although pressured by the governor of South Carolina, had about no impact on the civil right legislation. In fact most senators were angered by Thurmond's filibuster because they had prior, made negotiations with republicans and president eisenhower not to filibuster, and to some this felt like a betrayal. Some southern senators even disgusted Strom Thurmond's filibuster because they, “worried his grandstanding would lead to more restrictive filibuster rules.” Yet Thurman went on with his enormous speech and nothing came of it, the Bill was passed and Thurmond was seen as an enemy by some Senators because he couldn’t “keep his mouth shut.” Today we commemorate Strom Thurmond for his long and tiring Political years. Serving as a senator, governor, legislator, and also fighting in a war, Strom Thurmond is loved by his state of South Carolina. Serving until he was 100 years old, Strom Thurmond is congratulated as one of the longest serving senators. As for his famous Filibuster, Strom Thurmond does hold the record for the longest time ever filibuster, although it could be debated because he left to go to the bathroom he still had a time of 24 hrs and 18 minutes. Although he is seen as a racist for not supporting Civil Rights Acts he did have a huge impact on american politics. Even though Thurmond's filibuster was unsuccessful in having any outcome he did serve 30 years as a senator which is impressive. And although some may say Thurman is a hypocrite because he secretly had a daughter with an african american, overall Strom Thurmond should be remembered as a national and political hero, not because of his stand on Civil Rights, but because of his absolutely amazing accomplishments during his lifetime.
There is no doubt that Miss. Strangeworth is not an easy person to deal with, let alone live with, and although her character is fictional, there are many people with the same personality. We can tell quite easily that she is a very meticulous woman, with a lot of perfectionist tendencies, a few of which are to nitpick people’s lives and make sure that even the most minute detail is up to her standards. I know of someone with these attributes and as difficult as they are to deal with, with their list of requirements to be met and their eagle-eye for detail in even the smallest things, they mean the best, and are always trying to help, despite the possible repercussions.
The lesson that Roberts asserts can again be divided into two parts. The first is, in fact, not about racial discrimination, but rather about perseverance. By telling the audience how he was able to succeed in a classroom that was literally similar to a war zone, with soldiers and belligerents, he achieves an excellent report card. By doing so, he teaches us that hard work, determination, and focus are what ultimately will lead you to success. Lastly, Roberts teaches us that we must discuss our shortcomings in any field in order to overcome them. Furthermore, he implies that liberal attitudes can very much be contagious and that dialogue and acknowledgement of the past is necessary in order to achieve goals either individually or collectively.
In the 1930’s, turmoil has erupted in Maycomb, Alabama all because the young lady Mayella Ewell has accused African-American Tom Robinson of raping and sexually assaulting her. Yet, Mayella Ewell has no power because of her race, class, and gender. At the time, Maycomb, Alabama was at the peak of segregation against African-Americans. Mayella Ewell may be white, but that does not mean her class, gender, nor her race give her power.
President Andrew Johnson did not support it, but his veto was overridden. After the bill passed he refused to enforce the law in the South, causing little effect. On top of President Johnson’s lack of approval, it was undermined by anti-black organizations, and it helped women and Native Americans even less than it did for African Americans. Native Americans were excluded from being considered citizens even if they were born in the United States. Women gained the right to make and enforce contracts, purchase land, and more, but they were not given the right to vote for another fifty years. In theory this act should have resulted in better treatment of African American because it was making them separate but equal to white people, but in reality when it was put in action it did not follow through with its original intentions. Much like the in 1866, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was followed by incidents of resistance and violence, but despite the proceedings this act declared that all citizens despite race, sex, religion, or national origin were not to be discriminated against. Within the first few weeks, segregated establishments were open to black patrons, and Jim Crow laws were starting to end. The laws giving minorities their civil rights were being enforced. This bill not only encompassed African Americans, but it gave women more opportunities. By 1924 Native Americans
The Voting Rights Act marked a significant shift in American democracy, ensuring the right to vote for all regardless of race, religion, or sex. The key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, Section IV and Section V, ensured the overview of all state mandated voting laws, safeguarding constitutional values despite racial opposition. The breaking down of this provision under Supreme Court Ruling Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General has the potential to undo decades of progress to tackle racial barriers, isolating and withholding the right to vote for the weak, effectively dissolving democracy for the ones who need it the most.
He told the citizens that he was concerned about everyone, no matter of race, gender, or religion. Throughout the speech, Lyndon Johnson reminded the nation that he wanted to solve the problem with the nation together. He sees the racial discrimination not only as injustice, but is also denying America and dishonoring the people who gave their lives for the freedom of America (Johnson 2). By doing this, he persuaded the people with emotions and wanted them to support his idea of the civil rights, which promised everyone the right to register to vote without having any problems. It had finally led to an end to the illegal barriers under the 15th Amendment and allowed African Americans to vote without any knowledge or character test.
Starting in the 1890s, southern states ratified literacy tests, poll taxes, elaborate registration systems, and in time, whites-only Democratic Party primaries to preclude black voters (White Only: Jim Crow in America, Separate is not Equal). These worked because some colored people did not have the opportunity to get an education, and/or didn’t have the money to pay the poll taxes. This took away the colored peoples civil rights because it took away their opportunity to have a say in what goes on in their country. It takes away their right to state their opinion on how the country is
In Pearl Tull’s old age, she starts to lose her sight until she is completely unable to see. Pearl may be the only one within Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant who has gone literally blind, but many of the characters are just as blind emotionally. Throughout Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant, many characters are too absorbed in their own problems and self-pity to notice the problems of the people around them. Almost all of the characters don’t realize how much their actions may have affected someone else, or are oblivious to the fact they did anything at all. When taking a closer look at the story, it could be said that Pearl Tull is the reason behind all of her family’s problems. Pearl is blind not only literally—in her old age—but metaphorically
Justice Roberts said that the constraints of Section 4(b) are in violation of the Constitution, which gives the power to regulate elections to the states, not to the federal government. Section 4(b) is a federal act that singles out the voting processes of certain states and jurisdictions. It can be said that the regulation of Section 5 and the coverage of Section 4(b) allow for the federal government to control the elections of the covered areas. This case struck down Section 4(b), and effectively eliminated the use of Section 5, of the Voting Rights Act, which many consider to be an extremely significant act in the Civil Rights Movement. Shelby County v. Holder has not been superseded by any other case.
Despite the 14th and 15th constitutional amendments that guarantee citizenship and voting right regardless of race and religion, southern states, in practice, denied African Americans the right to vote by setting up literacy tests and charging a poll tax that was designed only to disqualify them as voters. In 1955, African Americans still had significantly less political power than their white counterparts. As a result, they were powerless to prevent the white from segregating all aspects of their lives and could not stop racial discrimination in public accommodations, education, and economic opportunities. Following the 1954 Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, it remained a hot issue in 1955. That year, however, it was the murder of the fourteen-year-old Emmett Louis Till that directed the nation’s attention to the racial discrimination in America.
"The two races have lived here together. The Negro has been here in America since 1619, a total of 344 years. He is not going anywhere else; this country is his home. He wants to do his part to help make his city, state, and nation a better place for everyone, regardless of color and race. Let me appeal to the consciences of many silent, responsible citizens of the white community who know that a victory for democracy in Jackson will be a victory for democracy everywhere” (Medgar Evers in Jackson Mississippi, 2013). This excerpt is taken from a 17 minute speech by Medgar Evers on May 20, 1963, in response to the vocal criticisms of Mayor Allen Thompson’s view of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) as being ‘outside agitators’.
One of the basic rights African Americans struggled to obtain was the right to vote. In 1870, the 15th Amendment was ratified. The amendment stated that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” (U.S. Constitution). As this was thought as a victory, it was soon to be seen that it was anything but. White men in the nation saw this as a threat and improvised new ways to prevent African Americans to vote such as the installment of poll taxes, literacy test, and the “grandfather clause”. In Litwin’s book, Fighting for the Right to Vote, Litwin explains how Mississippi Delta activist, Fannie Lou Hamer assisted other African Americans in registering to vote and helping them gain a voice in the movement. Voting was not the only place where African Americans fell short of capabilities. Due to Jim Crow laws, African Americans could not do such basic things as ride first-class passenger on a primarily white train or a bus. A lady known as Rosa Parks in the neighboring state of Alabama found herself facing charges when she refused to give up her seat on the bus during the time of the movement. The Jim Crow laws were created to prevent African Americans from making any advancements that could potentially threaten white
The United States changed as a nation because of the Civil Rights Movement. Especially, the United States notched up as a more perfect union. The Civil Rights Movement secured voting rights for African-Americans and called for the ending racial segregation, discrimination and segregation. After years of struggle and upheaval, it resulted in the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, under the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. The purpose of the act was to protect African-Americans’ voting rights and overcome legal barriers that prevented them from exercising their rights to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a historic triumph as it helped the nation acknowledge the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which granted equal voting rights to all but which goal remained unfulfilled for the next several decades. Therefore, The Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned
Declared in the U.S. Constitution every American or should it be person, is guaranteed civil rights. Civil rights did not just consist of “freedom of speech and assembly,” but as well as “the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law, and procedural guarantees in criminal and civil rights,” (Dawood). It was not until 1791, that the Bill of Rights was appended to the constitution, which helped clarify these rights to citizens. “Rights were eventually applied against actions of the state governments in a series of cases decide by the Supreme Court,” Dawood stated. In previous years (1790-1803), the Supreme Court had little say in decisions being made by government. As time went on the Supreme Court took on more responsibility and started making additional decisions, which in time helped minorities gain their civil rights. It took a couple of years, as a matter of fact till the 1900’s for the Supreme Court to get out of the “ideology of white supremacy and the practice of racism,” (Smith). Though the decisions of the Supreme Court were not all that appreciated in the beginning, following the 20th century the court really facilitated in the advancements of civil rights.
...tates on a social level but politically too. This bill set the precedent for using a cloture to stop a filibuster in the Senate. Similar cloture votes in 1966 and 1968, with bills for equal voting rights and guaranteed equal housing respectively were used to stop Southern filibusters. The Civil Rights Act also proved that mass demonstration and peaceful protesting are heard in Washington D.C. Martin Luther King and the Leadership Conference started with nothing and achieved everything. From the segregated South those who fought for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 changed the course of American history and ridded the nation of inequality under the law.