Note—As controversy and outraged swirled around
yesterday decision by the Supreme Court to gut the key enforcement provisions
of the Voting Rights Act, I was shocked not so much by the obtuse and
predictably despicable comments of the usual right wingers on Facebook and
others, but by the genuine mystification over what the fuss was all about by a
lot of people. I posted the following
blog entry from August 6, 2010 in a discussion thread on a page I belong
to. It set of an outraged string of
comments by a Black Republican apologist of the Clarence Thomas mold. Thomas, as you might have noticed, wrote a separate
concurring opinion yesterday that complained that the Court had not gone far
enough and should have thrown out the entire Act and that it should have been
declared unconstitutional from the beginning.
Nothing in the world that white reactionaries love better than a Black
mouthpiece. So here, slightly re-edited
is that old post for your edification.
On August 6,
1965 President Lyndon Johnson signed the landmark National
Voting Rights Act of 1965 in a ceremony at the White House
attended by leaders of both parties in Congress and Civil
Rights leaders including the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and
Benjamin Hooks.
My generation,
which grew up protesting the War in Vietnam, grew to regard
Johnson as “the enemy.” Yet his record
on domestic issues was unmatched by any President except Franklin
Delano Roosevelt. His Great
Society programs, though far from perfect, were the last great
systematic assault on poverty in our history.
And this Texas wheeler-dealer accomplished what
northern liberal John F. Kennedy never could—a comprehensive
legislative attack on discrimination and the subjugation of Black citizens.
Perhaps we
expected that subsequent Democratic Presidents would take up
where Johnson left off without the stain of a fruitless war. The fact is that whatever their intentions,
none of them did.
The previous
year the Civil Rights Act of 1964 opened doors of public
accommodations in response to ongoing campaigns by the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the Congress
of Racial Equality (CORE), branches of the National
Association of Colored People (NAACP), and
others. But the historic pattern of
restricting voting by Blacks through the use of poll taxes, literacy
tests, and outright intimidation that was the hallmark of the Jim
Crow era after Southern Whites dismantled the reforms
of post-Civil War Reconstruction, remained untouched.
With new
militancy the SCLC and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC)
turned to campaigns to register voters.
That campaign took a bloody, violent turn in Selma, Alabama earlier
that year. Marchers attempting to reach the local Court House to register were
attacked and many severely beaten. Black demonstrator, Jimmy Lee
Johnson, was killed during a march in near-by Marion City.
Then James
Reeb, a White Unitarian Universalist minister who had responded to a call by Dr.
King for support, was beaten to death shortly after arriving in the city. Johnson instinctively knew that the death of
the White minister would galvanize public sentiment and support in the way no
number of Black deaths could.
A few days later
a massive Selma to Montgomery march was turned back with
violence at the Edmund Pettis Bridge—Bloody Sunday.
On March 15,
Johnson addressed a joint session of Congress to call for the
Voting Rights Act. It was introduced in the Senate on March 18
by Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana and
Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois.
A second March
to Montgomery, this time under the protection of Federal Authorities, got
underway on March 21 and arrived at the Alabama capital for a massive rally on
March 25 with the renewed purpose to supporting the Voting Rights Act. After the rally a white Unitarian
Universalist volunteer from Michigan, Viola Liuzzo,
was shot and killed while driving a Black demonstrator back to Selma.
That only
stepped up pressure on Congress, where despite a fierce last line of resistance
by Southern Democrats, a filibuster was broken and the measure
passed the upper chamber on May 26. The
vote was 77-19 with 47 Democrats in favor, 17 opposed and 30 Republicans—who
still were proud to be the party of Lincoln—in favor and 2
opposed.
Delaying tactics
and attempts at gutting the measure by amendment slowed action in the House
of Representatives but it passed with minor amendments on a vote of 333-85 when Congress reconvened from the Independence
Day recess on July 9.
A Conference
Committee reconciliation of the two versions cleared the House on
August 3 and the Senate the next day.
Johnson wasted no time scheduling a signing ceremony for August 6, just
allowing enough time for major Civil Rights figures including King and Rosa
Parks to attend.
In
July 2006 provisions of the Voting Rights Act were renewed by Congress despite
an attempt by Republicans to weaken or water it down. Challenged in court, the Supreme Court declined to overturn the Act in a 2012 case
originating from Shelby County Alabama,
but warned Congress it would act if it did not amend the enforcement
provision. Congress declined to do so,
and in a new case the Court pulled the trigger on that threat on June 25 this
year.
Wasting
not a second the Attorney General of
Texas demonstrated why the Act was still needed when he announced that
onerous voter ID requirements and a
racially gerrymander state
legislative map which had been blocked by the Act would go into effect
immediately. Missouri made similar moves.
In other states draconian new legislation is being drafted as I type.
Representative John Lewis of Georgia who was beaten on the Edmund
Pettis Bridge in Selma all those years ago put it best: “It is awful, it's a sad day, I never thought
that I would see the day when the U.S. Supreme Court would put a dagger in the
heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965… The question of race is deeply embedded
in the American society, and we cannot sweep it under a rug or in some dark
corner.”
Unfortunately the Civil War never ended. There has always been a southern white class that has founded its identity on the idea that they are better than blacks. If that prop were removed, they would have to face their own failings in industry, technology, education, and constructive management of their own society.
ReplyDelete