On Wednesday the 26th of February 2020, the US House of Representative voted on a historical bill making lynching a federal crime, the Emmet Till Antilynching Act. The bill was introduced to the HR on January 3rd, 2019 by the Congress-man Rush. The bill passed the Senate with some amendments (to align it with the Senate bill) and received unanimous approval. On the 26th of February this year, the bill got the support of 410-4 in the House. This Act will make lynching a federal crime by establishing it as a new civil right violation thereby amending the federal Civil Rights Act.
According to the already existing anti-lynching Californian Law, lynching is the crime of removing someone from the lawful custody of a peace officer by means of riot. In other words, it is the illegal trial and sentencing of an alleged offender by people without having been given prior competence. These acts were usually directed towards racial minorities.The lynching case of Emmet Till, after whom the anti-lynching Act was named, illustrate this definition. Emmet Till was a black teenager in 1955 in Mississippi. One night he got brutally beat in the head and his body was shoved in the Tallahatchie River. The offenders were the husband and the brother of a woman named Carolyn Bryant who claimed having be whistled by Emmet in a store. Her relatives endured a biased trial for the brutal murder of Emmett and were acquitted by an all-white, male jury. Carolyn Bryant later admitted that Mr.Till never made advances towards her. Those two men were not lucky for being acquitted. Back then, 99 percent of lynching perpetrators escaped punishment.
Texas, standing third among the states in the total number of lynching victims, can be seen as an example of the evolution of lynching in US history in order to better depict the phenomenon of lynching. From 1846 to 1861, at least seventeen vigilante organizations were reported in the State. Those organizations were organised groups of citizens who were taking upon themselves the protection of the lynching laws. These laws were made up by those organizations in an arbitrary manner. During the period of reconstruction (1865-1874) following the civil war, the use of organized terror increased. New organizations, including the famous Ku Klux Klan raised in popularity as a result of a common reluctance towards black emancipation, afraid the object of their attacks might destroy their political dominance.“What was by law a crime came to be regarded as a political duty -the duty of self-defence.”. The enactment of Jim Crow laws increased racial hostility during the 1915. The year 1925 is marked as the first year that is lynching-free since the start of the recording of lynching crimes in the State of Texas. This terror, drove millions of black people to flee the South.
The Emmet Till Antilynching Act notes that nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress during the first half of the 20th century and that between 1890 and 1952, 7 presidents petitioned Congress to end lynching. Why is it then that the bill is only passing in 2020? Interestingly, the argument brought forward by the four only Congressmen having voted against the bill are basically the same as the ones brought forward by Congressmen before, namely that it is an overreach of the federal government, that it tramples on state’s rights and that it amounts to a federalization of criminal law.
In 1948, William D. Ford wrote an article for the Virginia Law review after another antilynching bill was introduced in each house of Congress, advocating that making it a federal crime would be unconstitutional. Back in 1948, the only way to give an antilynching law constitutional grounds was under the (back then relatively newly established) Section 1 of the 14th amendment of US Constitution establishing that “ No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”. Ford explains that although it is evident that lynching is a deprivation of life without due process of law, for a successful application of the 14th amendment, it must be further shown that it is the state who deprived that victim of its constitutional right based on the Case McGbee .v Sipes. Hence, individual action may not be considered as that of the state. Another question is that of an officer of a state perpetrating the crime of lynching under the authority of a state command. In such case, the officer’s crime could be held a being as state action and thereby punishable under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Pillsbury however, an earlier scholar, brought interesting arguments rebutting what was later argued by Ford, also as a response to an antilynching bill introduced to the Congress. He explains that the fourteenth amendment brings a duty to the state to ensure equal protection under the law to its citizens. Thereby, the constitutional requirement may be violated by both acts of commission or omission. The failure of a State to actively preserve its citizen’ right endowed by the US Constitution is a breach of duty toward the United States. In other words, although individual actions are not actions of the state, the failure of the State to preserve those rights endowed by the US constitution is a breach of its duty.
A strong argument brought forward by proponents of the antilynching law has pertained to the lynching of aliens. Indeed, the US had received complains by different diplomatic officials for US inaction towards lynching of a non-US citizen. The lynching of the Italian Joe Speranza in 1915 is a notable example. The lynching of Chinese immigrant sparked flames between the two countries. Worth mentioning is also the 1851 riot in New Orleans when the Spanish consul and members of the consulate were lynched.
Now what does that bill represent for the US today? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke on the floor ahead of the vote in support of the measure, saying, "Today Congress has an opportunity to acknowledge its responsibility for its historic failure to confront and end the horror of lynching in America."Some scholars would advocate that the role of the newly voted Act goes beyond the symbolic and that a modern-day lynching is on the rise. “The modern-day lynching” refers to Latino-American violence. Afterall, Congressman Bobby L.Rush (the representative of the bill) said "the importance of this bill cannot be overstated. From Charlottesville to El Paso, we are still being confronted with the same violent racism and hatred that took the life of Emmett and so many others”.
For more information, please check the references!
Comments