#Herman Talmadge

[politicaldilfs]

Georgia Governor DILFs

Jimmy Carter, Sonny Perdue, Herman Talmadge, Marvin Griffin, Ernest Vandiver, Carl Sanders, Melvin E. Thompson, Lester Maddox, Nathan Deal, George Busbee, Joe Frank Harris, Roy Barnes, Zell Miller, Brian Kemp

[mariacallous]

Officials in the U.S. state of Georgia have warned of likely Russian interference in the U.S. election—even as the country of Georgia struggles with Russian interference in its own recent vote.

To be sure, things are worse in Georgia, Russia’s unfortunate neighbor, than in Georgia, Florida’s unfortunate neighbor. But Russian interference isn’t the only way it can be hard to tell the two Georgias apart. Both, for example, have also produced men sometimes called history’s greatest monsters.

A quick game—can you tell which Georgia is which in the following headlines?

“Georgia has introduced dangerous new restrictions to abortion access.”

“Abortion bans have delayed emergency medical care. In Georgia, experts say this mother’s death was preventable.”

“Georgia: Police must be held accountable for use of excessive force against protesters.”

“Georgia victims of police brutality tell the U.N. their story.”

“Anxiety runs deep in Georgia as voters worry about heated rhetoric spurring violence.”

“Violence mars voting in Georgia’s pivotal election.”

These similarities matter. The Achilles’s heel of U.S. efforts to promote democracy and human rights abroad has always been America’s failures to deliver them domestically. During the Cold War, when Washington was protesting that Georgia was a “captive nation” and a police state, millions of Black Americans in Georgia lived under a de facto police state themselves.

The stock Soviet reply to human rights criticisms from Washington was: “And you are lynching Negroes.” That line was self-serving hypocrisy, but it was also true. Many Americans linked the civil rights struggle at home to the call for freedom abroad; others, such as Georgia Sen. Herman Talmadge, compared the federal enforcement of civil rights to Soviet oppression.

Today, if the United States once more sees attempts to overturn the election in Georgia, Washington will have a hard time calling for fair elections in Georgia.

[oldshowbiz]

A racist newspaper editorial in The Talladega Daily, January 8, 1952

[nappynewz]

Joe Biden refuses to apologize after segregationist comments and blasts Cory Booker for calling him out ‘He knows better’

Joe Biden refuses to apologize after segregationist comments and blasts Cory Booker for calling him out ‘He knows better’

Joe Biden is under fire for making comments that seemed like he was stomping for segregationist senators who he claimed to have worked with, despite their racist views. (more…)

[politiciandirect]

Joe Biden Says Racism a 'White Man's Problem,' Will Not Promise Black Running Mate

Joe Biden Says Racism a ‘White Man’s Problem,’ Will Not Promise Black Running Mate

Joe Biden claimed racism is institutional in America on Tuesday, but would not commit wholeheartedly to picking a person of color as his running mate if he were to win the Democrat presidential nomination.

Biden, who has faced scrutiny over his ties to avowed segregationists and oppositionto school busing, told a group of reporters that racism is an institutional “white man’s problem visited on…

[georgiacash3midday]

Georgia Cash 3 Midday Lottery Results Today

Georgia Cash 3 Midday Lottery

The Georgia Lottery Corporation (GLC) releases Georgia Cash 3 Midday results for today Tuesday. The Georgia Lottery always conducts Cash-3 midday live drawings daily at 12:29 p.m., ET. Lottery Tickets for midday drawing can be purchased up to 10 minutes prior to live drawing time (12:19 p.m., ET for the midday drawing).

Georgia Lottery Introduction

The only program in Georgia that's available to supply direct cash assistance to families in deep poverty—Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)—does little to succeed in families with the best needs. For those it can reach, it provides insufficient income support. In 1996, 254,000 individuals received direct cash aid, while today only 16,000 individuals have access to TANF, reflecting a dramatic 93 percent decrease in caseload. Only five out of each 100 families in poverty receive cash assistance through TANF.

Georgia’s policies that erode TANF’s coverage are deeply connected to race. Evidence shows that the upper the proportion of Black families living during a state, the more likely policymakers are to spend less on direct cash assistance and establish policies to regulate the way families in poverty run their lives, instead of simply giving them the direct aid necessary to satisfy basic needs.[3] Given this evidence, the very fact that Georgia’s Black population is that the third-largest within the nation and therefore the state’s legacy of racist policymaking and monetary decisions, it's imperative that the study and reform of Georgia’s cash assistance policies are confronted through an anti-racist lens.

Using administrative and legislative policy information, original analyses of TANF data and insights from existing literature, this the report explores the cash assistance policy choices Georgia lawmakers have made despite deep poverty and racial disparities within the economy. Specifically, the report finds that Georgia’s TANF program builds on harmful stereotypes about people of color and widens racial disparities by:

Directing large shares of TANF funds far away from direct cash assistance so as to offset tax and budget cuts

Providing extremely low amounts of monetary assistance that aren't sufficient for any family to satisfy even their most elementary needs

Enforcing a number of the foremost restrictive benefit rules within the nation that makes TANF inaccessible for many families in deep poverty

Why Cash Matters

In 2019, nearly 1.3 million Georgians lived below the poverty level, with one in five kids in poverty. Children of color in Georgia are particularly impacted by poverty, with poverty rates 3 times higher for Black (28 percent) and Latinx (27 percent) children than for whites (9 percent) and Asian (8 percent) children. One in ten Georgians live in deep poverty, which is 50 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL), or $905 per month for a family of three. Georgia’s deep poverty rates range from 26 percent in Clinch County to only 2.2 percent in Oconee County.

Income support, especially during an economic recession, improves children’s health, educational and economic outcomes while simultaneously reducing childhood poverty. Even small amounts of money assistance can make a difference. Among families in poverty, children under the age of 6 whose families receive a $3,000 annual increase in income earn 17 percent more as adults compared to children whose families didn't receive an income boost. Research also shows that targeted cash assistance could narrow the Black-white child poverty gap by up to fifteen percent. This finding suggests that states which will eliminate barriers to income support like TANF cash assistance are able to do important gains for youngsters within the short- and long-term.

Direct cash assistance is critical for preventing the widening of racial disparities in economic, health, and academic outcomes. However, Georgia’s harsh rules and disinvestment from cash aid have severely impacted Black families, who, because slavery and segregation led to current unjust policies that reinforce poverty, structure 70 percent of TANF recipients. Despite the overrepresentation of Black families on TANF, the principles tied to cash assistance ignore Georgia’s long history of participation within the government-authorized oppression of Black, Indigenous, and other people of Color (BIPOC). As a result, the program has become ineffective at offering stability that permits parents to figure and look out for their families.

As indicated earlier, high poverty rates in Georgia are persistent, yet TANF cash assistance as a poverty-fighting tool has been rendered inaccessible. The poverty rate is almost equivalent today because it was the year after TANF was signed into law in 1997. Ideally, the decline in TANF participation over the last 24 years would be a result of an improving economy, with individuals lifted above the poverty level at a powerful rate.

Lawmakers can reconfigure the state’s TANF program in order that it does a far better job of meeting the necessity for families with very low income or no income in the least. Georgia families need a floor to create upon now quite ever. An anti-racist cash assistance program can provide that floor.

Georgia History

While cash assistance policies are often perceived as race-blind, they're far away from that. Decades of reports written mostly by white academics and politicians promoted stereotypes that associate poverty and welfare participation with being Black. during this process, Black Americans became pathologically synonymous with the country’s inaccurate frame of reference for poverty: poor, at-risk, and lazy. Beliefs are driven by racist attitudes about the mythological “welfare queen” that led Americans to possess little confidence that cash assistance might be the solution to fighting poverty.

In the 1990s, Congress and therefore the Clinton administration sought to reform the cash assistance program established within the half of the 20 century referred to as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Ignoring structural barriers within the market, lawmakers grew frustrated with the trend of the many AFDC recipients not working and allegedly becoming hooked into welfare. They designed a replacement program referred to as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and packaged the program into the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), with the hopes to “end welfare as we all know it.

TANF imposed restrictions in states like Georgia that had an extended history of making barriers to accessing previous cash assistance programs. States were required to chop benefits for families that did not suits work requirements, reinforcing the stereotype that cash assistance recipients didn't want to figure. States also got enough flexibility to deny benefits to people supported by characteristics that reflected racial stereotypes. States also had to cop out of a ban on providing assistance to individuals with felony drug convictions, and states were banned from using federal TANF funds surely groups of immigrants.

TANF consists of excessive rules that penalize poverty, creating yet one more domain where Black families are excessively surveilled and policed. These punitive rules have roots in slavery, Jim Crow, and therefore the policing of Black bodies, specifically Black women, and have permeated cash assistance policy in Georgia. for instance, one among the core purposes of TANF is preventing out-of-wedlock births, which stemmed from concerns of single-motherhood in Black communities. Georgia currently goes thus far on deny basic assistance to children who, through no fault of their own, are born while their mothers are on TANF. This policy is mentioned because of the family cap.

Georgia created a precursor to the present family cap policy under a former cash assistance program within the 1950s. In 1951, Governor Herman Talmadge sought to “put an end to illegitimate baby-having as a business in Georgia.” The state’s Director of the Department of Public Welfare, Alan Kemper, supported the governor’s call to implement a family cap by arguing that “70 percent of the cases of multiple illegitimacy during a family were in Negro families.” He claimed that a family cap would halt a “growing tendency to supply illegitimate children as an honest business” and “save the state $444,000 annually. therein same year, the Georgia General Assembly passed the primary law within the country that denied grants to “more than one bastard of a mother.

The federal pushed back on this early family cap policy, causing the state to not implement the policy at the time. However, the attempt exemplifies how the state has historically tried to regulate Black reproductive behavior through cash assistance. The state eventually continued with what became referred to as “suitable home policies” that attempted to stop unwed mothers from accessing cash aid. In 1993, Governor Zell Miller signed into law Georgia’s family cap provision for cash assistance that was approved by the federal.

In addition to restrictive eligibility policies for cash assistance, racial terror in Georgia also played a task in erecting barriers that prevented access to benefits. within the 1960s, the state’s Department of Welfare had to send investigators to Webster County in Southwest Georgia because there have been “reports that Negroes eligible for welfare benefits—particularly aid to dependent children—refused to use for the benefit for fear that their homes would be burned or their lives placed in jeopardy.

The implementation of TANF in 1996 opened the floodgates for states with more direct involvement in centuries of racial subjugation—namely southern states—to repose on cash assistance programs that were fueled by racist attitudes. While states got many options to tailor programs for his or her states during a way that ensured TANF is implemented as a real anti-poverty program, others, including Georgia, capitalized on the immense new flexibilities offered under the 1996 law to enact a number of the foremost punitive restrictions within the country, most of which are still in situ today.

This post is about georgia cash 3 midday, result georgia midday, georgia cash 3 lottery, live draw georgia midday, georgia midday lottery, georgia midday lottery results, georgia cash 3 midday results, pick 3 georgia midday, georgia midday numbers, cash 3 midday today georgia, and much more.

[blackkudos]

Maynard Jackson

Maynard Holbrook Jackson Jr. (March 23, 1938 – June 23, 2003) was an American politician and attorney from Georgia. A member of the Democratic Party, he was elected in 1973 at the age of 35 as the first black mayor of Atlanta, Georgia and of any major city in the South. He served three terms (1974–1982, 1990–1994), making him the second longest-serving mayor of Atlanta, after six-term mayor (1937–1941, 1942–1962) William B. Hartsfield.

He is notable also for public works projects, primarily the new Maynard H. Jackson International terminal at the Atlanta airport, and for greatly increasing minority business participation in the city. After his death, the William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport was re-named Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport to honor his service to the expansion of the airport, the city and its people.

Family history, background and personal life

Jackson was born into a family that valued education and political activism. His maternal grandfather was civil rights leader John Wesley Dobbs, who worked to successfully overturn the white primary in Georgia. He also gained the hiring of black police officers in Atlanta and lighting of Auburn Street, the main retail street of the black community. Maynard's mother Irene (Dobbs) Jackson was one of his six daughters; all graduated from Spelman College, encouraged by their parents. Irene earned a doctorate in France and became a Professor of French at the college.

His father Maynard Holbrook Jackson was a Baptist minister from New Orleans. He became active in civil rights in Dallas, Texas, where he had grown up after his family moved. His grandfather Alexander Stephens Jackson had been a Baptist minister and educator in Louisiana and Texas. The young Jackson's father died when he was fifteen; his grandfather Dobbs became even more influential in his life.

Jackson attended David T. Howard High School in Atlanta and Morehouse College, a historically black college for men in Atlanta, graduating in 1956 at the age of eighteen. He sang in the Morehouse College Glee Club. After attending the Boston University Law School for a short time, Jackson held several jobs, including selling encyclopedias. He returned to graduate studies, attending the North Carolina Central University Law School. He graduated with a law degree in 1964. He is a member of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity.

Jackson married Burnella "Bunnie" Hayes, in 1965. The couple had three children: Elizabeth, Brooke, and Maynard III. Bunnie Jackson founded First Class, Inc., a public relations and marketing firm in Atlanta, prior to their divorce.

Jackson married Valerie Richardson in 1977, to whom he was married for 25 years until his death. They have two daughters, Valerie and Alexandra. Valerie Jackson hosts Between the Lines each weekend on the WABE-FM radio station, the Atlanta Public Broadcasting station.

Early career

Jackson worked as a lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board and a legal services firm. He joined the Democratic Party.

Political career

In 1968, Jackson at 30, decided to run for the US Senate against incumbent Herman Talmadge. His campaign was underfunded, and he lost, but Jackson won in Atlanta, gaining prominence in the city, which had a substantial black minority. The following year, he built on his strength, gaining election as vice mayor, who was presiding officer of the board of aldermen. At that time, Atlanta modified its city charter, strengthening the position of mayor and renaming the vice mayor as president of the city council (aldermen were now city council members).

In 1970, Jackson became Atlanta's first Black Vice-Mayor, his first elected position which he held for four years.

In 1973, Jackson was elected with 60 percent of the vote, as the first African-American mayor of Atlanta and any major southern city; he was supported by a coalition of white liberals/moderates and African Americans. At the age of 35, he had unseated incumbent Sam Massell.

During his first term, Jackson worked to improve race relations in and around Atlanta after the polarization caused by the election campaign. As mayor, he led the beginnings and much of the progress on several huge public-works projects for the city and region. Affirmative action programs helped minority and women-owned businesses to participate. He helped arrange for the upgrade of the then-William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport's huge terminal (now Domestic Terminal) to modern standards. Jackson strongly opposed the construction of freeways through in-town neighborhoods, knowing that such actions destroyed thriving communities.

Jackson was mayor through the period when the separate Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) obtained a large amount of Federal funding for a rapid-transit rail-line system, when construction began, and when MARTA began its first rail transit service in Atlanta and in DeKalb County in 1979 and during its continual expansion thereafter. As mayor, he celebrated in September 1990 when Atlanta was selected as the host city for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. As mayor, he accepted the Olympic flag at the 1992 closing ceremonies in Barcelona, Spain. He oversaw the completion of many planned public works projects, such as improvements to freeways and parks, and the completion of Freedom Parkway, which were expedited from 1990 to 1996 in preparation for the Olympic Games that began in August 1996.

During Jackson's second term as mayor, the Atlanta Child Murders were ongoing between 1979 and 1981. He supported the Atlanta Police and other police forces in the area but also worked to calm public tensions aroused by the serial killings of black children. The accused killer, Wayne Williams, was caught in 1981. Williams was convicted to serve two consecutive life sentences for the murder of two adult males, but never charged with or tried for the murder of any of the child victims. He is currently being held in Telfair State Prison.

In 1974, Jackson received the Samuel S. Beard Award for Greatest Public Service by an Individual 35 Years or Under, an award given out annually by Jefferson Awards.

Controversy

Maynard Jackson provoked a major racial crisis in May 1974 when he attempted to fire the incumbent white police chief, John Inman. Jackson believed the change was needed to grapple with Atlanta's growing crime problem and charges by the black community of police racial insensitivity toward African Americans. Whites opposed the firing and racial tensions rose, detracting from Atlanta's proud motto: "too busy to hate."

In August 1974 Mayor Jackson appointed A. Reginald Eaves, a college friend and fellow activist, as Public Safety Commissioner. Eaves was criticized for lacking police experience. He generated controversy by appointing an ex-convict as his personal secretary but was criticized more for what was considered as a system of quota promotions and hiring in the police department, which many decried as "reverse discrimination."

Jackson fired Eaves after revelation of a police exam cheating scandal. Eaves was later convicted by a federal jury of extortion in 1988 after selling his vote on two rezonings.

Atlanta's crime

In addition to the 1979–1981 Atlanta Child Murders mentioned above, residents were concerned about a rising crime rate during Mayor Jackson's tenure, which was consistent with national trends. In 1979, with a soaring murder rate and nationwide publicity about crime there, Georgia Governor George Busbee, acting on a request from Mayor Maynard Jackson, called in Georgia State Patrol troopers to help patrol the downtown. The business community accused Mayor Jackson and Police Chief George Napper of dismissing public concerns about crime. Atlanta had the highest murder rate and the highest overall crime rate of any city, and the numbers were rapidly climbing higher, with a 69% increase in homicides between 1978 and 1979 alone. Much of it was considered driven by drug wars.

Service to the Democratic National Committee

After leaving office as mayor, Jackson continued to be active with the Democratic Party. In 2001 he unsuccessfully sought the post as the Democratic National Committee chairman, losing to the fund-raiser Terry McAuliffe, who had the backing of former president Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Jackson was backed by presidential candidate Bill Bradley, among others.

Jackson was appointed as the National Development Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and was the first Chairman of the DNC Voting Rights Institute. In 2002, he founded the American Voters League, a non-profit and non-partisan effort to increase national voter participation. He appeared briefly in the 2001 documentary Startup.com.

Legacy and honors

In 2008 the Southside Comprehensive High School was renamed the Maynard Holbrook Jackson High School.

In 2003, Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport had Jackson's name added to it, and in 2012 the airport's new international terminal was named for him.

In 2015 a documentary film about his life and work, entitled Maynard, was in preparation, directed by Samuel D. Pollard. It is expected to be released in 2016.

The Maynard Documentary was officially selected by DOC NYC to premiere at their film festival on November 16, 2017.

Death

Jackson died in 2003 at the age of 65, of a cardiac arrest at a hospital in Arlington, Virginia after suffering a heart attack at the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. His remains are buried at the Oakland Cemetery in Atlanta.

[azspot]

But the debate over how Biden should be judged for working with segregationist Democrats such as James O. Eastland and Herman Talmadge during his early years in the Senate misses the part of Biden’s record in the 1970s that is most relevant to today. Biden was not just reaching across ideological divisions and working with conservative members of his party to, as he says, “Get things done.” Instead, Biden was part of a new breed of moderate Democrats who swept into office during the 1970s and pulled their party to the right — with major consequences still being felt today.

[a-wandering-fool]

Via The Hill:

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) hit back on Wednesday against former Vice President Joe Biden’s defense of using his relationship with two segregationist senators as an example of civility, calling Biden’s remarks “deeply disappointing.”

“Vice President Biden shouldn’t need this lesson,” Booker told CNN’s Don Lemon.

“At a time when we have in the highest offices in the land, divisiveness, racial hatred, and bigotry being spewed, he should have the sensitivity to know that this is time I need to be an ally, I need to be a healer, I need to not engage in usage of words that harms folks,” he continued. “This is deeply disappointing.”

Biden dismissed calls from Booker and his fellow Democratic primary opponents to apologize for his Tuesday remarks about his work with former segregationist Sens. James Eastland (D-Miss.) and Herman Talmadge (D-Ga.).

=========================

‘He’s better than this’ .....

No, he really isn’t.

[patriotsnet]

What Name Did The Democrats Give Southerners Who Became Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-name-did-the-democrats-give-southerners-who-became-republicans/

What Name Did The Democrats Give Southerners Who Became Republicans

Adams And The Revolution Of 1800

Shortly after Adams took office, he dispatched a group of envoys to seek peaceful relations with France, which had begun attacking American shipping after the ratification of the Jay Treaty. The failure of talks, and the French demand for bribes in what became known as the XYZ Affair, outraged the American public and led to the Quasi-War, an undeclared naval war between France and the United States. The Federalist-controlled Congress passed measures to expand the army and navy and also pushed through the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Alien and Sedition Acts restricted speech that was critical of the government, while also implementing stricter naturalization requirements. Numerous journalists and other individuals aligned with the Democratic-Republicans were prosecuted under the Sedition Act, sparking a backlash against the Federalists. Meanwhile, Jefferson and Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which held that state legislatures could determine the constitutionality of federal laws.

Radio Coverage Of Presidents Johnsons Remarks Upon Signing The Civil Rights Act Of 1964: The Complete Speech

President Johnsonâs speech was delivered just two days before the 188th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. In it the president cited the phrase âall men are created equalâ and pointed out that historically many Americans were denied equal treatment. The Civil Rights Act, he said, provides that âthose who are equal before God shall now all be equalâ in all aspects of American life. As President Johnson said, this was a long journey to freedom.

Courtesy of National Archives and Records Administration

Listen to the audio

Busiest Time Weve Had In Years

Imaging a florist busily responding with gratitude towards Congress, President Johnson, and Civil Rights leaders, Herblock captures sudden good will as the Senate voted for cloture to end fifty-four days of filibuster on the Civil Rights Act on June 10, 1954. The Senate finally passed the legislation on June 19, 1964. The Civil Rights Act was not the only item on President Johnsonâs legislative agendawhich led one reporter to call him âa âTexas Santa Clausâ in a ten-gallon hat.â

Herblock. âBusiest time weâve had in years,â 1964. Graphite and India ink drawing. Published in the Washington Post, June 12, 1964. Herbert L. Block Collection, , Library of Congress

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/civil-rights-era.html#obj188_01

Senator Everett Dirksens Amendments To Title Vii

Senator Everett Dirksen , Republican from Illinois and Senate minority leader, comments on his amendments to Title VII, the employment section of the civil rights bill. The interview for The Great Divide: Civil Rights and the Bill, broadcast on ABC, May 22, 1964, was recorded earlier that week. After a compromise with Democratic Party leaders in the Senate, Dirksen was instrumental in persuading fellow Republicans to support the bill, and the filibuster that had held up passage ended.

Watch the video

Dixie’s Long Journey From Democratic Stronghold To Republican Redoubt

toggle caption

Ronald Reagan speaks to a reporter at the Republican National Convention in Florida in 1968. In 1984, Reagan carried in the biggest group of Southern Republicans in Congress since Reconstruction.

The tragic events in Charleston this month have released years of racial and political tension in the South, and the pressure is being felt by Republican officeholders across the region.

Why the Republicans? Because it is increasingly difficult to find officeholders in the region who are not Republicans.

The South was once home to the “yellow dog Democrat” who would vote for a mutt over someone from the party of Abraham Lincoln. Now, the party of the Great Emancipator has made Dixie its bedrock, the base of its Electoral College vote and its majorities in Congress. Many a great-granddaddy buried in rebel gray has been rolling over in his grave for some years now.

The South’s rejection of its Democratic DNA began more than 60 years ago with a Supreme Court decision, and significant historic milestones have followed like clockwork in almost every decade since.

The late Nelson Polsby, an influential and at times contrarian political scientist, wrote a book arguing that it was air conditioning that made the South competitive. It brought Republicans from other parts of the country into the South as retirees and as employers in growing numbers after World War II.

Here are a few of the major milestones in the migration of these Southern voters.

Clarence Mitchell Jr Calls For A Real Showdown On Civil Rights

As the 88th Congress began its second session early in January 1964, hearings on proposed civil rights legislation were about to commence in the House Rules Committee. Clarence Mitchell, Jr., , Washington Bureau director for the NAACP, explains the reason that the legislation has taken so long to reach this stage and calls for âa real showdown on civil rightsâ in this interview for At Issue: Countdown on Civil Rights, broadcast January 15, 1964, on National Educational Television.

Watch the video

Formal Debate Begins On The Civil Rights Bill

On March 30, the Senate began formal debate on H.R. 7152. Senator Richard Russell divided the senators opposing the bill, known as the Southern bloc, into three six-member platoons to prolong the filibuster. When one platoon had the floor, the other two rested and prepared to speak. Each member was responsible for talking four hours per day. Russell hoped the filibuster would erode public support for civil rights and compel the pro-civil rights senators to dilute H.R. 7152 in order to secure passage. He did not expect to defeat the bill.

Clarence Mitchell to Roy Wilkins, April 3, 1964 . Typed letter. NAACP Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress Courtesy of the NAACP

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/civil-rights-act-of-1964.html#obj174

What Name Did The Democrats Give Southerners Who Became Republicans

Scalawags

Explanation: The term scalawag was given by Southern Democrats to fellow white Southerners who had become Republican and supported Reconstruction after the Civil War. They were considered traitors by many Southerners who remained loyal to the Confederate cause.

C. Scalawags

Explanation:

White southern Republicans, referred to their adversaries as “scalawags,” made up the greatest gathering of agents to the Radical Reconstruction-era legislatures. A few scalawags were established planters who felt that whites ought to perceive blacks’ considerate and political rights while as yet holding control of political and economic life.

Many were previous Whigs who saw the Republicans as the successors to their old party. Most of the scalawags were non-slaveholding small farmers as well as merchants, artisans and other experts who had stayed faithful to the Union amid the Civil War.

according to the report, the government has imposed restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association. the official media remained tightly controlled by government censorship and obstruction. restrictions on the freedom to assemble remain a problem in vietnam.

explanation:

Treatment Of Contempt Cases

On April 21, Senator Herman Talmadge called up his amendment requiring jury trials for all criminal contempt cases in the federal courts. It was withdrawn in favor of one by Senator Thruston Morton requiring a jury trial for any criminal contempt case arising from H.R. 7152. Civil rights advocates opposed the amendments because they doubted that Southern juries would convict white violators. Senator Everett Dirksen worked with Senator Mike Mansfield to offer a substitute amendment. It granted a judge the right to authorize a jury trial in all criminal contempt cases arising from the bill. If the accused was tried without a jury, the judge would be limited in the penalties he could impose to fines of up to $300 or sentences of up to thirty days.

Clarence Mitchell to Roy Wilkins, April 24, 1964 . Typed letter. NAACP Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress Courtesy of the NAACP

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/civil-rights-act-of-1964.html#obj180

President Johnson Seeks Support Of Civil Rights Leaders

Immediately after signing the act, President Johnson held a meeting with civil rights leaders in the cabinet room at the White House. He wanted to ensure their collaboration, when the act would inevitably be tested, to not call for demonstrations and to carefully select test cases in the courts. In turn the president promised the full support of the Justice Department in protecting the act. He received assurances from those present that they understood and would cooperate.

Lee C. White. White House Memorandum, July 6, 1964. Courtesy of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library and Museum, Austin, Texas

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/civil-rights-act-of-1964.html#obj195

It Took Much Longer And Went Much Further Than We Think

Most Americans have heard the story of the Southern strategy: The Republican Party, in the wake of the civil rights movement, decided to court Southern white voters by capitalizing on their racial fears. Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater first wielded this strategy in 1964 and Richard Nixon perfected it in 1968 and 1972, turning the solidly Democratic South into a bastion of Republicanism.

But this oversimplified version of the Southern strategy has a number of problems. It overstates how quickly party change occurred, limits the strategy solely to racial appeals, ignores how it evolved and distorts our understanding of politics today.

In reality, the South swung back and forth in presidential elections for four decades following 1964. Moreover, Republicans didnt win the South solely by capitalizing on white racial angst. That decision was but one in a series of decisions the party made not just on race but on feminism and religion as well. The GOP successfully fused ideas about the role of government in the economy, womens place in society, white evangelical Christianity and white racial grievance, in what became a long Southern strategy that extended well past the days of Goldwater and Nixon.

Over the course of 40 years, Republicans fine-tuned their pitch and won the allegiance of Southern whites by remaking their party in the Southern white image.

The End Of Radical Reconstruction

The end of Reconstruction was a staggered process, and the period of Republican control ended at different times in different states. With the Compromise of 1877, army intervention in the South ceased and Republican control collapsed in the last three state governments in the South. This was followed by a period that white Southerners labeled Redemption, during which white-dominated state legislatures enacted Jim Crow laws and, beginning in 1890, disenfranchised most blacks and many poor whites through a combination of constitutional amendments and electoral laws. The white Democrat Southerners memory of Reconstruction played a major role in imposing the system of white supremacy and second-class citizenship for blacks, known as The Age of Jim Crow.

Many of the ambitions of the Radical Republicans were, in the end, undermined and unfulfilled. Early Supreme Court rulings around the turn of the century upheld many of these new Southern constitutions and laws, and most blacks were prevented from voting in the South until the 1960s. Full federal enforcement of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments did not occur until passage of legislation in the mid-1960s as a result of the African-American Civil Rights Movement .

Republican Rule In The South

In the two years following the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln and the end of the Civil War in April 1865, Lincolns successor Andrew Johnson angered many northerners and Republican members of Congress with his conciliatory policies towards the defeated South. Freed African Americans had no role in politics, and the new southern legislatures even passed black codes restricting their freedom and forcing them into repressive labor situations, a development they strongly resisted. In the congressional elections of 1866, northern voters rejected Johnsons view of Reconstruction and handed a major victory to the so-called Radical Republicans, who now took control of Reconstruction.

Did you know? African Americans made up the overwhelming majority of southern Republican voters during Reconstruction. Beginning in 1867, they formed a coalition with carpetbaggers and scalawags to gain control of southern state legislatures for the Republican Party.

John Lindsay And Emanuel Celler On The Compromise Bill

On October 29, 1963, the House Judiciary Committee voted to report out a compromise civil rights bill to the full House. Representatives John Lindsay , Republican of New York, who helped craft the compromise bill after a stronger bill had been attacked by the Kennedy Administration and others as having no chance of passing, and Emanuel Celler , Democrat of New York and chairman of the committee, discuss the two bills in this excerpt from At Issue: Countdown on Civil Rights, broadcast January 15, 1964, on National Educational Television.

Watch the video

Georgia Democrats Typically Did Not Like Fellow Southerners Who Became Republicans After The Civil War And Supported Reconstruction Of The South

What name did the Democrats give Southerners who became Republicans?Abolitionists Carpetbaggers Scalawags Freedmen

Answer

answer is carpetbaggers remember it like a carpet goes up and the south came up in reconstruct with the north some of them

Virtual Teaching Assistant: Colleen R.

Question Level: Basic

Letter From Jane Horn

In 1964, Jane Horn worked for the Protestant Council of the City of New York. She organized 1,000 church and labor union members on a trip to Washington, D.C., to march in support of the Civil Rights Act. Horn also participated in the silent vigil in support of the act. Beginning in April of 1964, Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant seminary students served in shifts at the Lincoln Memorial, silently praying night and day until the act was passed by the Senate on June 19.

Jane Horn to the Voices of Civil Rights Project, June 5, 2004. Letter. Voices of Civil Rights Project Collection, American Folklife Center, Library of Congress Courtesy of Jane Horn

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/civil-rights-act-of-1964.html#obj253

How Did This Switch Happen

Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government’s role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power traditionally, a Republican stance. 

But Republicans didn’t immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government. 

Related: 7 great congressional dramas

“Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice,” Rauchway wrote in an archived 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education. Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments. The party’s small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to the New Deal.

But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government? 

According to Rauchway, they, like Republicans, were trying to win the West. The admission of new western states to the union in the post-Civil War era created a new voting bloc, and both parties were vying for its attention.

Related: Busted: 6 Civil War myths

Additional resources:

Passage Of Civil Rights Bill Final Vote

Artist Howard Brodie captures the hustle and bustle of the Senate floor, the sense of people in the packed gallery pressing to see everything below, and the pages rushing to the edge of the dais on June 19, 1964, when the Senate voted to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On July 2, 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the bill into law. Brodie, a courtroom artist, covered the debates for CBS News.

1 of 2

Howard Brodie. Senate before final Civil Rights vote, final day. Crayon drawing, 1964.Howard Brodie Collection, , Library of Congress © Estate of Howard Brodie

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/civil-rights-act-of-1964.html#obj192

âIn a jammed chamber of the U.S. Senate there came the solemn moment on Friday, June 19, when the eleven title Civil Rights Bill was approved by a vote of 73 to 27.â

Clarence Mitchell to Roy Wilkins, June 20, 1964

Barry Bonds Hits 715th Home Run To Pass Babe Ruth On Mlb List

Congress passage of the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 marked the beginning of the Radical Reconstruction period, which would last for the next decade. That legislation divided the South into five military districts and outlined how new state governments based on universal suffragefor both whites and blackswere to be organized. The new state legislatures formed in 1867-69 reflected the revolutionary changes brought about by the Civil War and emancipation: For the first time, blacks and whites stood together in political life. In general, the southern state governments formed during this period of Reconstruction represented a coalition of African Americans, recently arrived northern whites and southern white Republicans .

Civil Rights Legislation On The Fast Track

Senator Wayne Morse sails into the air after his motion to send the proposed Civil Rights legislation to the Judiciary Committee was defeated on March 26, 1964. Conservative cartoonist Gib Crockett, chief cartoonist at the Washington Star, appropriately uses a high-speed train as the metaphor for the Civil Rights legislation. After Morseâs motion was defeated, the Senate moved forward to debate it, driven by Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey, because President Lyndon Baines Johnson had put it on the fast track.

Gib Crockett. The switchman knew when he felt the bump, that the man at the throttle was Hubert Hump! 1964. Ink brush, crayon, and opaque white drawing. Published in the Washington Star, March 30, 1964. Art Wood Collection of Cartoon and Caricature, , Library of Congress

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/civil-rights-act-of-1964.html#obj269

Democrats V Republicans On Jim Crow

Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.

During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies it wasnt worth their while.

Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. Its fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.

Southern Democrats were truly awful.

Iv Reconstruction And Women

Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton maintained a strong and productive relationship for nearly half a century as they sought to secure political rights for women. While the fight for womens rights stalled during the war, it sprung back to life as Anthony, Stanton, and others formed the American Equal Rights Association. , between 1880 and 1902. Library of Congress.

for all

The AERA was split over whether Black male suffrage should take precedence over universal suffrage, given the political climate of the South. Some worried that political support for freedmen would be undermined by the pursuit of womens suffrage. For example, AERA member Frederick Douglass insisted that the ballot was literally a question of life and death for southern Black men, but not for women. Some African American women challenged white suffragists in other ways. Frances Harper, for example, a freeborn Black woman living in Ohio, urged them to consider their own privilege as white and middle class. Universal suffrage, she argued, would not so clearly address the complex difficulties posed by racial, economic, and gender inequality.

  Senate Civil Rights Debate

Working for CBS as a courtroom illustrator, Howard Brodie captured not only the action on the Senate floor, but the sensibility of the crowd in the gallery above. Blacks, whites, the elderly, the young, men and women gathered together, united in their desire to see the creation of the historic legislation.

Howard Brodie. Senate Civil Rights debate, Gallery. Crayon drawing, 1964. Howard Brodie Collection, , Library of Congress © Estate of Howard Brodie

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/civil-rights-era.html#obj181_01

âIt is expected that the Mansfield-Dirksen amendment will be approved by a substantial vote.â

Clarence Mitchell to Roy Wilkins, May 8, 1964

Lawyer Clifford Alexander Interviewed By Camille O Cosby In 2006

Lawyer Clifford Alexander, Jr., , chairman of the U.S. Equal Emplyment Opportunity Commission , explains the meaning of the Civil Rights Act and how both blacks and whites in government pushed for change in an interview conducted by Camille O. Cosby for the National Visionary Leadership Project in 2006.

Watch the video

Civil Rights Activist Gwendolyn Simmons Interviewed By Joseph Mosnier In 2011

Civil rights activist Gwendolyn Simmons discusses Freedom Summer and her shock that Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner were murdered in an interview conducted by Joseph Mosnier for the Civil Rights History Project in 2011.

Civil Rights History Project Collection , American Folklife Center

Watch the video

Republicans And Democrats After The Civil War

Its true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. Its also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But theres more to it.

The Civil War-era GOP wasnt that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding, and monopolizing the new black vote.

In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.

The Myth Of The Republican

When faced with the sobering reality that Democrats supported slavery, started the Civil War when the abolitionist Republican Party won the Presidency, established the Ku Klux Klan to brutalize newly freed slaves and keep them from voting, opposed the Civil Rights Movement, modern-day liberals reflexively perpetuate rather pernicious myth–that the racist southern Democrats of the 1950s and 1960s became Republicans, leading to the so-called “switch” of the parties.

This is as ridiculous as it is easily debunked.   

The Republican Party, of course, was founded in 1848 with the abolition of slavery as its core mission. Almost immediately after its second presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, won the 1860 election, Democrat-controlled southern states seceded on the assumption that Lincoln would destroy their slave-based economies.

Once the Civil War ended, the newly freed slaves as expected flocked to the Republican Party, but Democrat control of the South from Reconstruction until the Civil Rights Era was near total.  In 1960, Democrats held every Senate seat south of the Mason-Dixon line.  In the 13 states that made up the Confederacy a century earlier, Democrats held a staggering 117-8 advantage in the House of Representatives.  The Democratic Party was so strong in the south that those 117 House members made up a full 41% of Democrats’ 283-153 advantage in the Chamber.

So how did this myth of a sudden “switch” get started?

It would not be the last time they used it.

The Importance Of Quorums

In this memorandum Arnold Aronson explains the importance of quorums. Under Senate rules each senator could deliver only two speeches on the same subject in a legislative day. Two senators could sustain a filibuster for eight hours by demanding frequent quorum calls that required fifty-one opposing senators to answer a roll call. If the opponents failed to produce a quorum, the Senate had to adjourn. The next day the filibustering senators could begin a new round of speeches. Senator Humphrey and Senator Thomas Kuchel addressed the quorum problem by dividing their troops into platoons and setting up a duty roster. Humphrey was committed to producing a daily quota of thirty-six Democratic senators for quorums; Kuchel pledged fifteen Republicans.

Arnold Aronson, secretary, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights to Cooperating Organizations regarding senators who support the civil rights bill, , March 16, 1964. Memorandum. Page 2 – Page 3 – Page 4 – Page 5 Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/civil-rights-act-of-1964.html#obj171

âWe have a great team of senators led by Senators Hubert Humphrey . . . and Thomas Kuchel . . . .â

Clarence Mitchell to Roy Wilkins, March 27, 1964

âThe Civil Rights Bill is now the pending business in the Senate. The fight is on. We will need every vote that we can get.â

Clarence Mitchell to Roy Wilkins, March 27, 1964

Charles Sumner And Thaddeus Stevens

Charles Sumner: Charles Sumner was an American politician and senator from Massachusetts. During Reconstruction, he fought to minimize the power of the ex-Confederates and to guarantee equal rights to the freedmen.

Concerned that President Johnson was attempting to subvert congressional authority, Republicans in Congress took control of Reconstruction policies after the election of 1866. Radical Republicans, led by Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens, opened the way to suffrage for male freedmen. As the chief Radical leader in the Senate during Reconstruction, Sumner fought hard to provide equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen on the grounds that consent of the governed was a basic principle of American republicanism, and to block ex-Confederates from power so they would not reverse the gains made from the Unions victory in the Civil War.

Sumner, teaming with House leader Thaddeus Stevens, battled Andrew Johnson s Reconstruction plans and sought to impose a Radical program on the South. The Radical Republicans were generally in control of policy, although they had to compromise with the moderate Republicans. The Democrats in Congress had almost no power. Historians generally refer to this period as Radical Reconstruction.

[politiciandirect]

Joe Biden: 'Poor Kids Are Just as Bright and Just as Talented as White Kids'

Joe Biden: ‘Poor Kids Are Just as Bright and Just as Talented as White Kids’

Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed that “poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids,” while addressing the Asian and Latino Coalition in Des Moines, Iowa on Thursday.

“We should challenge these students, we should challenge students in these schools to have advanced placement programs in these schools,” the former vice president said when discussing the need to improve…

[statetalks]

What Name Did The Democrats Give Southerners Who Became Republicans

Adams And The Revolution Of 1800

Shortly after Adams took office, he dispatched a group of envoys to seek peaceful relations with France, which had begun attacking American shipping after the ratification of the Jay Treaty. The failure of talks, and the French demand for bribes in what became known as the XYZ Affair, outraged the American public and led to the Quasi-War, an undeclared naval war between France and the United States. The Federalist-controlled Congress passed measures to expand the army and navy and also pushed through the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Alien and Sedition Acts restricted speech that was critical of the government, while also implementing stricter naturalization requirements. Numerous journalists and other individuals aligned with the Democratic-Republicans were prosecuted under the Sedition Act, sparking a backlash against the Federalists. Meanwhile, Jefferson and Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which held that state legislatures could determine the constitutionality of federal laws.

Radio Coverage Of Presidents Johnsons Remarks Upon Signing The Civil Rights Act Of 1964: The Complete Speech

President Johnsonâs speech was delivered just two days before the 188th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. In it the president cited the phrase âall men are created equalâ and pointed out that historically many Americans were denied equal treatment. The Civil Rights Act, he said, provides that âthose who are equal before God shall now all be equalâ in all aspects of American life. As President Johnson said, this was a long journey to freedom.

Courtesy of National Archives and Records Administration

Listen to the audio

Busiest Time Weve Had In Years

Imaging a florist busily responding with gratitude towards Congress, President Johnson, and Civil Rights leaders, Herblock captures sudden good will as the Senate voted for cloture to end fifty-four days of filibuster on the Civil Rights Act on June 10, 1954. The Senate finally passed the legislation on June 19, 1964. The Civil Rights Act was not the only item on President Johnsonâs legislative agendawhich led one reporter to call him âa âTexas Santa Clausâ in a ten-gallon hat.â

Herblock. âBusiest time weâve had in years,â 1964. Graphite and India ink drawing. Published in the Washington Post, June 12, 1964. Herbert L. Block Collection, , Library of Congress

Bookmark this item: //https://ift.tt/3yq7f8s

Senator Everett Dirksens Amendments To Title Vii

Senator Everett Dirksen , Republican from Illinois and Senate minority leader, comments on his amendments to Title VII, the employment section of the civil rights bill. The interview for The Great Divide: Civil Rights and the Bill, broadcast on ABC, May 22, 1964, was recorded earlier that week. After a compromise with Democratic Party leaders in the Senate, Dirksen was instrumental in persuading fellow Republicans to support the bill, and the filibuster that had held up passage ended.

Watch the video

Dixie’s Long Journey From Democratic Stronghold To Republican Redoubt

toggle caption

Ronald Reagan speaks to a reporter at the Republican National Convention in Florida in 1968. In 1984, Reagan carried in the biggest group of Southern Republicans in Congress since Reconstruction.

The tragic events in Charleston this month have released years of racial and political tension in the South, and the pressure is being felt by Republican officeholders across the region.

Why the Republicans? Because it is increasingly difficult to find officeholders in the region who are not Republicans.

The South was once home to the “yellow dog Democrat” who would vote for a mutt over someone from the party of Abraham Lincoln. Now, the party of the Great Emancipator has made Dixie its bedrock, the base of its Electoral College vote and its majorities in Congress. Many a great-granddaddy buried in rebel gray has been rolling over in his grave for some years now.

The South’s rejection of its Democratic DNA began more than 60 years ago with a Supreme Court decision, and significant historic milestones have followed like clockwork in almost every decade since.

The late Nelson Polsby, an influential and at times contrarian political scientist, wrote a book arguing that it was air conditioning that made the South competitive. It brought Republicans from other parts of the country into the South as retirees and as employers in growing numbers after World War II.

Here are a few of the major milestones in the migration of these Southern voters.

Clarence Mitchell Jr Calls For A Real Showdown On Civil Rights

As the 88th Congress began its second session early in January 1964, hearings on proposed civil rights legislation were about to commence in the House Rules Committee. Clarence Mitchell, Jr., , Washington Bureau director for the NAACP, explains the reason that the legislation has taken so long to reach this stage and calls for âa real showdown on civil rightsâ in this interview for At Issue: Countdown on Civil Rights, broadcast January 15, 1964, on National Educational Television.

Watch the video

Formal Debate Begins On The Civil Rights Bill

On March 30, the Senate began formal debate on H.R. 7152. Senator Richard Russell divided the senators opposing the bill, known as the Southern bloc, into three six-member platoons to prolong the filibuster. When one platoon had the floor, the other two rested and prepared to speak. Each member was responsible for talking four hours per day. Russell hoped the filibuster would erode public support for civil rights and compel the pro-civil rights senators to dilute H.R. 7152 in order to secure passage. He did not expect to defeat the bill.

Clarence Mitchell to Roy Wilkins, April 3, 1964 . Typed letter. NAACP Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress Courtesy of the NAACP

Bookmark this item: //https://ift.tt/3ksD4ZD

What Name Did The Democrats Give Southerners Who Became Republicans

Scalawags

Explanation: The term scalawag was given by Southern Democrats to fellow white Southerners who had become Republican and supported Reconstruction after the Civil War. They were considered traitors by many Southerners who remained loyal to the Confederate cause.

C. Scalawags

Explanation:

White southern Republicans, referred to their adversaries as “scalawags,” made up the greatest gathering of agents to the Radical Reconstruction-era legislatures. A few scalawags were established planters who felt that whites ought to perceive blacks’ considerate and political rights while as yet holding control of political and economic life.

Many were previous Whigs who saw the Republicans as the successors to their old party. Most of the scalawags were non-slaveholding small farmers as well as merchants, artisans and other experts who had stayed faithful to the Union amid the Civil War.

according to the report, the government has imposed restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association. the official media remained tightly controlled by government censorship and obstruction. restrictions on the freedom to assemble remain a problem in vietnam.

explanation:

Treatment Of Contempt Cases

On April 21, Senator Herman Talmadge called up his amendment requiring jury trials for all criminal contempt cases in the federal courts. It was withdrawn in favor of one by Senator Thruston Morton requiring a jury trial for any criminal contempt case arising from H.R. 7152. Civil rights advocates opposed the amendments because they doubted that Southern juries would convict white violators. Senator Everett Dirksen worked with Senator Mike Mansfield to offer a substitute amendment. It granted a judge the right to authorize a jury trial in all criminal contempt cases arising from the bill. If the accused was tried without a jury, the judge would be limited in the penalties he could impose to fines of up to $300 or sentences of up to thirty days.

Clarence Mitchell to Roy Wilkins, April 24, 1964 . Typed letter. NAACP Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress Courtesy of the NAACP

Bookmark this item: //https://ift.tt/3kqkktG

President Johnson Seeks Support Of Civil Rights Leaders

Immediately after signing the act, President Johnson held a meeting with civil rights leaders in the cabinet room at the White House. He wanted to ensure their collaboration, when the act would inevitably be tested, to not call for demonstrations and to carefully select test cases in the courts. In turn the president promised the full support of the Justice Department in protecting the act. He received assurances from those present that they understood and would cooperate.

Lee C. White. White House Memorandum, July 6, 1964. Courtesy of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library and Museum, Austin, Texas

Bookmark this item: //https://ift.tt/3mFTkcb

It Took Much Longer And Went Much Further Than We Think

Most Americans have heard the story of the Southern strategy: The Republican Party, in the wake of the civil rights movement, decided to court Southern white voters by capitalizing on their racial fears. Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater first wielded this strategy in 1964 and Richard Nixon perfected it in 1968 and 1972, turning the solidly Democratic South into a bastion of Republicanism.

But this oversimplified version of the Southern strategy has a number of problems. It overstates how quickly party change occurred, limits the strategy solely to racial appeals, ignores how it evolved and distorts our understanding of politics today.

In reality, the South swung back and forth in presidential elections for four decades following 1964. Moreover, Republicans didnt win the South solely by capitalizing on white racial angst. That decision was but one in a series of decisions the party made not just on race but on feminism and religion as well. The GOP successfully fused ideas about the role of government in the economy, womens place in society, white evangelical Christianity and white racial grievance, in what became a long Southern strategy that extended well past the days of Goldwater and Nixon.

Over the course of 40 years, Republicans fine-tuned their pitch and won the allegiance of Southern whites by remaking their party in the Southern white image.

The End Of Radical Reconstruction

The end of Reconstruction was a staggered process, and the period of Republican control ended at different times in different states. With the Compromise of 1877, army intervention in the South ceased and Republican control collapsed in the last three state governments in the South. This was followed by a period that white Southerners labeled Redemption, during which white-dominated state legislatures enacted Jim Crow laws and, beginning in 1890, disenfranchised most blacks and many poor whites through a combination of constitutional amendments and electoral laws. The white Democrat Southerners memory of Reconstruction played a major role in imposing the system of white supremacy and second-class citizenship for blacks, known as The Age of Jim Crow.

Many of the ambitions of the Radical Republicans were, in the end, undermined and unfulfilled. Early Supreme Court rulings around the turn of the century upheld many of these new Southern constitutions and laws, and most blacks were prevented from voting in the South until the 1960s. Full federal enforcement of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments did not occur until passage of legislation in the mid-1960s as a result of the African-American Civil Rights Movement .

Republican Rule In The South

In the two years following the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln and the end of the Civil War in April 1865, Lincolns successor Andrew Johnson angered many northerners and Republican members of Congress with his conciliatory policies towards the defeated South. Freed African Americans had no role in politics, and the new southern legislatures even passed black codes restricting their freedom and forcing them into repressive labor situations, a development they strongly resisted. In the congressional elections of 1866, northern voters rejected Johnsons view of Reconstruction and handed a major victory to the so-called Radical Republicans, who now took control of Reconstruction.

Did you know? African Americans made up the overwhelming majority of southern Republican voters during Reconstruction. Beginning in 1867, they formed a coalition with carpetbaggers and scalawags to gain control of southern state legislatures for the Republican Party.

John Lindsay And Emanuel Celler On The Compromise Bill

On October 29, 1963, the House Judiciary Committee voted to report out a compromise civil rights bill to the full House. Representatives John Lindsay , Republican of New York, who helped craft the compromise bill after a stronger bill had been attacked by the Kennedy Administration and others as having no chance of passing, and Emanuel Celler , Democrat of New York and chairman of the committee, discuss the two bills in this excerpt from At Issue: Countdown on Civil Rights, broadcast January 15, 1964, on National Educational Television.

Watch the video

Georgia Democrats Typically Did Not Like Fellow Southerners Who Became Republicans After The Civil War And Supported Reconstruction Of The South

What name did the Democrats give Southerners who became Republicans?Abolitionists Carpetbaggers Scalawags Freedmen

Answer

answer is carpetbaggers remember it like a carpet goes up and the south came up in reconstruct with the north some of them

Virtual Teaching Assistant: Colleen R.

Question Level: Basic

Letter From Jane Horn

In 1964, Jane Horn worked for the Protestant Council of the City of New York. She organized 1,000 church and labor union members on a trip to Washington, D.C., to march in support of the Civil Rights Act. Horn also participated in the silent vigil in support of the act. Beginning in April of 1964, Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant seminary students served in shifts at the Lincoln Memorial, silently praying night and day until the act was passed by the Senate on June 19.

Jane Horn to the Voices of Civil Rights Project, June 5, 2004. Letter. Voices of Civil Rights Project Collection, American Folklife Center, Library of Congress Courtesy of Jane Horn

Bookmark this item: //https://ift.tt/3Bf2i4c

How Did This Switch Happen

Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government’s role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power traditionally, a Republican stance. 

But Republicans didn’t immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government. 

Related: 7 great congressional dramas

“Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice,” Rauchway wrote in an archived 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education. Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments. The party’s small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to the New Deal.

But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government? 

According to Rauchway, they, like Republicans, were trying to win the West. The admission of new western states to the union in the post-Civil War era created a new voting bloc, and both parties were vying for its attention.

Related: Busted: 6 Civil War myths

Additional resources:

Passage Of Civil Rights Bill Final Vote

Artist Howard Brodie captures the hustle and bustle of the Senate floor, the sense of people in the packed gallery pressing to see everything below, and the pages rushing to the edge of the dais on June 19, 1964, when the Senate voted to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On July 2, 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the bill into law. Brodie, a courtroom artist, covered the debates for CBS News.

1 of 2

Howard Brodie. Senate before final Civil Rights vote, final day. Crayon drawing, 1964.Howard Brodie Collection, , Library of Congress © Estate of Howard Brodie

Bookmark this item: //https://ift.tt/3Bf2iBe

âIn a jammed chamber of the U.S. Senate there came the solemn moment on Friday, June 19, when the eleven title Civil Rights Bill was approved by a vote of 73 to 27.â

Clarence Mitchell to Roy Wilkins, June 20, 1964

Barry Bonds Hits 715th Home Run To Pass Babe Ruth On Mlb List

Congress passage of the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 marked the beginning of the Radical Reconstruction period, which would last for the next decade. That legislation divided the South into five military districts and outlined how new state governments based on universal suffragefor both whites and blackswere to be organized. The new state legislatures formed in 1867-69 reflected the revolutionary changes brought about by the Civil War and emancipation: For the first time, blacks and whites stood together in political life. In general, the southern state governments formed during this period of Reconstruction represented a coalition of African Americans, recently arrived northern whites and southern white Republicans .

Civil Rights Legislation On The Fast Track

Senator Wayne Morse sails into the air after his motion to send the proposed Civil Rights legislation to the Judiciary Committee was defeated on March 26, 1964. Conservative cartoonist Gib Crockett, chief cartoonist at the Washington Star, appropriately uses a high-speed train as the metaphor for the Civil Rights legislation. After Morseâs motion was defeated, the Senate moved forward to debate it, driven by Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey, because President Lyndon Baines Johnson had put it on the fast track.

Gib Crockett. The switchman knew when he felt the bump, that the man at the throttle was Hubert Hump! 1964. Ink brush, crayon, and opaque white drawing. Published in the Washington Star, March 30, 1964. Art Wood Collection of Cartoon and Caricature, , Library of Congress

Bookmark this item: //https://ift.tt/3kvVnwP

Democrats V Republicans On Jim Crow

Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.

During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies it wasnt worth their while.

Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. Its fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.

Southern Democrats were truly awful.

Iv Reconstruction And Women

Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton maintained a strong and productive relationship for nearly half a century as they sought to secure political rights for women. While the fight for womens rights stalled during the war, it sprung back to life as Anthony, Stanton, and others formed the American Equal Rights Association. , between 1880 and 1902. Library of Congress.

for all

The AERA was split over whether Black male suffrage should take precedence over universal suffrage, given the political climate of the South. Some worried that political support for freedmen would be undermined by the pursuit of womens suffrage. For example, AERA member Frederick Douglass insisted that the ballot was literally a question of life and death for southern Black men, but not for women. Some African American women challenged white suffragists in other ways. Frances Harper, for example, a freeborn Black woman living in Ohio, urged them to consider their own privilege as white and middle class. Universal suffrage, she argued, would not so clearly address the complex difficulties posed by racial, economic, and gender inequality.

  Senate Civil Rights Debate

Working for CBS as a courtroom illustrator, Howard Brodie captured not only the action on the Senate floor, but the sensibility of the crowd in the gallery above. Blacks, whites, the elderly, the young, men and women gathered together, united in their desire to see the creation of the historic legislation.

Howard Brodie. Senate Civil Rights debate, Gallery. Crayon drawing, 1964. Howard Brodie Collection, , Library of Congress © Estate of Howard Brodie

Bookmark this item: //https://ift.tt/3BoAgDL

âIt is expected that the Mansfield-Dirksen amendment will be approved by a substantial vote.â

Clarence Mitchell to Roy Wilkins, May 8, 1964

Lawyer Clifford Alexander Interviewed By Camille O Cosby In 2006

Lawyer Clifford Alexander, Jr., , chairman of the U.S. Equal Emplyment Opportunity Commission , explains the meaning of the Civil Rights Act and how both blacks and whites in government pushed for change in an interview conducted by Camille O. Cosby for the National Visionary Leadership Project in 2006.

Watch the video

Civil Rights Activist Gwendolyn Simmons Interviewed By Joseph Mosnier In 2011

Civil rights activist Gwendolyn Simmons discusses Freedom Summer and her shock that Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner were murdered in an interview conducted by Joseph Mosnier for the Civil Rights History Project in 2011.

Civil Rights History Project Collection , American Folklife Center

Watch the video

Republicans And Democrats After The Civil War

Its true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. Its also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But theres more to it.

The Civil War-era GOP wasnt that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding, and monopolizing the new black vote.

In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.

The Myth Of The Republican

When faced with the sobering reality that Democrats supported slavery, started the Civil War when the abolitionist Republican Party won the Presidency, established the Ku Klux Klan to brutalize newly freed slaves and keep them from voting, opposed the Civil Rights Movement, modern-day liberals reflexively perpetuate rather pernicious myth–that the racist southern Democrats of the 1950s and 1960s became Republicans, leading to the so-called “switch” of the parties.

This is as ridiculous as it is easily debunked.   

The Republican Party, of course, was founded in 1848 with the abolition of slavery as its core mission. Almost immediately after its second presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, won the 1860 election, Democrat-controlled southern states seceded on the assumption that Lincoln would destroy their slave-based economies.

Once the Civil War ended, the newly freed slaves as expected flocked to the Republican Party, but Democrat control of the South from Reconstruction until the Civil Rights Era was near total.  In 1960, Democrats held every Senate seat south of the Mason-Dixon line.  In the 13 states that made up the Confederacy a century earlier, Democrats held a staggering 117-8 advantage in the House of Representatives.  The Democratic Party was so strong in the south that those 117 House members made up a full 41% of Democrats’ 283-153 advantage in the Chamber.

So how did this myth of a sudden “switch” get started?

It would not be the last time they used it.

The Importance Of Quorums

In this memorandum Arnold Aronson explains the importance of quorums. Under Senate rules each senator could deliver only two speeches on the same subject in a legislative day. Two senators could sustain a filibuster for eight hours by demanding frequent quorum calls that required fifty-one opposing senators to answer a roll call. If the opponents failed to produce a quorum, the Senate had to adjourn. The next day the filibustering senators could begin a new round of speeches. Senator Humphrey and Senator Thomas Kuchel addressed the quorum problem by dividing their troops into platoons and setting up a duty roster. Humphrey was committed to producing a daily quota of thirty-six Democratic senators for quorums; Kuchel pledged fifteen Republicans.

Arnold Aronson, secretary, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights to Cooperating Organizations regarding senators who support the civil rights bill, , March 16, 1964. Memorandum. Page 2 – Page 3 – Page 4 – Page 5 Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress

Bookmark this item: //https://ift.tt/3yoyBvX

âWe have a great team of senators led by Senators Hubert Humphrey . . . and Thomas Kuchel . . . .â

Clarence Mitchell to Roy Wilkins, March 27, 1964

âThe Civil Rights Bill is now the pending business in the Senate. The fight is on. We will need every vote that we can get.â

Clarence Mitchell to Roy Wilkins, March 27, 1964

Charles Sumner And Thaddeus Stevens

Charles Sumner: Charles Sumner was an American politician and senator from Massachusetts. During Reconstruction, he fought to minimize the power of the ex-Confederates and to guarantee equal rights to the freedmen.

Concerned that President Johnson was attempting to subvert congressional authority, Republicans in Congress took control of Reconstruction policies after the election of 1866. Radical Republicans, led by Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens, opened the way to suffrage for male freedmen. As the chief Radical leader in the Senate during Reconstruction, Sumner fought hard to provide equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen on the grounds that consent of the governed was a basic principle of American republicanism, and to block ex-Confederates from power so they would not reverse the gains made from the Unions victory in the Civil War.

Sumner, teaming with House leader Thaddeus Stevens, battled Andrew Johnson s Reconstruction plans and sought to impose a Radical program on the South. The Radical Republicans were generally in control of policy, although they had to compromise with the moderate Republicans. The Democrats in Congress had almost no power. Historians generally refer to this period as Radical Reconstruction.

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-name-did-the-democrats-give-southerners-who-became-republicans/

[georgiafivemidday]

Georgia Five Midday Lottery Results Today

The Georgia Lottery Corporation (GLC) releases Georgia Five Midday results for today Friday. The GA Lottery always conducts Georgia Five midday live drawings daily at 12:29 p.m., ET. Lottery Tickets for midday drawing can be purchased up to 10 minutes prior to live drawing time (12:19 p.m., ET for the midday drawing).

The only program in Georgia that's available to supply direct cash assistance to families in deep poverty Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) does little to realize families with only needs. For those it can reach, it provides insufficient income support. In 1996, 254,000 individuals received direct cash aid, while today only 16,000 individuals have access to TANF, reflecting a dramatic 93 percent decrease in caseload. Only five out of each 100 families in poverty receive cash assistance through TANF.

Georgia’s policies that erode TANF’s coverage are deeply connected to race. Evidence shows that the upper the proportion of Black families living during a state, the more likely policymakers are to spend less on direct cash assistance and establish policies to manage the way families in poverty run their lives, instead of simply giving them the direct aid necessary to satisfy basic needs.[3] Given this evidence, the particular incontrovertible fact that Georgia’s Black population is that the third-largest within the state and thus the state’s legacy of racist policymaking and monetary decisions, it's imperative that the study and reform of Georgia’s cash assistance policies are confronted through an anti-racist lens.

Using administrative and legislative policy information, original analyses of TANF data and insights from existing literature, this report explores the cash assistance policy choices Georgia lawmakers have made despite deep poverty and racial disparities within the economy. Specifically, the report finds that Georgia’s TANF program builds on harmful stereotypes about people of color and widens racial disparities by:

Directing large shares of TANF funds far away from direct cash assistance so on offset tax and budget cuts

Providing extremely low amounts of monetary assistance that aren't sufficient for any family to satisfy even their most straightforward needs

Enforcing a spread of the foremost restrictive benefit rules within the state that creates TANF inaccessible for several families in deep poverty

Why Cash Matters

In 2019, nearly 1.3 million Georgians lived below the poverty level, with one in five kids in poverty. Children of color in Georgia are particularly impacted by poverty, with poverty rates 3 times higher for Black (28 percent) and Latinx (27 percent) children than for whites (9 percent) and Asian (8 percent) children. One in ten Georgians sleeps in deep poverty, which is 50 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL), or $905 per month for a family of three. Georgia’s deep poverty rates range from 26 percent in Clinch County to only 2.2 percent in Oconee County.

Income support, especially during an economic recession, improves children’s health, educational and economic outcomes while simultaneously reducing childhood poverty. Even small amounts of money assistance can make a difference. Among families in poverty, children under the age of 6 whose families receive a $3,000 annual increase in income earn 17 percent more as adults compared to children whose families didn't receive an income boost. Research also shows that targeted cash assistance could narrow the Black-white child poverty gap by up to fifteen percent. This finding suggests that states ready to " which may eliminate barriers to income support like TANF cash assistance are able to do important gains for teenagers within the short- and long-term.

Direct cash assistance is critical for preventing the widening of racial disparities in economic, health, and academic outcomes. However, Georgia’s harsh rules and disinvestment from cash aid have severely impacted Black families, who, because slavery and segregation led to current unjust policies that reinforce poverty, structure 70 percent of TANF recipients. Despite the overrepresentation of Black families on TANF, the principles tied to cash assistance ignore Georgia’s long history of participation within the government-authorized oppression of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC). As a result, the program has become ineffective at offering stability that permits parents to figure and appearance out for his or her families.

As indicated earlier, high poverty rates in Georgia are persistent, yet TANF cash assistance as a poverty-fighting tool has been rendered inaccessible. The poverty rate is almost equivalent today because it had been the year after TANF was signed into law in 1997. Ideally, the decline in TANF participation over the last 24 years would be a result of an improving economy, with individuals lifted above the poverty level at a robust rate.

Lawmakers can reconfigure the state’s TANF program in order that it does a way better job of meeting the necessity for families with very low income or no income within the smallest amount. Georgia families need a floor to form upon now quite ever. An anti-racist cash assistance program can provide that floor.

Georgia History

While cash assistance policies are often perceived as race-blind, they're far away from that. Decades of reports written mostly by white academics and politicians promoted stereotypes that associate poverty and welfare participation with being Black. during this process, Black Americans became pathologically synonymous with the country’s inaccurate frame of reference for poverty: poor, at-risk, and lazy. Beliefs drove by racist attitudes about the mythological “welfare queen” led Americans to possess little confidence that cash assistance might be the solution to fighting poverty.

In the 1990s, Congress and thus the Clinton administration sought to reform the cash assistance program established within half the 20 century mentioned as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Ignoring structural barriers within the market, lawmakers grew frustrated with the trend of the varied AFDC recipients not working and allegedly becoming enthusiastic about welfare. They designed a replacement program mentioned as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and packaged the program into 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), with the hopes to “end welfare as we all know it.

TANF imposed restrictions in states like Georgia that had an extended history of making barriers to accessing previous cash assistance programs. States were required to chop benefits for families that did not suits work requirements, reinforcing the stereotype that cash assistance recipients didn't want to figure. States also got enough flexibility to deny benefits to people supported by characteristics that reflected racial stereotypes. States also had to opt out of a ban on providing assistance to individuals with felony drug convictions, and states were banned from using federal TANF funds surely groups of immigrants.

TANF consists of excessive rules that penalize poverty, creating yet one more domain where Black families are excessively surveilled and policed. These punitive rules have roots in slavery, Jim Crow and thus the policing of Black bodies, specifically Black women, and have permeated cash assistance policy in Georgia. as an example, one among the core purposes of TANF is preventing out-of-wedlock births, which stemmed from concerns of single-motherhood in Black communities. Georgia currently goes thus far on deny basic assistance to children who, through no fault of their own, are born while their mothers are on TANF. This policy is mentioned due to the family cap.

Georgia created a precursor to the present family cap policy under a former cash assistance program within the 1950s. In 1951, Governor Herman Talmadge sought to “put an end to illegitimate baby-having as a business in Georgia.” The state’s Director of the Department of Public Welfare, Alan Kemper, supported the governor’s call to implement a family cap by arguing that “70 percent of the cases of multiple illegitimacy during a family were in Negro families.” He claimed that a family cap would halt a “growing tendency to supply illegitimate children as an honest business” and “save the state $444,000 annually. therein same year, the Georgia General Assembly passed the primary law within the country that denied grants to “more than one bastard of a mother.

The federal pushed back on this early family cap policy, causing the state to not implement the policy at the time. However, the attempt exemplifies how the state has historically tried to manage Black reproductive behavior through cash assistance. The state eventually continued with what became mentioned as “suitable home policies” that attempted to stop unwed mothers from accessing cash aid. In 1993, Governor Zell Miller signed into law Georgia’s family cap provision for cash assistance that was approved by the federal.

In addition to restrictive eligibility policies for cash assistance, racial terror in Georgia also played a task in erecting barriers that prevented access to benefits. within the 1960s, the state’s Department of Welfare had to send investigators to Webster County in Southwest Georgia because there are “reports that Negroes eligible for welfare benefits particularly aid to dependent children refused to use for the benefit for fear that their homes would be burned or their lives placed in jeopardy.

The implementation of TANF in 1996 opened the floodgates for states with more direct involvement in centuries of racial subjugation namely southern states to rest on cash assistance programs that were fueled by racist attitudes. While states got many options to tailor programs for his or her states during how that ensured TANF is implemented as a real anti-poverty program, others, including Georgia, capitalized on the immense new flexibilities offered under the 1996 law to enact a spread of the foremost punitive restrictions within the country, most of which are still in situ today.

This post is about Georgia five midday, ga five midday, Georgia five lottery numbers, Georgia five midday winning numbers, ga five lottery numbers, and much more.

[georgiafiveevening]

Georgia Five Evening Lottery Draw Results

The Georgia Lottery Corporation (GLC) releases Georgia Five Evening results for today Wednesday. The GA Lottery always conducts Georgia Five Evening live drawings daily at 06:59 p.m., ET. Lottery Tickets for Evening drawing can be purchased up to 10 minutes prior to live drawing time (06:49 p.m., ET for the Evening drawing).

The only program in Georgia that's available to supply direct cash assistance to families in deep poverty Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) does little to realize families with only needs. For those it can reach, it provides insufficient income support. In 1996, 254,000 individuals received direct cash aid, while today only 16,000 individuals have access to TANF, reflecting a dramatic 93 percent decrease in caseload. Only five out of each 100 families in poverty receive cash assistance through TANF.

Georgia’s policies that erode TANF’s coverage are deeply connected to race. Evidence shows that the upper the proportion of Black families living during a state, the more likely policymakers are to spend less on direct cash assistance and establish policies to manage the way families in poverty run their lives, instead of simply giving them the direct aid necessary to satisfy basic needs.[3] Given this evidence, the particular incontrovertible fact that Georgia’s Black population is that the third-largest within the state and thus the state’s legacy of racist policymaking and monetary decisions, it's imperative that the study and reform of Georgia’s cash assistance policies are confronted through an anti-racist lens.

Using administrative and legislative policy information, original analyses of TANF data and insights from existing literature, this the report explores the cash assistance policy choices Georgia lawmakers have made despite deep poverty and racial disparities within the economy. Specifically, the report finds that Georgia’s TANF program builds on harmful stereotypes about people of color and widens racial disparities by:

Directing large shares of TANF funds far away from direct cash assistance so on offset tax and budget cuts

Providing extremely low amounts of monetary assistance that aren't sufficient for any family to satisfy even their most straightforward needs

Enforcing a spread of the foremost restrictive benefit rules within the state that creates TANF inaccessible for several families in deep poverty

Why Cash Matters

In 2019, nearly 1.3 million Georgians lived below the poverty level, with one in five kids in poverty. Children of color in Georgia are particularly impacted by poverty, with poverty rates 3 times higher for Black (28 percent) and Latinx (27 percent) children than for whites (9 percent) and Asian (8 percent) children. One in ten Georgians sleeps in deep poverty, which is 50 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL), or $905 per month for a family of three. Georgia’s deep poverty rates range from 26 percent in Clinch County to only 2.2 percent in Oconee County.

Income support, especially during an economic recession, improves children’s health, educational and economic outcomes while simultaneously reducing childhood poverty. Even small amounts of money assistance can make a difference. Among families in poverty, children under the age of 6 whose families receive a $3,000 annual increase in income earn 17 percent more as adults compared to children whose families didn't receive an income boost. Research also shows that targeted cash assistance could narrow the Black-white child poverty gap by up to fifteen percent. This finding suggests that states ready to " which may eliminate barriers to income support like TANF cash assistance are able to do important gains for teenagers within the short- and long-term.

Direct cash assistance is critical for preventing the widening of racial disparities in economic, health, and academic outcomes. However, Georgia’s harsh rules and disinvestment from cash aid have severely impacted Black families, who, because slavery and segregation led to current unjust policies that reinforce poverty, structure 70 percent of TANF recipients. Despite the overrepresentation of Black families on TANF, the principles tied to cash assistance ignore Georgia’s long history of participation within the government-authorized oppression of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC). As a result, the program has become ineffective at offering stability that permits parents to figure and appearance out for his or her families.

As indicated earlier, high poverty rates in Georgia are persistent, yet TANF cash assistance as a poverty-fighting tool has been rendered inaccessible. The poverty rate is almost equivalent today because it had been the year after TANF was signed into law in 1997. Ideally, the decline in TANF participation over the last 24 years would be a result of an improving economy, with individuals lifted above the poverty level at a robust rate.

Lawmakers can reconfigure the state’s TANF program in order that it does a way better job of meeting the necessity for families with very low income or no income within the smallest amount. Georgia families need a floor to form upon now quite ever. An anti-racist cash assistance program can provide that floor.

Georgia History

While cash assistance policies are often perceived as race-blind, they're far away from that. Decades of reports written mostly by white academics and politicians promoted stereotypes that associate poverty and welfare participation with being Black. during this process, Black Americans became pathologically synonymous with the country’s inaccurate frame of reference for poverty: poor, at-risk, and lazy. Beliefs drove by racist attitudes about the mythological “welfare queen” led Americans to possess little confidence that cash assistance might be the solution to fighting poverty.

In the 1990s, Congress and thus the Clinton administration sought to reform the cash assistance program established within half the 20 century mentioned as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Ignoring structural barriers within the market, lawmakers grew frustrated with the trend of the varied AFDC recipients not working and allegedly becoming enthusiastic about welfare. They designed a replacement program mentioned as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and packaged the program into 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), with the hopes to “end welfare as we all know it.

TANF imposed restrictions in states like Georgia that had an extended history of making barriers to accessing previous cash assistance programs. States were required to chop benefits for families that did not suits work requirements, reinforcing the stereotype that cash assistance recipients didn't want to figure. States also got enough flexibility to deny benefits to people supported by characteristics that reflected racial stereotypes. States also had to opt out of a ban on providing assistance to individuals with felony drug convictions, and states were banned from using federal TANF funds surely groups of immigrants.

TANF consists of excessive rules that penalize poverty, creating yet one more domain where Black families are excessively surveilled and policed. These punitive rules have roots in slavery, Jim Crow and thus the policing of Black bodies, specifically Black women, and have permeated cash assistance policy in Georgia. as an example, one among the core purposes of TANF is preventing out-of-wedlock births, which stemmed from concerns of single-motherhood in Black communities. Georgia currently goes thus far on deny basic assistance to children who, through no fault of their own, are born while their mothers are on TANF. This policy is mentioned due to the family cap.

Georgia created a precursor to the present family cap policy under a former cash assistance program within the 1950s. In 1951, Governor Herman Talmadge sought to “put an end to illegitimate baby-having as a business in Georgia.” The state’s Director of the Department of Public Welfare, Alan Kemper, supported the governor’s call to implement a family cap by arguing that “70 percent of the cases of multiple illegitimacy during a family were in Negro families.” He claimed that a family cap would halt a “growing tendency to supply illegitimate children as an honest business” and “save the state $444,000 annually. therein same year, the Georgia General Assembly passed the primary law within the country that denied grants to “more than one bastard of a mother.

The federal pushed back on this early family cap policy, causing the state to not implement the policy at the time. However, the attempt exemplifies how the state has historically tried to manage Black reproductive behavior through cash assistance. The state eventually continued with what became mentioned as “suitable home policies” that attempted to stop unwed mothers from accessing cash aid. In 1993, Governor Zell Miller signed into law Georgia’s family cap provision for cash assistance that was approved by the federal.

In addition to restrictive eligibility policies for cash assistance, racial terror in Georgia also played a task in erecting barriers that prevented access to benefits. within the 1960s, the state’s Department of Welfare had to send investigators to Webster County in Southwest Georgia because there are “reports that Negroes eligible for welfare benefits particularly aid to dependent children refused to use for the benefit for fear that their homes would be burned or their lives placed in jeopardy.

The implementation of TANF in 1996 opened the floodgates for states with more direct involvement in centuries of racial subjugation namely southern states to rest on cash assistance programs that were fueled by racist attitudes. While states got many options to tailor programs for his or her states during how that ensured TANF has implemented as a real anti-poverty program, others, including Georgia, capitalized on the immense new flexibilities offered under the 1996 law to enact a spread of the foremost punitive restrictions within the country, most of which are still in situ today.

This post is about Georgia five evening, Georgia 5 evening, Georgia five evening number, Georgia cash five evenings, Georgia five evening results, Georgia five result evening, and much more.

[georgiacash4night]

Georgia Cash 4 Night Lottery Draw Results Today

The Georgia Lottery Corporation (GLC) releases Georgia Cash 4Night results for today Tuesday. The Georgia Lottery always conducts Cash-4 Night live drawings daily at 10:45 p.m., ET. Lottery Tickets for Night drawing can be purchased up to 10 minutes prior to live drawing time (10:35 p.m., ET for the Night drawing).

The only program in Georgia that's available to provide direct cash assistance to families in deep poverty Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) does little to achieve families with the simplest needs. For those it can reach, it provides insufficient income support. In 1996, 254,000 individuals received direct cash aid, while today only 16,000 individuals have access to TANF, reflecting a dramatic 93 percent decrease in caseload. Only five out of every 100 families in poverty receive cash assistance through TANF.

Georgia’s policies that erode TANF’s coverage are deeply connected to race. Evidence shows that the upper the proportion of Black families living during a state, the more likely policymakers are to spend less on direct cash assistance and establish policies to manage the way families in poverty run their lives, rather than simply giving them the direct aid necessary to satisfy basic needs.[3] Given this evidence, the actual fact that Georgia’s Black population is that the third-largest within the state and thus the state’s legacy of racist policymaking and monetary decisions, it's imperative that the study and reform of Georgia’s cash assistance policies are confronted through an anti-racist lens.

Using administrative and legislative policy information, original analyses of TANF data and insights from existing literature, this report explores the cash assistance policy choices Georgia lawmakers have made despite deep poverty and racial disparities within the economy. Specifically, the report finds that Georgia’s TANF program builds on harmful stereotypes about people of color and widens racial disparities by:

Directing large shares of TANF funds away from direct cash assistance so on offset tax and budget cuts

Providing extremely low amounts of cash assistance that are not sufficient for any family to satisfy even their most simple needs

Enforcing a variety of the foremost restrictive benefit rules within the state that makes TANF inaccessible for several families in deep poverty

Why Cash Matters

In 2019, nearly 1.3 million Georgians lived below the poverty line, with one in five kids in poverty. Children of color in Georgia are particularly impacted by poverty, with poverty rates 3 times higher for Black (28 percent) and Latinx (27 percent) children than for whites (9 percent) and Asian (8 percent) children. One in ten Georgians sleeps in deep poverty, which is 50 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), or $905 per month for a family of three. Georgia’s deep poverty rates range from 26 percent in Clinch County to only 2.2 percent in Oconee County.

Income support, especially during an economic recession, improves children’s health, educational and economic outcomes while simultaneously reducing childhood poverty. Even small amounts of cash assistance can make a difference. Among families in poverty, children under the age of 6 whose families receive a $3,000 annual increase in income earn 17 percent more as adults compared to children whose families didn't receive an income boost. Research also shows that targeted cash assistance could narrow the Black-white child poverty gap by up to fifteen percent. This finding suggests that states ready to " which can eliminate barriers to income support like TANF cash assistance are able to do important gains for kids within the short- and long-term.

Direct cash assistance is critical for preventing the widening of racial disparities in economic, health, and academic outcomes. However, Georgia’s harsh rules and disinvestment from cash aid have severely impacted Black families, who, because slavery and segregation led to current unjust policies that reinforce poverty, structure 70 percent of TANF recipients. Despite the overrepresentation of Black families on TANF, the principles tied to cash assistance ignore Georgia’s long history of participation within the government-authorized oppression of Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC). As a result, the program has become ineffective at offering stability that allows parents to work and look out for their families.

As indicated earlier, high poverty rates in Georgia are persistent, yet TANF cash assistance as a poverty-fighting tool has been rendered inaccessible. The poverty rate is nearly the same today because it had been the year after TANF was signed into law in 1997. Ideally, the decline in TANF participation over the last 24 years would be a result of an improving economy, with individuals lifted above the poverty line at a strong rate.

Lawmakers can reconfigure the state’s TANF program so that it does a much better job of meeting the need for families with very low income or no income within the least. Georgia families need a floor to make upon now quite ever. An anti-racist cash assistance program can provide that floor.

Georgia History

While cash assistance policies are often perceived as race-blind, they're away from that. Decades of reports written mostly by white academics and politicians promoted stereotypes that associate poverty and welfare participation with being Black. during this process, Black Americans became pathologically synonymous with the country’s inaccurate frame of reference for poverty: poor, at-risk, and lazy. Beliefs drove by racist attitudes about the mythological “welfare queen” led Americans to possess little confidence that cash assistance could be the answer to fighting poverty.

In the 1990s, Congress and thus the Clinton administration sought to reform the cash assistance program established within half the 20 century mentioned as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Ignoring structural barriers within the market, lawmakers grew frustrated with the trend of the various AFDC recipients not working and allegedly becoming enthusiastic to welfare. They designed a replacement program mentioned as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and packaged the program into the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), with the hopes to “end welfare as we all realize it.

TANF imposed restrictions in states like Georgia that had an extended history of creating barriers to accessing previous cash assistance programs. States were required to cut benefits for families that didn't suits work requirements, reinforcing the stereotype that cash assistance recipients didn't want to work. States also got enough flexibility to deny benefits to people supported by characteristics that reflected racial stereotypes. States also had to opt-out of a ban on providing assistance to individuals with felony drug convictions, and states were banned from using federal TANF funds surely groups of immigrants.

TANF consists of excessive rules that penalize poverty, creating yet another domain where Black families are excessively surveilled and policed. These punitive rules have roots in slavery, Jim Crow and thus the policing of Black bodies, specifically Black women, and have permeated cash assistance policy in Georgia. as an example, one of the core purposes of TANF is preventing out-of-wedlock births, which stemmed from concerns of single-motherhood in Black communities. Georgia currently goes so far as to deny basic assistance to children who, through no fault of their own, are born while their mothers are on TANF. This policy is mentioned because of the family cap.

Georgia created a precursor to this family cap policy under a former cash assistance program within the 1950s. In 1951, Governor Herman Talmadge sought to “put an end to illegitimate baby-having as a business in Georgia.” The state’s Director of the Department of Public Welfare, Alan Kemper, supported the governor’s call to implement a family cap by arguing that “70 percent of the cases of multiple illegitimacy during a family were in Negro families.” He claimed that a family cap would halt a “growing tendency to provide illegitimate children as an honest business” and “save the state $444,000 annually. therein same year, the Georgia General Assembly passed the first law within the country that denied grants to “more than one bastard of a mother.

The federal pushed back on this early family cap policy, causing the state to not implement the policy at the time. However, the attempt exemplifies how the state has historically tried to manage Black reproductive behavior through cash assistance. The state eventually continued with what became mentioned as “suitable home policies” that attempted to prevent unwed mothers from accessing cash aid. In 1993, Governor Zell Miller signed into law Georgia’s family cap provision for cash assistance that was approved by the federal.

In addition to restrictive eligibility policies for cash assistance, racial terror in Georgia also played a task in erecting barriers that prevented access to benefits. within the 1960s, the state’s Department of Welfare had to send investigators to Webster County in Southwest Georgia because there are “reports that Negroes eligible for welfare benefits particularly aid to dependent children refused to use for the benefit for fear that their homes would be burned or their lives placed in jeopardy.

The implementation of TANF in 1996 opened the floodgates for states with more direct involvement in centuries of racial subjugation namely southern states to rest on cash assistance programs that were fueled by racist attitudes. While states got many options to tailor programs for his or her states during how that ensured TANF is implemented as a true anti-poverty program, others, including Georgia, capitalized on the immense new flexibilities offered under the 1996 law to enact a variety of the foremost punitive restrictions within the country, most of which are still in place today.