Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1957

Untitled

"three years ago"? When was this written? --Tothebarricades.tk 06:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This reads like it came out of a children's black history book Alister Namarra 11:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This article states that the longest filibuster in history was because of this bill. Another says that it was the Civil Rights Act of 1960 that resulted in the longest filibuster in history. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.193.81 (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thurmond's filibuster was the longest one-man filibuster in history (the other Southern Senators were willing to go along because the bill had no teeth). The 1960 filibuster was longer, but had more than one filibusterer. Thurmond's filibuster is of much less importance than the ability of (majority leader) Lyndon Johnson to pass any civil rights bill at all, given the traditional obstructionist policies of the Southern Coalition at the time. 128.9.208.143 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thurmond was a Democrat

One user keeps reverting several other users by putting "Southern Republican Strom Thurmond" in the introduction when in reality Thurmond was a Democrat at the time. Let's get a common sense discussion here.

Dumaka, did you notice you're the only one supporting your factually incorrect edit? Please stop acting like you own the article, and please stick to the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.244.13 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It says he was a Democrat in the article so you make no sense. Dumaka (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that the article mentions the fact that Thurmond eventually changed parties. The problem with this is that it's not really relevant to the filibuster or the Civil Rights Act of 1957. It certainly deserves examination as a part of the article on Strom Thurmond, on the Democratic Party and on the Republican Party. I don't think that it's relevant to this article. Without further dissent, I am going to remove the second clause of the second sentence in question on 16 February 2010 after 0:00UTC. Sahrin (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And here's the issue, in as simple terms as I can possibly state. Who conducted the record-setting filibuster? Republican Strom Thurmond? Or Democrat Strom Thurmond? Sounds like case closed to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.244.13 (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely Correct136.142.57.236 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the current article now reads "then-Democrat" to resolve the conflict. 172.126.16.173 (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Messy much?

As a student, was looking for information on this. I found nothing on what it did, and tons on what the next few bills down the line are. Definately needs some cleaning up. 167.93.7.32 (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Then why don't you fix it? Dumaka (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing Information

Although this article does a fine job of establishing a context for the passage and the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, it says little to nothing about the actual contents of the Act, which is a major omission. The article needs a section by section breakdown or summary of the bill's major provisions. Are there any legislative experts out there who want to tackle this? Uncle Dick (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by ftm

P.L. 85-315 September 9, 1957. 71 Stat 634-638. The law is focused exclusively on voting rights. Sec. 101 sets up a six-member Civil Rights Commission in the Executive Branch to gather information on deprivation of citizens' voting rights based on color, race, religion or national origin, the legal background, and laws and policies of the Federal Government. Not later than 2 years from date of enactment of this law the Commission will submit a final report to the President and the Congress, and will cease to exist.

Part IV, Section 131 is the most important action section of the law. It sets forth prohibitions against intimidating, coercing or otherwise interfering with the rights of persons to vote for the President and members of Congress. The Attorney General of the United States "may" [sic] institute actions including injunctions and charges of contempt of court with fines not to exceed $1000 and six months imprisonment. There are also extensive safeguards for the rights of accused under this statute.

The caution incorporated in this law reflects the sensitivity of the issues, complicated by the significant role of southern Democrats in the House and Senate 173.73.163.205 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Caro's book Master of the Senate brings up the "Church" amendment and also describes how Sen John F. Kennedy supported the Omiany amendment, both in regard to the 1957 civil rights bill. I think these amendments were in regard to the prosecution of people who violated the law as set forth in the bill. Can someone detail exactly what these amendments were? I can not find much of anything about these amendments on the internet. Entrancefeeder (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Civil Rights Act of 1957. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205051926/http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03CivilRights06111963.htm to http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03CivilRights06111963.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Civil Rights Act of 1957. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107182758/http://articles.boston.com/2007-11-21/news/29228077_1_civil-rights-nichols-truman-s-executive-order to http://articles.boston.com/2007-11-21/news/29228077_1_civil-rights-nichols-truman-s-executive-order
• Added archive https://archive.is/20081024003547/http://www.civilrights.org/publications/monitor/august1988/art3p1.html to http://www.civilrights.org/publications/monitor/august1988/art3p1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)