The Civil Rights Act of 1957
Part Thirty-Three: Senator Strom Thurmond gives the longest filibuster speech in history.
Southern Democrats in the 85th Congress fought tooth and nail against the civil rights legislation making its way through both chambers. The 1957 civil rights bill was modest compared to what President Truman had requested in 1948. Yet, the Dixiecrats didn’t want Black Southerners to have any rights at all.
In mid-May, Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC) and Senator Olin Johnston (D-SC) issued a minority report denouncing the administration’s civil rights bill as “indefensible” and as conferring “autocratic and despotic” powers on the Attorney General[1]. Both Senators were members of the Judiciary Sub-Committee, which passed the civil rights bill on March 19 in a 4-2 vote. However, the full Judiciary Committee still hadn’t taken the bill up by May.
Ervin and Johnston said the bill was “deliberately designed to rob citizens of their basic Constitutional rights and give the Attorney General a legal club to browbeat States and local officials into submission to his will.”
The Dixiecrats threw everything but the kitchen sink at the bill. Before the end of May, their crusade against the legislation was offered in amendments to weaken the bill. They claimed that the legislation would deprive election officials, who barred Black people from the polls, of their constitutional right to trial by jury[2]. But their claims were untrue. Nothing in the civil rights legislation would have deprived the constitutional right to a jury trial.
On May 17, 1957, 27,000 people attended the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom in Washington, DC[3]. The Prayer Pilgrimage was the occasion when Reverend King gave his “Give Us the Ballot” speech.
The May 19, 1957 issue of the Evening Star published side-by-side competing arguments about the civil rights bill, and instead, it would take away the right to trial by jury. The article on the left, written by Senator Thomas Henning Jr, a Liberal Democrat, was titled “No Right Is Denied.” The article on the right, titled “A Right Is Being Sacrificed,” was written by Dixiecrat Senator Sam Ervin[4].
The battle over the civil rights bill began in the House on June 5[5]. After weeks of debate, the House finally passed it on June 18[6].
When the House sent the bill to the Senate, the Senate voted to allow the bill to bypass the Senate Judiciary Committee and go straight to the Senate calendar[7].
The Southern Senators called it a legislative lynching by the coalition of Liberal Republicans and Northern Democrats. However, voting to keep it out of the Judiciary Committee was justifiable since Senator Eastland headed that committee and wouldn’t allow any civil rights bills through[8].
Senator Richard Russell charged that the real purpose of the civil rights bill wasn’t to protect voting rights but to give the Federal Government a weapon to enforce the Supreme Court decision against racial segregation in schools. Bypassing the committee happened with a 45-39 vote.
While the normal Southern Dixiecrats voted against this measure, 11 Northern and Western Democrats joined them and five Republicans. Those included Wayne Morse, a Democrat in 1957, John F. Kennedy, and Barry Goldwater.
They had voted to send the bill to Senator Eastland’s committee. If successful, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 would never have happened—indeed, they knew that.
Senator Morse said on the Senate floor, “The right to appear before a Congressional committee and testify is, as I have said, also part of the democratic rights of the people of the United States. Certainly, they have a right to appear before the Senate committee, and to present their views, and to have them recorded for the official transcript when such a bill is considered by a Senate committee.
“I believe we are turning our backs not only on long-established customs in connection with the handling of House bills but also on a very important check which the people of the United States are entitled to have preserved for their benefit. In my judgment, citizens across the land should be given the opportunity to appear at public hearings held by the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, and to testify there regarding the House bill, because that measure is vital, and it might very well be vital to the tranquility of the Nation[9].”
Senator Kennedy echoed Senator Morse’s concerns. “Even leaving out of consideration the Reorganization Act, does not seem to the Senator, from reading rule XIV, particularly, subparagraph 4, that it is intended to prevent precipitate action after the first and second reading, and that the whole intention of the four subsections is to provide that there shall not be action by a majority or a minority of Senators against the will of one Senator without Senate procedures being followed.
“It seems to me there is no doubt that what was intended by subparagraph 4 of rule CIV was that if one member objected, the bill should go to the calendar and lie over for a day. It could not have been intended that one Senator should be able to prevent a bill from going to a committee. Rather the intention was to protect Senators, both individually and collectively, against action being taken on the three readings at one time without an intervening period.
“If the legal interpretation of the section – it certainly is mine – I also stress the customs of the Senate, which the Senator from Oregon discussed. I think it would be disastrous for the Senate – conservative and liberals alike – if we were to give credence to an interpretation of the rules which would permit one Senator to prevent important bills, whether they originated in the House or the Senate, from being referred to the respective committees.”
The Liberal Democrats, including Morse and Kennedy, voted to send the civil rights bill to the committee, even though it would have died there because of “Senate norms.”
A common problem America has seen with Congressional Liberals over the last century is when they lose critical measures in Congress because they want to follow the rules or be polite. However, the Liberal Senator who voted to put it on the Senate calendar instead of sending it to Eastland’s committee did what was morally right, even if it broke Senate norms.
This move led to newly appointed Republican Party National Committee Chairman Meade Alcorn charging the “Liberal Democrats” of hoodwinking minority groups for years and showing their true colors by selling out the civil rights legislation[10].
Senator Barry Goldwater, an Arizona Republican, had been making waves throughout 1957 for his positions on racial justice and frequently siding with the Dixiecrats. In January, he attempted to push a right-to-work rider in the civil rights bill, making the FEPC measure in the bill null[11]. Then, in March, he proposed another amendment, which would have deleted the word “sex” as one of the discrimination factors [12]. Goldwater later became a monumental piece of what made the Southern Strategy successful.
The week after the Senate voted to bypass the Judiciary Committee with the House bill, Eastland’s committee voted 7-5 to table the Senate version of the bill[13].
As the time to debate the bill drew near, the Southern Dixiecrats lashed out in a dramatic intro.
On July 2, 1957, Senator Richard Russell gave a speech on the Senate floor. He opened by saying, “Mr. President, for the first time since I have been a member of the Senate, I respectfully request that I be not interrupted in the course of my prepared discussion. I shall be happy to yield to any Senator who wishes to discuss any phase of my remarks when I have finished[14].”
Other quotes from Russell’s speech:
“The unusual powers of this bill could be utilized to force the white people of the South at the point of a Federal bayonet to conform at almost any conceivable edict directed at the destruction of any local customs, laws, or practices separating the races in order to enforce a commingling of the races throughout the social order of the South.”
“Neither Sumner nor Stevens in the persecution of the South in the twelve tragic years of Reconstruction ever cooked up any such devil’s broth as is proposed in this misnamed civil rights bill.”
Russell spoke with the passion of a Southern Belle. Southern Senators Ervin, Stennis, Holland, Thurmond, and Hill each took turns asking Russell to yield for questioning and then showered his speech and perspective with praises.
Shortly before the civil rights debate started in the Senate, Senator Russell led a group of Southern Senators in a meeting with President Eisenhower. The Dixiecrats asked for a national referendum on the civil rights issue to let the people vote. Eisenhower rejected their proposal[15].
Debate on the Civil Rights Bill started on July 8, 1957. Initially, there were four parts to the civil rights bill:
I. Establishment of the commission on civil rights.
II. To provide for an additional assistant Attorney General.
III. To strengthen the civil rights statutes and for other purposes.
IV. To further secure and protect the right to vote.
The fifth part was added on July 8th by amendment, introduced by Senator Joseph O’Mahoney (D-WY). O’Mahoney said the amendment was the basis of compromise.
V. Jury trials in certain contempt cases.
The Senators debated on what was truth and fact.
Liberal Democrat Senator Paul Douglas from Illinois said, “All of us know – and this knowledge is supported by statistics and press account – that the rights to vote is denied to vast numbers of Negroes, particularly in those areas where they are found in large numbers, namely the Southern States. Frequently, this is done by legal and procedural subterfuge, often by social pressure, sometimes by economic pressure, and – upon occasion – by outright coercion. The net effect of all these methods is the practical disenfranchisement of the vast proportion of potential Negro voters of the South[16].”
Senator Sam Ervin retorted, “It is stated that the bill is simply designed to secure voting rights for Negroes in Southern States. I am going to say this bluntly, and I will say it plainly, so that he who runs may read and not err in so doing: There is not a scintilla of truth in the oft-repeated assertion that the bill is simply designed to secure voting rights to Negroes in Southern States.”
The civil rights debate started. The discussion on whether they would consider the civil rights legislation went on daily while Senators continued with regular business.
On July 16, 1957, the Senate voted to consider House Bill 6127, known as the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Dixiecrats lost in a 71-18 vote.
The Senators who voted against taking the civil rights bill up:
Harry Byrd (D-VA)
James Eastland (D-MS)
Allen Ellender (D-LA)
Sam Ervin (D-NC)
William Fulbright (D-AR)
Lister Hill (D-AL)
Spessard Holland (D-FL)
Olin Johnston (D-SC)
Russell Long (D-LA)
John McClellan (D-AR)
Absalom Robertson (D-VA)
Richard Russell (D-GA)
Kerr Scott (D-NC)
George Smathers (D-FL)
John Sparkman (D-AL)
John Stennis (D-MS)
Herman Talmadge (D-GA)
Strom Thurmond (D-SC)
And the debate went on.
On July 22, the Senators discovered that an old Revised Statutes section remained intact during the debate. They made the discovery when they were cross-referencing the enforcement of certain of the court's orders.
That section of the United States Code was an 1870 law that empowered the President to use troops to enforce civil rights laws and decrees.
The old Reconstruction law permitted military use in the South and was never repealed after the Reconstruction Era. Finally, after 87 years, the Senate voted to repeal the old law. The repeal passed 90-0[17].
And the debate went on.
On July 24, the Senate voted by 52-38 to eliminate a bill section. Instead of criminal laws, the Attorney General could have used Federal injunctions to enforce school integration or other civil rights[18]. The vote to eliminate this section included 22 Southern Democrats, 18 Republicans, and 12 Northern or Western Democrats.
And the debate went on.
On July 29, the Senate took a two-day recess on the civil rights debate to vote on other legislation, including a pay raise for postal workers and ensuring defense employees had a paycheck[19].
After the recess, the debate went on.
On August 2, the Senate added the O’Mahoney-Kefauver-Church amendment in a 51-42 vote. The amendment assured a jury trial where the underlying facts constitute a criminal offense[20]. President Eisenhower lashed out, threatening to veto the civil rights bill, saying that the jury trial amendment would weaken the Nation’s judicial system[21].
And the debate went on.
By early August, the fate of the civil rights bill depended on whether Senators could persuade the House to accept it without a conference. If the bill went to a conference, working out a compromise would have taken a long time. And if the compromise weakened the jury trial amendment, the Senate would have fought it.
House Minority Leader Joseph Martin said it would be impossible to work out a good bill in less than two months, so the bill might have well gone over until January, when Congress started a new session. However, Martin assured his colleagues that the bill wouldn’t die[22].
And the debate went on.
Finally, on August 8, the Senate approved the civil rights bill 72-18. The same 18 Dixiecrats voted against taking it up[23]. It was the first civil rights bill passed in the United States in 87 years. During that long stretch, the House passed several civil rights measures only to succumb to the Dixiecrat filibuster in the Senate.
The Senate sent the bill to the House.
On August 13, there were two separate attempts to get action on the bill by unanimous consent in the House. Both attempts failed. House Speaker Sam Rayburn favored the bill with the jury trial amendment. But Minority Leader Joseph Martin denounced the jury trial amendment and wanted it either struck from the bill or altered[24]. Democrats and Republicans in the House could not find common ground, so the bill was sent to a 12-person Rules Committee[25]. The committee consisted of eight Democrats and four Republicans.
Finally, on August 23, the House and the Senate compromised. Under the compromise, Federal judges could try minor citizens' voting rights violations without a jury. But if the judge imposed a penalty of more than $300 fine or more than 45 days in jail, the defendant could demand a new trial with a jury[26].
The House Rules Committee voted 10-2 to clear the bill and send it to the House floor on August 26[27]. The next day, the full House voted on the bill, which passed 279-97. 128 Democrats and 151 Republicans voted yes on the bill, followed by 97 Democrats and 15 Republicans who voted no[28].
The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was debated in the Senate on August 28, starting Senator Strom Thurmond’s now-infamous 24-hour and 18-minute filibuster.
Thurmond opened his filibuster touting States’ rights and cited laws from each state, claiming protected voting rights. Then, he spoke against the voter intimidation parts of the bill, saying there were efficient enough statutes on the books to prevent voter intimidation, then read every law in the US code that would penalize voter intimidation. Next, Thurmond railed against the jury trial amendment, calling it unconstitutional. He then read multiple sections and clauses in the Constitution that referred to States’ rights, the Bill of Rights, and the roles of the courts[29].
One statement by Senator Thurmond could sum up his entire 24-hour-long speech, “I am confident that the pending bill is a dangerous bill in a number of ways. I have pointed out that it is necessary that every State in the Nation have laws to protect the right to vote. The Senator’s own State of California has such laws. I started with the State of Alabama and read the laws for every state. Those laws were confirmed to be accurate by the Library of Congress. I read the state laws beginning with Alabama and ending with Wyoming. Every state in the Nation has laws to protect the right to vote.
“I say there is no need for the pending bill. This is a matter that comes under the Constitution and should be left to the States. It is a State matter. It is not a Federal matter.
“Furthermore, the Federal Government has invaded the field. It has already invaded the field. I believe it made a mistake when it did so.”
On August 30, the Senate voted on the bill. It passed 72-18. There were no Republicans who voted against it. 29 Democrats voted yes on the bill, and 18 Democrats voted no[30].
President Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 into law on September 9, 1957.
[1] Associated Press, “Ervin, Johnston Rap Rights Bill,” Evening Star, (May 11, 1957)
[2] The Detroit Tribune, “Sees Jury Trial Demand in Rights case Spurious,” (May 18, 1957)
[3] Fred Ross, “27,000 Pray for Passage of Rights Legislation in DC,” Arizona Sun, (May 30, 1957)
[4]Evening Star, “The Civil Rights Bill and Trial by Jury,” (May 19, 1957)
[5] Robert K. Walsh, “Rights Bill Fight Opens on House Floor Today,” Evening Star, (June 5, 1957)
[6] J. A. O’Leary, “House Approves Civil Rights Bill By 286 to 126,” Evening Star, (June 18, 1957)
[7] The Miami Times, “Civil Rights Bill Bypasses Senate Comm,” (June 22, 1957)
[8] J. A. O’Leary, “Rights Bill Seen Clearing First Senate Hurdle,” Evening Star, (June 20, 1957)
[9] Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 85th Congress, First Session
[10] The Detroit Tribune, “Claim Dems Sold Out on Civil Rights,” (July 6, 1957)
[11] Arizona Sun, “Information Urgently Requested,” (January 31, 1957)
[12] Evening Star, “Arlington Women Hit Proposed Rights Board,” (March 1, 1957)
[13] J. A. O’Leary, “Senators Vote, 7 to 5, to Sidetrack Rights Bill,” Evening Star, (June 24, 1957)
[14] Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 85th Congress, First Session
[15] Jackson Advocate, “Eisenhower Taking Closer Look at Civil Rights Bill,” (July 13, 1957)
[16] Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 85th Congress, First Session
[17] Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 85th Congress, First Session
[18] J. A. O’Leary, “Senate Divided Sharply in Final Rights Test,” Evening Star (July 25, 1957)
[19] Joseph Young, “Recess on Civil Rights for Pay Vote Weighed,” Evening Star, (July 30, 1957)
[20] Evening Star, “Jury Trial Amendment Assailed by President,” (August 2, 1957)
[21] The Nome Nugget, “Eisenhower Says Senate Amendment for Jury Trial in Civil Rights Bill Weakens Judicial System,” (August 2, 1957)
[22] J. A. O’Leary, “Fate of Rights Bill Hangs on Issue of Conference,” Evening Star (August 4, 1957)
[23] Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 85th Congress, First Session
[24] J. A. O’Leary, “Rayburn Backs Rights Bill, Rider,” Evening Star, (August 9, 1957)
[25] J. A. O’Leary, “Moves to Speed Rights Bill Fail,” Evening Star, (August 13, 1957)
[26] J. A. O’Leary, “Rights Bill Passage Expected Next Week,” Evening Star, (August 24, 1957)
[27] The Nome Nugget, “House Committee Votes to Clear Civil Rights Bill for Action,” (August 26, 1957)
[28] Evening Star, “How the House Voted in Passing Rights Bill,” (August 28, 1957)
[29] Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 85th Congress, First Session
[30] Associated Press, “Senate Vote on Rights Bill,” Evening Star, (August 30, 1957)