President Johnson signed the bill into law on July 2, 1964
For President Johnson to sign the Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964, was a no-brainer: the date was a Thursday, just as it is this year, and the symbolism of marking the hard-fought victory just before Independence Day would be a shame to waste.
But, as TIME noted in its original 1964 coverage of the landmark legislation, the Fourth of July wasn’t the only significant date in play. The date on which the Senate passed the bill was June 19, 1964—precisely one year after “President John Kennedy sent to Congress a civil rights bill, [and] urged its speedy passage ‘not merely for reasons of economic efficiency, world diplomacy or domestic tranquility, but above all because it is right.’” Though Kennedy had been assassinated the previous fall, the law he had advocated for had actually grown in strength and scope.
After the House also passed the bill and it went on to the President, the season of its signing—and not just the calendar date—would also prove significant.
The bill included many obviously important provisions affecting matters of great weight, like voting rights and equal employment. But, as TIME pointed out, it would take months to see the voting rules take effect, and the labor matters included a period during which businesses could adjust. On the other hand, one of the parts of the law—a part that may seem today to be far less important—was, as TIME put it, “effective immediately, and likely to cause the fastest fireworks.”
Please view the animation at SLATE.
Usually, when we say “American slavery” or the “American slave trade,” we mean the American colonies or, later, the United States. But as we discussed in Episode 2 of Slate’s History of American Slavery Academy, relative to the entire slave trade, North America was a bit player. From the trade’s beginning in the 16th century to its conclusion in the 19th, slave merchants brought the vast majority of enslaved Africans to two places: the Caribbean and Brazil. Of the more than 10 million enslaved Africans to eventually reach the Western Hemisphere, just 388,747—less than 4 percent of the total—came to North America. This was dwarfed by the 1.3 million brought to Spanish Central America, the 4 million brought to British, French, Dutch, and Danish holdings in the Caribbean, and the 4.8 million brought to Brazil.
This interactive, designed and built by Slate’s Andrew Kahn, gives you a sense of the scale of the trans-Atlantic slave trade across time, as well as the flow of transport and eventual destinations. The dots—which represent individual slave ships—also correspond to the size of each voyage. The larger the dot, the more enslaved people on board. And if you pause the map and click on a dot, you’ll learn about the ship’s flag—was it British? Portuguese? French?—its origin point, its destination, and its history in the slave trade. The interactive animates more than 20,000 voyages cataloged in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database. (We excluded voyages for which there is incomplete or vague information in the database.) The graph at the bottom accumulates statistics based on the raw data used in the interactive and, again, only represents a portion of the actual slave trade—about one-half of the number of enslaved Africans who actually were transported away from the continent.
There are a few trends worth noting. As the first European states with a major presence in the New World, Portugal and Spain dominate the opening century of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, sending hundreds of thousands of enslaved people to their holdings in Central and South America and the Caribbean. The Portuguese role doesn’t wane and increases through the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, as Portugal brings millions of enslaved Africans to the Americas.
Well, yesterday’s firehose of wingnut outrage was just an hors d’oeuvre. The main course is being served now. Enjoy.
Ben Shapiro, eternal 12-year-old and right-wing Token Chew Toy, has had a Twitter Derpsplosion over the Confederate Flag and gone utterly batshit.
A collection of Ben’s Most Insane Tweets Of The Day
Fourteen brands of bottled water have been recalled due to a potential E. coli contamination including food store brands ShopRite, Stop & Shop, Giant, Acme and Wegman’s.
Niagara Bottling has issued the voluntary recall for water bottled in its Pennsylvania facilities in Allentown and Hamburg mark with a code that begins with A or F respectively.
E. coli bacteria shows the water may be polluted with human or animal waste and can cause cause diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms if consumed.
There have been no reports of illness.
The following brands bottled between June 10 and June 18 are affected: Acadia, Acme, Big Y, Best Yet, 7-11, Niagara, Nature’s Place, Pricerite, Superchill, Morning Fresh, Shaws, Shoprite, Western Beef Blue and Wegman’s.
On Jan. 4, 1861, a Catholic bishop named Rev. A. Verot ascended a pulpit in The Church of St. Augustine, Florida, and defended the right of white people to own slaves.
The apostle Paul, Verot claimed in his sermon, instructs slaves to obey their masters as a “necessary means of salvation.” Quoting Colossians 3:22, he said, “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not serving to the eye, as pleasing men, but in simplicity of heart, fearing God.”
It’s no secret that hundreds of Christian pastors like Verot used the Bible during the Civil War to justify slavery. But the massacre last week of nine black people inside Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, has once again forced white Christians in America to re-examine the white church’s historical ties to racism — and how hateful rhetoric like Verot’s had more power because it came from the pulpit.
White Christians in the South didn’t just support slavery — the Southern church was the backbone of the Confederacy and its attempts to keep African Americans in bondage, according to Harry Stout, Jonathan Edwards Professor of American Religious History at Yale University.
“If you pull the church out of the whole equation, it’s highly likely that there never would have been a Civil War,” Stout told The Huffington Post. “Southern clergy had no doubt that slavery was not a sin.”
After they lost the war, white Southerners and their religious leaders tried to recast it by observing the “religion of the lost cause” — arguing that the South fought righteously not to keep slaves in chains, but to fight for states’ rights or to protect themselves from Northern aggression. As part of this “lost cause” religion, they began to idolize fallen Confederate war heroes and celebrate the Confederate flag.
In an interview with Boston Herald Radio last week, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker attacked Hillary Clinton for her advocacy for equal pay legislation, saying that she was just following in the footsteps of President Obama in trying to “pit one group of Americans versus another.”
When the program’s host, Adriana Cohen, asked Walker about misleading statistics from the conservative website Washington Free Beacon purporting to show a gender pay gap in Clinton’s Senate office, Walker agreed that it was “part of that amazing double standard.”
“But I think even a bigger issue than that,” he said, “and this is sadly something that would make her consistent with the president, and that is I believe that the president and now Hillary Clinton tend to think that politically they do better if they pit one group of Americans versus another.”
He said that, in contrast, “Americans are hungry” for leaders who will “make every American’s life better” rather than those who want to “pit one group against another group out there.”
He added that equal pay legislation is part of the liberal plot to get Americans “dependent on the government”: “For them, their measure of success in government is how many people are dependent on the government, how many people are dependent, on whether its Medicaid or food stamps or health care or other things out there.”
- See more at: rightwingwatch.org
What a fucking dumbass.
The leader of a white nationalist group cited in a chilling manifesto apparently written by the suspect in last week’s massacre at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina donated thousands of dollars to Republican presidential candidates, campaign finance records show.
The Guardian late Sunday first reported that Earl Holt III, the president of the Council of Conservative Citizens, donated to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).
The Council of Conservative Citizens is a white nationalist group based in St. Louis, Missouri that once had close ties to congressional Republicans. Prominent Southern GOPers including former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) spoke to the group several times in the 1990s, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Conservative politicians continued to associate with the group even after the Republican National Committee asked party members to sever ties with it in 1998, according to the SPLC.
Dylann Roof, the white, 21-year-old male charged with nine counts of murder after he opened fire at the downtown Charleston church, Emanuel AME, credited the Council of Conservative Citizens in the alleged manifesto with opening his eyes to “black on White” crime following the 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin.
“There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief,” the manifesto read. “At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?”
Holt said Sunday in a statement posted to the group’s website that his organization is “hardly responsible for the actions of this deranged individual merely because he gleaned accurate information from our website.”
Conservatives Frustrated by GOP’s Drop in Working Women’s Votes, But Keep Promoting Anti-Women Policies
The trend that worries conservative thinker Sabrina Schaeffer is this: Three elections ago, nearly half of all working mothers chose George W. Bush. In 2008, the share dropped to 40 percent for Sen. John McCain. By 2012, only about a third backed Mitt Romney.
But even more alarming to Schaeffer is that few, if any, of the current presidential candidates have made the needs of female breadwinners a centerpiece of their campaigns.
“For years now, Democrats have been saying: We are focused on women in the workplace,” said Schaeffer, executive director of the Independent Women’s Forum, a nonprofit organization that promotes conservative policies. “For whatever reason, Republicans keep ignoring these issues. It’s the absolute worst thing they can do. They need to understand, engage and offer better solutions. They can’t be afraid.”
Schaeffer is among a chorus of conservatives who have grown frustrated — and increasingly vocal — about the lack of proposals from GOP candidates that could help reverse this exodus of swing voters from the party.
These conservatives say Republicans have an opportunity to exploit new proposals in Washington that have been embraced by influential right-wing policymakers and economists.
But some Republican strategists say that many of the candidates are planning to wait until after the primary to take up such ideas, so as to not prematurely alienate social conservatives who think families are better off when one parent stays home. That has dismayed some in the party who view the matter as urgent, especially with Hillary Rodham Clinton looming as the likely Democratic nominee.
“Every parent who works has been through the day-care nightmare,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the senior economic policy adviser to McCain (R-Ariz.) during the 2008 election. “This has been underappreciated by Republican candidates in part and conservatives in general. They think this stuff is automatic.”
Although several of the Republican candidates have long supported expanding the child tax credit, some conservative women leaders say that idea may not be enough to compete with Democrats.
Right-leaning policymakers have been floating other proposals. An economist at the American Enterprise Institute has recommended allowing pregnant workers to claim part of their tax refund early to fund their maternity leave. A Heritage Foundation economist has proposed loosening labor regulations so parents can easily swap overtime pay for compensation days. Others are advocating for over-the-counter birth control.
Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) wants to reward companies with a 25-cent tax credit for every dollar spent on its employees’ family or medical leave.
All of these policies hurt women, but help corporations.
1. Replace paid overtime with compensation time off.
This is bullshit, because employers can deny employees time off while not paying them for overtime.
2. Over the counter birth control.
Which a woman worker would have to pay for out of pocket instead of it being covered by her health insurance.
3. Tax credit to corporations for allowing employees to take paid medical leave and family leave.
So who gets the benefit here? THE JERB CREEYATERZ!!!!!
4. Equal pay
Are you fucking kidding me?