# data[].attributes.body
This 1790 act set the new nation's naturalization procedures. It limited access to U.S. citizenship to white immigrants to people from Western Europe. They must have had to resided in the U.S. at least two years and their children under 21 years of age. It also granted citizenship to children born abroad to U.S. citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
Restricted Citizenship Crisis: Restrictions for citizenship rights of free African Americans including those who were native-born children of enslaved African women.

# data[].attributes.body
Naturalization Act- "This 1790 act set the new nation's naturalization procedures. It limited access to U.S. citizenship to white immigrants—in effect, to people from Western Europe—who had resided in the U.S. at least two years and their children under 21 years of age. It also granted citizenship to children born abroad to U.S. citizens."

# data[].attributes.body
Excludes Asians from naturalized citizenship

# data[].attributes.body
Southern states ban education of enslaved Africans. Slave owners viewed literacy as a threat to their institutions of slavery.

# data[].attributes.body
The act of Civilization of 1819 was a program that paid missionaries to help the federal government establish schools on Indian territories. These schools taught native American children to replace tribal practices with Christian practices.

# data[].attributes.body
A Cherokee man invents the alphabet for their spoken language. This allowed oral history to be written down.

# data[].attributes.body
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 authorized the president to set aside lands west of the Mississippi for the exchange of Indian lands to the east. This called for the tribal removal of Indians and forced resettlement to new lands as entire nations of people were forced out of their land. This was also called the Trail of Tears as many Indians died from cholera, exposure, contaminated foods, and the hazards of frontier travel.

# data[].attributes.body
This treaty, signed on February 2, 1848, ended the war between the United States and Mexico. By its terms, Mexico ceded 55 percent of its territory, including parts of present-day Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah, to the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
Grants U.S citizenship to residents of lands ceded to the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
Roberts v. City of Boston. A prelude to Brown v. Board of Education, sought to end racial discrimination in Boston public schools. This case set the principle of "separate but equal" 50 years prior to Plessy v. Ferguson.

# data[].attributes.body
California Supreme Court denies right of Chinese to testify in courts based on ban against Native American testimony. Court rules Native American laws apply to Chinese according to Bering Sea thesis.

# data[].attributes.body
Tape decision- Asian Americans provided access to public schools
California legislature creates segregated schools for Chinese

# data[].attributes.body
Massachusetts is the first state to outlaw school segregation.
Many African Americans were content with sending their children to Black schools until they noticed that the schooling was not equal. There were many petitions and protests but none were effective. Due to the work of many dedicated activists, including William C. Nell the Massachusetts legislature finally outlawed public school segregation in 1855 in a significant and widely celebrated win for the equal schools movement.

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. Supreme Court rules in Chan Yong case that Chinese are not "white" and, therefore, ineligible for citizenship under 1790 Naturalization Act

# data[].attributes.body
California requires all school instruction to be conducted in English.

# data[].attributes.body
Tape decision- Asian Americans provided access to public schools. California legislature creates segregated schools for Chinese.

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott decision- U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a slave residing in a free state was not entitled to freedom. AA would never be citizens of the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
Freedman's Bureau created. "The Bureau was responsible for the supervision and management of all matters relating to the refugees and freedmen and lands abandoned or seized during the Civil War, duties previously shared by military commanders and US Treasury Department officials" (archives.gov) It's primary goal was to help formerly enslaved people become self-sufficient.

# data[].attributes.body
African American Schools in the Urban South, 1865–1890offers a powerful testimony of the courage, will, agency, and wherewithal of African Americans emerging from slavery in the decades following the Civil War demanding that justice and equality be afforded to them and their children.

# data[].attributes.body
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens, "without distinction of race or color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude." Although President Andrew Johnson vetoed the legislation, that veto was overturned by the 39th United States Congress.

# data[].attributes.body
Civil Rights Act- U.S. citizenship for native-born except Native Americans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Affirmative action

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens, "without distinction of race or color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude." Although President Andrew Johnson vetoed the legislation, that veto was overturned by the 39th United States Congress and the bill became law. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the nation's first civil rights law.

Background

Under President Andrew Johnson's (D) Reconstruction policy, the former Confederate states were required to maintain abolition, swear loyalty to the United States, and pay their war debts in order to rejoin the Union. Under Johnson's Reconstruction policy, southern states adopted and enacted a series of laws "designed to restrict freed blacks' activity and ensure their availability as a labor force." Although these laws recognized certain liberties, they largely denied black citizens equal protection under the law. For instance, these laws restricted property, contract, and labor rights for black citizens. Republican lawmakers in the United States Congress, who "believed the federal government had a role in shaping a multiracial society in the postwar South," opposed Johnson's plan for Reconstruction and sought a different approach.

Legislative history

Senator Lyman Trumbull ( R- Illinois) introduced the bill in the United States Senate on January 5, 1866. On February 2, 1866, the Senate voted to approve the bill 33-12. On March 13, 1866, the United States House of Representatives approved the legislation by a vote of 111-38, with 34 members not voting. Representative William Lawrence ( R- Ohio), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the following in support of the act:

"

There are certain absolute rights which pertain to every citizen, which are inherent, and of which a State cannot constitutionally deprive him. But not only are those rights inherent and indestructible, but the means whereby they may be possessed and enjoyed are equally so. ... Every citizen, therefore, has the absolute right to live, the right of personal security, personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These are rights of citizenship. As necessary incidents of these rights there are others, as the right to make and enforce contracts, to purchase, hold, and enjoy property, and to share the benefit of laws for the security of person and property.

"

-Representative William Lawrence

On March 27, 1866, President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act. Johnson wrote the following in his veto statement:

"

In all our history, in all our experience as a people living under Federal and State law, no such system as that contemplated by the details of this bill has ever before been proposed or adopted. They establish for the security of the colored race safeguards which go indefinitely beyond any that the General Government has ever provided for the white race. In fact, the distinction of race and color is by the bill made to operate in favor of the colored against the white race. They interfere with the municipal legislation of the States; with relations existing exclusively between a State and its citizens, or between inhabitants of the same State; an absorption and assumption of power by the General Government which, if acquiesced in, must sap and destroy our federative system of limited power, and break down the barriers which preserve the rights of the States.

"

-President Andrew Johnson

On April 6, 1866, the Senate voted 33-15 to override Johnson's veto. The House followed suit on April 9, 1866, by a vote of 122-41, with 21 members not voting. As a result, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 became law.

Key features

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is notable for being the nation's first civil rights law. The act established that all persons born in the United States, regardless of race, color, or "previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude," were entitled to basic rights of citizenship "in every state and territory in the United States." The law further declared that all such individuals were entitled to the following specific rights:

1. "to make and enforce contracts"

2. "to sue, be parties, and give evidence" in court

3. "to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property"

4. "to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other"

The law also provided for the conviction and punishment of individuals who violated the law.

Later developments

The Civil Rights of 1866 did not address political rights, which include the right to vote and the right to hold public office. The Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, ratified in February 1870, guaranteed to all United States citizens the right to vote regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Even so, according to the National Constitution Center, the Fifteenth Amendment "had little impact for almost a century because states imposed poll taxes, literacy tests, and other restrictions that kept African Americans from voting." Subsequent legislative actions in the 20th century, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, were taken to address this problem.

External links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Affirmative action The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens, "without distinction of race or color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude." Although President Andrew Johnson vetoed the legislation, that veto was overturned by the 39th United States Congress and the bill became law.

# data[].attributes.body
Declared all persons born in the U.S. to be citizens, "Without distinction of race or color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude." The nation's first civil rights law.

# data[].attributes.body
Civil Rights Act - Citizenship for native-born except Native Americans.

# data[].attributes.body
The Indian Peace Commission of 1867 served to strip Native Americans of their language to educate and civilize them as they felt language barrier was the main cause of friction between Whites and Indians. Peace Commission members replaced the use of their Native language for English. This destroyed Native American customs and forced their allegiance to the U.S. Government.

# data[].attributes.body
Fourteenth Amendment
Guarantees U.S. citizenship to naturalized and native- born enslaved people who had been emancipated, but does not include Native Americans.

# data[].attributes.body
Both Hampton Institute and Tuskegee Institute trained "an army of black educators," and those teachers emphasized self-improvement and job training to enable black students to become gainfully employed and self-supporting as craftsmen or industrial workers.

# data[].attributes.body
Texas law requires English as a language of school instruction. Bilingual education officially became law in Texas in 1973, with enactment of the Bilingual Education and Training Act, which mandated that all Texas public elementary schools enrolling 20 or more children of limited English ability in a given grade level provide bilingual instruction.

# data[].attributes.body
Naturalization Act-
US Citizenship granted to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.

# data[].attributes.body
Texas Law requires English as a language of school instruction.

# data[].attributes.body
California schools code provides no public education for Asian Americans.

# data[].attributes.body
Richard Henry Pratt established the most well known off-reservation boarding schools. His goal was to establish Indian children into white communities. His motto was "kill the Indian, save the man."

# data[].attributes.body
Chinese Exclusion Law - Banning all Chinese workers from United States. Suspended Chinese immigration for ten years and declared Chinese immigrants ineligible for naturalization.

# data[].attributes.body
Booker T. Washington's Atlanta Compromise: To showcase the economic progress of the South since the Civil War, to encourage international trade, and to attract investors to the region.

# data[].attributes.body
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the segregation laws didn't violate the Constitution as long as the facilities for white and black individuals were "separate but equal."

# data[].attributes.body
For more than 50 years, the overwhelming majority of African American citizens were reduced to second-class citizenship under the “Jim Crow” segregation system.

# data[].attributes.body
Plessy v. Ferguson was a landmark 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine.

# data[].attributes.body
Plessy v. Ferguson- "Separate but equal". The case stemmed from an 1892 incident in which African American train passenger Homer Plessy refused to sit in a car for Black people. Rejecting Plessy’s argument that his constitutional rights were violated, the Supreme Court ruled that a law that “implies merely a legal distinction” between white people and Black people was not unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.body
In May of 1896, Ricardo Rodriguez entered a federal court in San Antonio, Texas, and initiated his application for citizenship of the United States thereby requesting the right to vote.  Since Texas declared its independence from Mexico and was annexed into the United States, Tejanos did not qualify for American citizenship because due to “an 1872 federal statute that ruled that only Caucasians and Africans could become U.S. Citizens,” Texas did not consider Tejanos part of either race.  Yet, this statute “did not specifically deny Mexicans that right” either.  This case brought naturalization of Mexican Tejanos and their right to vote to the forefront of Texas politics.

# data[].attributes.body
Plessy v. Ferguson: "Separate but equal"
A landmark 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine.

# data[].attributes.body
Puerto Rico conquered
The Puerto Rico campaign was the American military sea and land operation on the island of Puerto Rico during the Spanish–American War. The offensive began on May 12, 1898, when the United States Navy attacked the capital, San Juan.
...

# data[].attributes.body
The Puerto Ricans were successful in conquering the campaign as the Spanish war was ongoing. May 12th, 1898 marked the first battle of San Juan which was a battle between the United States Navy warships and the Spanish fortifications.

# data[].attributes.body
Foraker Act-Americanization of Puerto Rico. Enacted on April 12 1900, the US government made a federal law that established civilian government on Puerto Rico. They established a civilian government on the island.

# data[].attributes.body
The Foraker Act is officially known as the Organic Act of 1900. It is a United States Federal Law that established civilian government on the island of Puerto Rico. The island of Puerto Rico had recently been conquered by the United States as a result of the Spanish American War. It became effective on April 12, 1900. This act designated Puerto Rico as an "unorganized territory" of the United States and gave it limited self-government.

# data[].attributes.body
San Francisco School Board creates segregated schools for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean students

# data[].attributes.body
NAACP: This is a civil rights organization in the United States, formed in 1909 as an interracial endeavor to advance justice for African Americans and whose main goal was to end segregation.

# data[].attributes.body
Puerto Rican Teacher's Association wanted to restablish Spanish as the language of instruction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Library of Congress subscribes to a large number of diverse databases which are cataloged and accessible via the E-Resources Online Catalog (EROC). The following selected databases range from freely available to on-site available resources. The databases marked with a padlock are available to researchers on-site at the Library of Congress. If you are unable to visit the Library, you may be able to access these resources through your local public or academic library.

These selected resources offer materials related to the imposed English language in Puerto Rico as a consequence of U.S. invasion after the Spanish-American war.

Freely Avilable Databases

Subscription Databases

In addition to print materials, the Library of Congress offers digitized resources accessible to the general public.

These materials showcase selected articles in the Chronicling America Digital Collection, which delve into the topics involving the history of Puerto Rico, language policies, and discussions of English language influx on the island.

Would you like to supplement your research? The following external websites can be useful for expanding your search on topics regarding English language in Puerto Rican linguistic habits as a consequence of English language policies in Puerto Rico.

This tab contains a compilation of subject areas related to English language influence in Puerto Rico that link directly to the Handbook of Latin American Studies (HLAS) database. HLAS includes annotated citations for books, journal articles, book chapters, conference papers, maps and atlases, and e-resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Guides: Yo Soy (I am): The Historical Trajectory of Language in Puerto Rico: English Language Influence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Library of Congress subscribes to a large number of diverse databases which are cataloged and accessible via the E-Resources Online Catalog (EROC). The following selected databases range from freely available to on-site available resources. The databases marked with a padlock are available to researchers on-site at the Library of Congress.

# data[].attributes.body
Puerto Rican teacher’s association organized to defend Spanish as language of instruction. US wanted to forcefully push the instruction of English language before.

# data[].attributes.body
School Segregation Era: Common schools were established for black children, but the school's funding was coming out of black families' pockets. There was much lack of financial equality for segregated schools.

# data[].attributes.body
Students strike at Central High School, San Juan, demanding Spanish as language of instruction. Teachers and students come together to keep their original language at school.

# data[].attributes.body
Jones Act- Grants US Citizenship to Puerto Ricans

# data[].attributes.body
Jones Act-Grants-U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans
President Woodrow Wilson signed the Jones-Shafroth Act (1917) on March 2, 1917, giving Puerto Ricans U.S. statutory citizenship. This act also separated Puerto Rico's government into Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches, and endowed Puerto Ricans with a bill of rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Texas makes it a criminal offense to use any language but English in school instruction. Teachers would be charged a misdemeanor if using any other language unless they’re prescribed for high school foreign language classes.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1918, Texas makes it a criminal offense to use any language but English in school instruction. All textbooks had to be in English, the only exception where if the high school had foreign language classes.

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. Supreme Court rules Takao Ozawa not "white", therefore ineligible for citizenship. While born in Japan, Ozawa was educated in U.S. and was Christian.

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. Supreme Court rules Asian Indians ineligible for naturalized citizenship. Court argues that "the intention of the Founding Fathers was to confer the privilege of citizenship upon the class of persons that they knew as white"

# data[].attributes.body
Mississippi courts segregate Chinese students from whites

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Japanese language schools in Hawaii.

# data[].attributes.body
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) supports bilingual instruction and maintenance of Mexican cultural traditions.

# data[].attributes.body
Repatriation Programs-Native-born U.S. citizens sent to Mexico
The Mexican Repatriation was the repatriation and deportation of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans to Mexico from the United States during the Great Depression between 1929 and 1939. Estimates of how many were repatriated range from 355,000 to 2,000,000.

# data[].attributes.body
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) supports bilingual instruction and maintenance of Mexican cultural traditions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), founded in 1929, is the oldest and most widely respected Hispanic civil rights organization in the United States of America. LULAC was created at a time in our country's history when Hispanics were denied basic civil and human rights, despite contributions to American society. The founders of LULAC created an organization that empowers its members to create and develop opportunities where they are needed most.

In 1945, a California LULAC Council successfully sued to integrate the Orange County School System, which had been segregated on the grounds that Mexican children were "more poorly clothed and mentally inferior to white children." Additionally, in 1954, LULAC brought another landmark case, Hernandez vs. the State of Texas, to protest the fact that a Mexican American had never been called to jury duty in the state of Texas. The Supreme Court ruled this exclusion unconstitutional.

Since then, LULAC has fought for full access to the political process and equal educational opportunity for all Hispanics. LULAC's continues to play an active role in these efforts. LULAC councils across the United States hold voter registration drives, citizenship awareness sessions, sponsor health fairs and tutorial programs, and raise scholarship money for the LULAC National Scholarship Fund. This fund, in conjunction with LNESC (LULAC National Educational Service Centers), has assisted almost 10 percent of the 1.1 million Hispanic students who have gone to college.

LULAC Councils have also responded to an alarming increase in xenophobia and anti-Hispanic sentiment. They have held seminars and public symposiums on language and immigration issues. In addition, LULAC officers have used television and radio to protest against the "English Only" movement, which seeks to limit the public (and in some cases, private) use of minority languages.

Below is an account of the struggles that LULAC and its members have had to endure in order to improve the status of employment, housing, health care, and education for all Hispanics in the United States of America.

Reasons That Lead To The Formation of LULAC

When the United States of North America annexed a third of Mexico's territory following the Mexican War, nearly 77,000 Mexicans became U.S. citizens. For generations, these citizens were to be plagued by prejudice that would result in overt acts of discrimination and segregation. This prejudice led to the curtailment of many civil rights. The sign, "No Mexicans Allowed" was found everywhere.

In Texas, prejudice and acts of discrimination had reached such extreme proportions that Mexican Americans began organizing to defend themselves. There were three main organizations: The Order of the Sons of America with councils in Somerset, Pearsall, Corpus Christi, and San Antonio; The Knights of America in San Antonio; and The League of Latin American Citizens with councils in Harlingen, Brownsville, Laredo, Penitas, La Grulla, McAllen, and Gulf.

The Unification Effort

Ben Garza, leader of Council #4 of the Order of the Sons of America in Corpus Christi, united all Mexican American organizations under one title, one set of objectives, and one constitution. The first of a series of attempts occurred on August 14th, 1927, when delegates from The Order of the Sons of America, The Knights of America, and other allied organizations traveled to Harlingen, to officially form The League of Latin American Citizens. The President General of The Order of the Sons of America invited the League of Latin American Citizens--then under the leadership of Attorney Alonso S. Perales of Harlingen--to unite with them in order to unify Mexican American organizations. The League of Latin American Citizens approved the idea and a resolution to bring about the merger was adopted.

There were serious doubts regarding the merger due to differences between the leaders of The League of Latin American Citizens and the President General of The Order of the Sons of America. Thus, The Order of the Sons of America and The Knights of America decided to join together regardless of The League of Latin American Citizens' actions. Council #4 of The Order of the Sons of America and The Knights of America considered the proposed merger for a year.

During this time, Alonso S. Perales and Ben Garza were constantly discussing how to bring about the merger. However, the President General of The Order of the Sons of America never called a unification convention. This lead Council #4 of The Order of the Sons of America to withdraw on February 7, 1929. They voted to have a uniting convention on February 17, 1929, at the Obreros Hall, on the corner of Lipan and Carrizo streets in Corpus Christi.

Delegates from Alice, Austin, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Encino, Harlingen, La Grulla, McAllen, Robstown, and San Antonio opened the unification convention. They elected Ben Garza as chairmen protem and M.C. Gonzalez as secretary.

The delicate task of uniting these groups was assigned to Juan Solis and Mauro Machado, members of The Knights of America, Alonso S. Perales and J.T. Canales, members of The League of Latin American Citizens, E.N. Marin, A. DeLuna and Fortunio Trevino, member of The Order of the Sons of America. Alonso S. Perales initially proposed the name "Latin American Citizens' League." In response, Mauro Machado suggested they use the word "United" as apropos for the merger and as a way of differentiating the title from "The League of Latin American Citizens". Thus, Juan Solis motioned that the union be "United Latin American Citizens." J.T. Canales friendly amended the motion so that the name read "League of United Latin American Citizens". The amended motion was unanimously passed.

The committee proceeded to adopt the motto proposed by J.T. Canales, "All for One and One for All", to serve as a reminder of the difficulties of unification and as the basis for all future activities of LULAC.

Temporary rules were drawn up until a constitutional convention could be held. A constitutional convention was to be held on 18, and 19 May 1929, in Corpus Christi, Texas, and an executive committee was established to administer LULAC until the convention. The executive committee included Ben Garza as chairman, M.C. Gonzalez as Secretary, J.T. Canales and J. Luz Saenz as committee members. On May 18, 1929, at the Allende Hall in Corpus Christi, Texas, Ben Garza called the first LULAC General Convention to order. The assembly promptly adopted a constitution proposed by J.T. Canales and based upon the one used by The Knights of America. Ben Garza was elected President General, M.C. Gonzalez was elected Vice President General, A. DeLuna was elected Secretary General, and Louis C. Wilmot of Corpus Christi, Texas, was elected Treasurer General. These officers guided a new organization that faced prejudice and skepticism.

Mexican Americans were not allowed to learn English. Thus, they were disenfranchised and unable to vote. Many were unable to pay voting taxes. Thus, their Anglo bosses paid this charge and told them who to vote for.

Many Mexican American families worked in fields, farms, and ranches and their children never went to school. Many were denied jobs because they were perceived as lazy, poorly dressed, dirty, ill educated, and thought to be thieves.

American children had to attend segregated schools known as "Mexican Schools." In those days "Mexican Schools" were legal in the Southwest. These schools were staffed with the worst teachers and the buildings were in deplorable conditions.

Discrimination against Mexican Americans was rampant. During those years there were more Mexican Americans hung than the total number of blacks hung during the Civil War. A famous Anglo gunfighter was once asked how many men he had killed. He responded that each notch on the handles of his guns represented one kill and that he had twenty-seven notches, not counting Mexicans. Discrimination knew no age limits. In one incident a young Mexican American girl was eating a dry tortilla and choked to death because her peers were not allowed to get her a drink of water from a "whites only" water fountain. In another incident, LULAC members on a weekend recruitment journey stopped at a hamburger place. One of the men went to the takeout window and placed an order. When the food was ready, he was told that he had to go to the black section to eat his food. He refused, telling the food handler that he was Mexican and not black, and the food was taken away. In another instance, a LULAC member (who later became a LULAC President General) had to dress as a woman in order to get pass a sheriff with rifle in arm who had vowed to prevent LULAC from organizing in his town.

This was the discrimination that led many Mexican Americans to build strong traditions of self-determination. In 1921, courageous men and women in Texas began organizing to ensure that juries reflected the composition of the population and filed suits to have Mexican Americans placed on jury rosters. In 1929, a number of Mexican rights organizations met in Corpus Christi, Texas, and merged into a single group.

February 27, 1929

This was not a day for a meeting. It was Sunday and a day of rest. The rain was filling the dirt streets. But there was an urgent task to be done; the muddy streets were of little concern to those men about to make history. It was a meeting that would merge three largest Mexican American organizations into one.

The merger has been discussed in 1927 during an installation of officers of a newly formed Mexican American organization, "The League of Latin American Citizens", founded in Harlingen, Texas, by Alonso S. Perales. Now on February 17, 1929 the merger was now about to take place in Corpus Christi, Texas.

Delegates from three prestigious Mexican American organizations: The Knights of America, The Sons of America, and The League of Latin American Citizens, gathered on this rainy day to attempt to unify. Although many members were hesitant, the leaders of the organizations convinced the delegates of the necessity of a merger. A committee, with two delegates from each organization, was formed. This committee had the responsibility of coming up with rules and a name for the new organization.

This was a delicate task, because each organization had a proud history, its own constitution, its own structure, and a strong leader. The Knights of America of San Antonio, the oldest of the three had done much for its community under the leadership of M.C. Gonzalez. The same held true for The Sons of America of Corpus Christi, the second oldest and under the leadership of Ben Garza. Nevertheless, The League of Latin America Citizens of the Texas Valley, although the youngest of the three, had been effective under the leadership of Alonso S. Perales and was growing at a much faster pace than the other two combined.

After a four hour meeting, the committee decided to combine of the constitutions of the three merging organizations. The name of the new organization would be taken from the youngest of the three with the word "United" added to the name. Thus, "The League of United Latin American Citizens" was formed.

The delegates were pleased with the calm leadership efforts of Ben Garza and elected him the first President General of LULAC. The delegates agreed to hold the first LULAC Convention on May 19, 1929 in Corpus Christi, Texas.

Of course, the three merged organizations, which became LULAC were not the only Mexican American organization of that era. Many wanted to revolt and regain the territories that Mexico ceded to the United States of America after the Mexico-Texas War. Others wanted to engage in widespread civil disobedience against local authorities. There were many Mexican Americans that considered LULAC members as a bunch of "vendidos." They could not understand why LULAC members would embrace an Anglo society that had been so cruel to Mexican Americans. However, the founders of LULAC had seen many Mexican American organizations flourish and disappear within a couple of years, without accomplishments. LULAC founders were determined not to let this occur to LULAC. Therefore, the founders of LULAC forewant many of their convictions in order to avoid suspicions of un-American activities and serve as a safe haven for its members. Many of the official rites that LULAC adopted had never be adopted by any other Mexican American organization. LULAC adopted the American Flag as its official flag, America the Beautiful as its official song, and The George Washington Prayer as its official prayer. Also, LULAC adopted the Robert Rules of Order as its governing rules during meetings and conventions.

These founders envisioned LULAC as an organization that would be strongly accepted by Mexican Americans throughout Texas. In this regard they were correct. However, they were not prepared for the rapid growth of Mexican Americans in the states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and California, all within the first three years of LULAC's founding. LULAC's founders could never have imagined that LULAC would later serve 48 states, Puerto Rico, Mexico, South America, and the armed service base in Heidelburg, West Germany. Nevertheless, the guiding philosophies of the League of United Latin American Citizens supported the inclusion of all those of Hispanic origin and not just Mexican Americans.

The Women of LULAC

LULAC was one of the first national organizations to place emphasis on the role of women. Its first Council #9 was created on February 22, 1934, in El Paso, Texas. By 1938, the league had created the first women's national office in Mrs. Ester Machuca as Ladies Organizer General.

Women continued to serve fundamental roles within LULAC. In 1981, the League elected its first National Vice-President for Women. State coordinators for women carry out local programs for women. A national conference "Adelante Mujer Hispana" and two-day conferences on education and employment have been some of the League's most successful programs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), founded in 1929, is the oldest and most widely respected Hispanic civil rights organization in the United States of America. LULAC was created at a time in our country's history when Hispanics were denied basic civil and human rights, despite contributions to American society.

# data[].attributes.body
Texas courts uphold right to segregate Mexican Americans for educational purposes. The Texas Court of Appeals ruled that school districts could use language and irregular attendance due to season work as an excuse to separate students after LULAC supported a court challenge to school segregation.

# data[].attributes.body
Texas courts uphold right to segregate Mexican Americans for educational purposes.

# data[].attributes.body
Padin Reform-restricted English language instruction to high school and made content instruction in the upper-elementary grades in Spanish in Puerto Rican schools

# data[].attributes.body
Padin Reform - Restricted English-only rule in Puerto Rican schools and allowed Spanish to become the language of instruction in the elementary level ( first to eight grade). Once these students reached the ninth grade they need to continue their education with English as the language of instruction.

# data[].attributes.body
California law declares Mexican Americans are foreign-born Indians
In 1947, a Federal court's decision in Méndez et al v. Westminster School District of Orange County etc al ended Mexican American primary school segregation in California and supported later civil rights struggles to end all segregation nationally.

# data[].attributes.body
This event is from the citizenship timeline

# data[].attributes.body
California law allows segregation of Mexican Americans as Indians.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California (Mexican Americans)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Internment of Japanese Americans in Concentration camps including native-born citizens

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Congress rescinds the Chinese exclusion law and grants Chinese the right to become naturalized citizens

# data[].attributes.body
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico-Spanish is restored as language of instruction

# data[].attributes.body
McCarran-Walter Act rescinds the racial restrictions of 1790 Naturalization Act.

# data[].attributes.body
McCarren-Walter Act-
Rescinds the racial restrictions of the 1790 Naturalization Act.

# data[].attributes.body
McCarren-Walter Act-Rescinds the racial restrictions of the 1790 Naturalization Act
The McCarran-Walter Act allowed for people of Asian descent to immigrate and to become citizens, which had been banned by laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and Asian Exclusion Act of 1924.

# data[].attributes.body
Success crowned these efforts: the Brown decision in 1954, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act in 1965 helped bring about the demise of the entangling web of legislation that bound blacks to second class citizenship.

# data[].attributes.body
Immigration Act - Ends discrimination against Asians.

# data[].attributes.body
Voting Rights Act- Full citizenship granted 1965

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders in attendance
National Archives (NARA)

On August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 expanded the 14th and 15th amendments by banning racial discrimination in voting practices. The act was a response to the barriers that prevented African Americans from voting for nearly a century.
Background:
On March 30, 1870 the 15th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed. It stated that a citizen's right to vote could not be taken away based on their race. Following the Compromise of 1877, the infamous Jim Crow Laws were introduced. These laws were barriers at the state and local level that prevented African Americans from voting. White supremacists used intimidation, literacy tests, and poll taxes to scare away African American voters. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was signed into law on July 2. This law focused on segregation and employment discrimination. It failed to fully address voting issues faced by African Americans. On June 23, 1964, the 24th amendement to the constitution was passed. This amendment addressed fair voting and barred poll taxes. It was now illegal to make anyone pay to have the right to vote. Despite these new laws, only 2 percent of African Americans were registered to vote. In March 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. led marches in Selma, Alabama to dramatize the voting issue. Selma had a record of using violence to prevent African Americans from voting. Shortly after the marches, President Johnson sent a voting rights bill to Congress to remove race-based restrictions. This bill was quickly adopted by Congress and signed into law. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made discriminatory voting practices illegal. It is considered to be one of the most far-reaching pieces of Civil Rights legislation.

Theme Study, Civil Rights in America: Racial Voting Rights

In 1999 the U.S. Congress directed the National Park Service to conduct a multi-state study of civil right sites to determine the national significance of the sites and the appropriateness of including them in the National Park System.

Theme Study, Civil Rights Framework

Completed in January 2002 (rev. 2008), Civil Rights in America: A Framework for Identifying Significant Sites, represents the first chapter in a larger study on the history of civil rights that will help the National Park Service evaluate proposals fro new units in the park system.

Teaching with Historic Places, The Selma to Montomery Voting Rights March: Shaking the Conscience of the Nation

Learn how people in Selma, Alabama and national civil rights organizations worked together to end the unconstitutional denial of voting rights to African Americans in the South.

Historic Trail, Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail

Listen to the stories behind the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Subject Site, Civil Rights in America

To live freely and participate in society is a right many take for granted. Achieving and maintaining those civil rights have been a struggle for different groups throughout U.S. history. Civil rights mean more than the protests of the 1950s and 1960s and reach beyond racial and ethnic groups.

National Historical Park, Lyndon B. Johnson

The Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park tells the story of our 36th President beginning with his ancestors until his final resting place on his beloved LBJ Ranch. This entire "circle of life" gives the visitor a unique perspective into one of America's most noteworthy citizens by providing the most complete picture of any American president.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (U.S. National Park Service)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 expanded the 14th and 15th amendments by banning racial discrimination in voting practices. The act was a response to the barriers that prevented African Americans from voting for nearly a century.

# data[].attributes.body
Voting act rights full citizenship full granted - "This act was signed into law on August 6, 1965, by President Lyndon Johnson. It outlawed the discriminatory voting practices adopted in many southern states after the Civil War, including literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting."

# data[].attributes.body
Voting Rights Act- Full citizenship granted.The Snyder Act of 1924 admitted Native Americans born in the U.S. to full U.S. citizenship.

# data[].attributes.body
was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously decided that the lack of supplemental language instruction in public school for students with limited English proficiency violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964

# data[].attributes.body
Amendment to Voting Rights Act- Requires electoral ballots and information be multilingual.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congress enacted the language minority provisions because it found that:

# data[].attributes.body
LHA-Voting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jurisdictions Previously Covered by Section 5
Voting Changes Covered by Section 5
Making Section 5 Submissions
Section 5 Guidelines
Notices of Section 5 Submission Activity
Section 5 Changes by Type and Year
Section 5 Objections
Litigation Concerning Section 5
The Shelby County decision

On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013). The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Section 5 itself. The effect of the Shelby County decision is that the jurisdictions identified by the coverage formula in Section 4(b) no longer need to seek preclearance for the new voting changes, unless they are covered by a separate court order entered under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act.

Coverage Under the Special Provisions of the Voting Rights Act

Section 5 was enacted to freeze changes in election practices or procedures in covered jurisdictions until the new procedures have been determined, either after administrative review by the Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to have neither discriminatory purpose or effect. Section 5 was designed to ensure that voting changes in covered jurisdictions could not be implemented used until a favorable determination has been obtained.

The requirement was enacted in 1965 as temporary legislation, to expire in five years, and applicable only to certain states. The specially covered jurisdictions were identified in Section 4 by a formula. The first element in the formula was that the state or political subdivision of the state maintained on November 1, 1964, a "test or device," restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964. Application of this formula resulted in the following states becoming, in their entirety, "covered jurisdictions": Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, In addition, certain political subdivisions (usually counties) in four other states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina were covered. It also provided a procedure to terminate this coverage.

Under Section 5, any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction -- or any political subunit within it -- cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains the requisite determination by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or makes a submission to the Attorney General. This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the District Court denies the requested judgment, or in the case of administrative submissions, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable.

In 1970, Congress recognized the continuing need for the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which were due to expire that year, and renewed them for another five years. It also adopted an additional coverage formula, identical to the original formula except that it referenced November 1968 as the date to determine if there was a test or device, levels of voter registration, and electoral participation. This additional formula resulted in the partial coverage of ten states.

In 1975, the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act were extended for another seven years, and were broadened to address voting discrimination against members of "language minority groups." An additional coverage formula was enacted, based on the presence of tests or devices and levels of voter registration and participation as of November 1972. In addition, the 1965 definition of "test or device" was expanded to include the practice of providing election information, including ballots, only in English in states or political subdivisions where members of a single language minority constituted more than five percent of the citizens of voting age. This third formula had the effect of covering Alaska, Arizona, and Texas in their entirety, and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota.

In 1982, Congress extended Section 5 for 25 years, but no new Section 5 coverage formula was adopted. Congress did, however, modify the procedure for a jurisdiction to terminate coverage under the special provisions.

In 2006, Congress extended the requirements of Section 5 for an additional 25 years.

Judicial Review of Voting Changes

Section 5 provides two methods for a covered jurisdiction to comply with Section 5. The first method mentioned in the statute is by means of a declaratory judgment action filed by the covered jurisdiction in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. A three-judge panel is convened in such cases. The defendant in these cases is the United States or the Attorney General, represented in court by attorneys from the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division. Appeals from decisions of the three-judge district court go directly to the United States Supreme Court.

The jurisdiction must establish that the proposed voting change "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color or [membership in a language minority group]." The status of a voting change that is the subject of a declaratory judgment review action is that it is unenforceable until the declaratory judgment action is obtained and the jurisdiction may not implement or use the voting change.

Administrative Review of Voting Changes

The second method of compliance with Section 5 is known as administrative review. A covered jurisdiction can avoid the potentially lengthy and expensive litigation route by submitting the voting change to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, to which the Attorney General has delegated the authority to administer the Section 5 review process. The jurisdiction can implement the change if the Attorney General affirmatively indicates no objection to the change or if, at the expiration of 60 days, no objection to the submitted change has been interposed by the Attorney General. It is the practice of the Department of Justice to respond in writing to each submission, specifically stating the determination made regarding each submitted voting change.

Well over 99 percent of the changes affecting voting are reviewed administratively, no doubt because of the relative simplicity of the process, the significant cost savings over litigation, and the presence of specific deadlines governing the Attorney General's issuance of a determination letter.

Over the last decade, the Attorney General received between 4,500 and 5,500 Section 5 submissions, and reviewed between 14,000 and 20,000 voting changes, per year.

The Attorney General may interpose an objection by informing the jurisdiction of the decision within 60 days after a completed submission of a voting change is received. Most voting changes submitted to the Attorney General are determined to have met the Section 5 standard. Since Section 5 was enacted, the Attorney General has objected to about one percent of the voting changes that have been submitted.

The Attorney General has published detailed guidelines that explain Section 5. Additional information about the submission process is available here. The Attorney General has posted notices of Section 5 submissions.

In conducting administrative review, the Attorney General acts as the surrogate for the district court, applying the same standards that would be applied by the court. The burden of establishing that a proposed voting change is nondiscriminatory falls on the jurisdiction, just as it would on the jurisdiction as plaintiff in a Section 5 declaratory judgment action.

There are occasions when a jurisdiction may need to complete the Section 5 review process on an accelerated basis due to anticipated implementation before the end of the 60-day review period. In such cases, the jurisdiction should formally request "Expedited Consideration" in its submission letter, explicitly describing the basis for the request in light of conditions in the jurisdiction and specifying the date by which the determination must be received. Although the Attorney General will attempt to accommodate all reasonable requests, the nature of the review required for particular submissions will necessarily vary and an expedited determination may not be possible in certain cases.

A determination by the Attorney General not to object removes the prohibition on enforcement imposed by Section 5. This decision not to object to a submitted change cannot be challenged in court. Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491 (1977). Although the jurisdiction may then implement that change, the change remains subject to a challenge on any other grounds. For example, a redistricting plan may still be challenged in court by the Attorney General as violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, or any other applicable provision of federal law which the Attorney General is authorized to enforce. Similarly, private individuals with standing may challenge that practice under any applicable provision of state or federal law.

The declaratory judgment route remains available to jurisdictions even after the Attorney General interposes an objection. The proceeding before the three-judge D.C. District Court, is de novo and does not constitute an appeal of the Attorney General's determination.

Lawsuits to Prevent the Use of Voting Changes Not Reviewed under Section 5

Voting changes that have not been reviewed under Section 5 are legally unenforceable. Section 12(d) of the Act authorizes the Attorney General to file suit to enjoin violations of Section 5. A private right of action to seek injunctive relief against a Section 5 violation was recognized by the Supreme Court in Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 554-57 (1969). Any person or organization with standing to sue can challenge a Section 5 violation in the United States District Court in the judicial district where the violation is alleged to have occurred. Whether brought by the Attorney General or by private parties, these cases are commonly known as Section 5 enforcement actions.

Section 5 enforcement cases are heard by three-judge district court panels, whose role is to consider three things only:

1. whether a covered voting change has occurred;

2. if so, whether the requirements of Section 5 have been met preclearance has been obtained; and

3. if not, what relief by the court is appropriate.

Lopez v. Monterey County, 519 U.S. 9, 23 (1996). The only court that can make the determination that change is not discriminatory is purpose or effect is the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Upon finding non-compliance with Section 5, the local federal court will consider an appropriate equitable remedy. The general objective of such remedies is to restore the situation that existed before the implementation of the change. Thus, the typical remedy includes issuance of an injunction against further use of the change. In certain circumstances, other remedies have included voiding illegally-conducted elections, enjoining upcoming elections unless and until the jurisdiction complies with Section 5, or ordering a special election; in some cases courts have also issued orders directing the jurisdiction to seek Section 5 review of the change from the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jurisdictions Previously Covered by Section 5 Voting Changes Covered by Section 5 Making Section 5 Submissions Section 5 Guidelines Notices of Section 5 Submission Activity Section 5 Changes by Type and Year Section 5 Objections Litigation Concerning Section 5 On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Shelby County v.