# data[].attributes.body
This is a brief article that talks about the 15th amendment. The 15th amendment to the Constitution granted African American men the right to vote by declaring that the

"Right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Although ratified on February 3, 1870, the promise of the 15th Amendment would not be fully realized for almost a century. Through the use of poll taxes, literacy tests and other means, Southern states were able to effectively disenfranchise African Americans. It would take the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before the majority of African Americans in the South were registered to vote.

The 15th amendment help to African American people in the United States to make their voice heard and end discrimination. This amendment is link to the civil Rights Act of 1964 because it discontinues discrimination between races, color, and sex.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted African American men the right to vote by declaring that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Although ratified on February 3, 1870, the promise of the 15th Amendment would not be fully realized for almost a century. Through the use of poll taxes, literacy tests and other means, Southern states were able to effectively disenfranchise African Americans. It would take the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before the majority of African Americans in the South were registered to vote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Guides: 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents in American History: Introduction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ratified in 1870, the 15th Amendment granted African American men the right to vote. This guide provides access to digital collections at the Library of Congress, external websites, and print materials related to the amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
African Americans turned to the courts to help protect their constitutional rights. But the courts challenged earlier civil rights legislation and handed down a series of decisions that permitted states to segregate people of color.

In the pivotal case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racially separate facilities, if equal, did not violate the Constitution. Segregation, the Court said, was not discrimination.

In 1890 a new Louisiana law required railroads to provide “equal but separate accommodations for the white, and colored, races.” Outraged, the black community in New Orleans decided to test the rule.

On June 7, 1892, Homer Plessy agreed to be arrested for refusing to move from a seat reserved for whites. Judge John H. Ferguson upheld the law, and the case of Plessy v. Ferguson slowly moved up to the Supreme Court. On May 18, 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court, with only one dissenting vote, ruled that segregation in America was constitutional.
(Courtesy of National Archives, Washington, D.C).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Separate but Equal - Separate Is Not Equal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1890 a new Louisiana law required railroads to provide "equal but separate accommodations for the white, and colored, races." Outraged, the black community in New Orleans decided to test the rule.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a court cases that involved four different cases, that the main point was about the segregation of races in public schools. African American students were been denied to be admitted to certain public schools based on their race. They argued that such segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. This plaintiff was denied relief based on the precedent set by Plessy v Ferguson, this established the “separate but equal” but the doctrine stated that there were facilities were race was constitutional as long the facilities were “substantially equal”. In this case, the Supreme Court of Delaware ruled that the African American students had the right to be admitted to the white public schools because of their higher quality facilities.

This case helped the civil rights of 1964 because it abolishes discrimination in race and color. This had a big impact in US history because this had a big step between society in equality on race, color, and gender.

# data[].attributes.body
This civil rights action case was a group of African American living in Jackson Mississippi. They brought the action on behalf of both themselves and other similarly situated, institutional discrimination based on their skin color. On February 26, 1962, the Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision stating that the case of Bailey Et Al. v. Patterson Et Al. should be vacated and remanded and declaring a state or territorial law, regulation, or constitutional provision as unconstitutional. The judgment rested on the Court's authority over lower federal or state courts. It was decided by a per curium and was conservative in nature. The Court undertook review of the case via appeal. The case originated in the Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court and was heard directly from that court by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This case was link to the civil rights of 1964 because of the action done in Mississippi based on color discrimination. African American people was in court because they want it to be treat the same way as white people did. They want it to the freedom of equal rights regarding to transportation, this case leads to discrimination against races, color and gender.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements.

# data[].attributes.body
The article of The Civil Right act 1964 explore the details of which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, is considered one of the crowning legislative achievements of the civil rights movement. First proposed by President John F. Kennedy, it survived strong opposition from southern members of Congress and was then signed into law by Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson. In subsequent years, Congress expanded the act and passed additional civil rights legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

When the civil act of 1964 was approve it ended many inequalities between people of color and other immigrants including women. Which includes voting, public accommodations, public facilities, public education, and employment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Lyndon Johnson made the passage of slain President Kennedy's civil rights bill his top priority during the first year of his administration. He enlisted the help of the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and key members of Congress such as Senators Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and Everett Dirksen (R-IL), and Representatives Emanuel Celler (D-NY), and William McCulloch (R-OH), to secure the bill's passage. He also asked for support from friend and mentor Senator Richard B. Russell, Jr., (D-GA), the leader of the Southern Democrats in the Senate, who opposed the bill to the very end. Throughout the winter and spring of 1964, Johnson applied his formidable legislative acumen and skills to push the bill through Congress. Republican Senator Dirksen, the Senate minority leader, played a pivotal role in the passage of the act.

On May 26, Senator Dirksen introduced the bi-partisan Dirksen-Mansfield-Kuchel-Humphrey compromise bill as a substitute for the original version. Previously an opponent of civil rights legislation, Senator Dirksen urged Republicans to support the bill as "an idea whose time has come." On June 10, after a prolonged filibuster, the Senate invoked cloture, thereby cutting off debate. On June 19, exactly one year after President Kennedy's proposal, the compromise bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73 to 27. House approval followed, and on July 2 President Johnson signed the bill into law. The law's eleven sections prohibited discrimination in the workplace, public accommodations, public facilities, and agencies receiving federal funds, and strengthened prohibitions on school segregation and discrimination in voter registration.

Lawyer Clifford Alexander Interviewed by Camille O. Cosby in 2006

Lawyer Clifford Alexander, Jr., (b. 1933), chairman of the U.S. Equal Emplyment Opportunity Commission (1967-1968), explains the meaning of the Civil Rights Act and how both blacks and whites in government pushed for change in an interview conducted by Camille O. Cosby (b. 1945) for the National Visionary Leadership Project in 2006.

NAACP Lawyer Jack Greenberg Interviewed by Joseph Mosnier in 2011

NAACP lawyer Jack Greenberg (b. 1924) discusses the NAACP's strategy after the passage of the Civil Rights Act in an interview conducted by Joseph Mosnier (b. 1962) for the Civil Rights History Project in 2011.

"We have a great team of senators led by Senators Hubert Humphrey . . . and Thomas Kuchel . . . ."

Clarence Mitchell to Roy Wilkins, March 27, 1964

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

Clarence Mitchell to Roy Wilkins, March 27, 1964
If they don't watch out they're gonna ruin it!

Comparing the pending Civil Rights legislation to a delicate cake, conservative cartoonist Gib Crockett, chief cartoonist at the Washington Star, blames extremism for ruining Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey's hard work. Frank Lausche, a conservative Democrat from Ohio turns toward the unseen events. This cartoon may refer to Malcolm X's "Ballot or the Bullet" speech at King Solomon Baptist Church in Detroit, which he gave on April 12, 1964. It was a militant reaction to a lack of civil rights for African Americans.

"It appears he doesn't favor amendments, after all"

As the filibuster over the issue of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came to an end in the Senate, Southern Democrats proceeded to attach amendments to the bill, some serious enough to have eliminated its legislative efficacy. President Johnson cajoled, called in favors, and even resorted to threats, as implied in this cartoon. Hubert Humphrey, then a Democratic senator from Minnesota, favored the legislation, having urged his party to "walk into the sunshine of human rights."

"We're a hundred years late, but we're rolling"

Cartoonist Bill Mauldin compares the Senate decision to invoke cloture and end seventy-five days of filibuster in the Senate on June 10, 1964, to the American Civil War a century before. Cloture, a parliamentary procedure used in the Senate to end a filibuster-the endless speeches used to prevent the passage of legislation-forced the senators to complete their negotiations. For Mauldin, who promoted equality, the cloture vote marked progress toward passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Killing of Civil Rights Workers Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner

On June 21, 1964, the first day of Mississippi Freedom Summer-organized by the Council of Federated Organizations-James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner drove to Neshoba County to investigate the burning of a black church following a voting rights meeting. On their way home, the civil rights workers were arrested and jailed by Deputy Sheriff Cecil Price. Price and local Klansmen took them to a remote area, where they were tortured, shot to death, and buried in an earthen dam. On June 23, Choctaw hunters found their burned car in the Bogue Chitto swamps. President Johnson launched a massive FBI search and investigation. Their bodies were discovered on August 4 outside the town of Philadelphia, Mississippi.

Civil Rights Activist Gwendolyn Simmons Interviewed by Joseph Mosnier in 2011

Civil rights activist Gwendolyn Simmons (b. 1944) discusses Freedom Summer and her shock that Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner were murdered in an interview conducted by Joseph Mosnier (b. 1962) for the Civil Rights History Project in 2011.

Passage of Civil Rights Bill, Final Vote

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

"A Long Struggle for Freedom"

"One hundred and eighty-eight years ago this week a small band of valiant men began a long struggle for freedom. They pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor not only to found a nation, but to forge an ideal of freedom. . . ."

President Lyndon B. Johnson understood not only the historic importance of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but also the significance of the timing for its signing and the presentation of the act's meaning to the nation. The president's writers prepared six drafts of the speech before the final version was set for the teleprompter feed that Johnson used to read his televised remarks that evening. The teleprompter version and the final draft, shown here, indicate that the inclusion of the word "long" in the address was added by the president extemporaneously. The addition of this small word expressed the hard-fought, step-by-step efforts of countless Americans over the course of a century, in the slow progression towards realizing civil rights.

Teleprompter feed for Lyndon Johnson's speech at the signing ceremony of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, July 2, 1964. Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5 - Page 6. Courtesy of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library and Museum, Austin, Texas (194.01.00)

Remarks of the president, final draft, July 2, 1964. Facsimile. Courtesy of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library and Museum, Austin, Texas (282.00.00)

Radio Coverage of President's Johnson's Remarks upon Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Complete Speech

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

Courtesy of National Archives and Records Administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Civil Rights Act of 1964: A Long Struggle for Freedom The Civil Rights Act of 1964

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Lyndon Johnson made the passage of slain President Kennedy's civil rights bill his top priority during the first year of his administration. He enlisted the help of the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and key members of Congress such as Senators Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and Everett Dirksen (R-IL), and Representatives Emanuel Celler (D-NY), and William McCulloch (R-OH), to secure the bill's passage.

# data[].attributes.body
This brief article of the New York times Loving V. Virginia states that the United states supreme court decisions in Loving V. Virginia declares the laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage are unconstitutional. Undivided ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, the landmark case that wiped laws banning interracial marriage off the books in Virginia and 15 other states. The Loving’s were arrested in July 1958, when the local sheriff burst into their bedroom in the middle of the night, demanding to know what they were doing together. They had married in the District of Columbia, but their union was illegal in Virginia. A county judge offered a deal: They could avoid prison if they promised to leave Virginia and not return for 25 years (New York Times, 2017).

This case is also link to the civil right act 1964 because discrimination between people of color were sill involve. Many African American weren’t free to marry the love of their life not worrying about its race which involves racism. A quote that says it all “if its genuine love, color doesn’t matter” this shows a strong opinion of an individual that is suffering love inequality" (New York Times, 2017).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

Richard and Mildred Loving at their home in Central Point, Va., with their children, from left, Peggy, Donald and Sidney, in 1967. Credit Credit Free Lance-Star, via Associated Press

This is the latest edition of the Race/Related newsletter. To get it in your inbox weekly, sign up here. Tell your friends and share your stories.
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

CENTRAL POINT, Va. - The house Richard Loving built for his wife, Mildred, is empty now, its front yard overgrown, a giant maple tree shading a birdbath that is slightly askew. It sits down the road from the church graveyard where the couple is buried - a quiet reminder, their granddaughter Eugenia Cosby says, of the lesson they taught the world: "If it's genuine love, color doesn't matter."

Monday will be 50 years since the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, the landmark case that wiped laws banning interracial marriage off the books in Virginia and 15 other states. Thus did Mildred Loving, both black and Native American, and her husband, Richard, who was white, make civil rights history.

Theirs is a powerful legacy. Today, one in six newlyweds in the United States has a spouse of a different race or ethnicity, according to a recent analysis of 2015 census data by the Pew Research Center. That is a fivefold increase from 1967, when just 3 percent of marriages crossed ethnic and racial lines.

The decline in opposition to intermarriage is even more striking: In 1990, according to a Pew analysis of data from the University of Chicago's General Social Survey, 63 percent of nonblack adults said they would be very or somewhat opposed to a close relative marrying a black person. Today the figure is 14 percent.

The Lovings were arrested in July 1958, when the local sheriff burst into their bedroom in the middle of the night, demanding to know what they were doing together. They had married in the District of Columbia, but their union was illegal in Virginia. A county judge offered a deal: They could avoid prison if they promised to leave Virginia and not return for 25 years.

They moved to Washington, but a longing for home upended the agreement. Mildred, missing her family, wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. He referred the matter to the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the constitutionality of Virginia's anti-miscegenation law. Yet the Lovings - Richard died in 1975, and Mildred in 2008 - were reluctant civil rights icons.

"It was thrown in my lap," Mrs. Loving told a Times reporter in 1992. "What choice did I have?"

Image

Eugenia Cosby, a granddaughter of Richard and Mildred Loving, at the church graveyard near the Loving family home in Central Point, Va. Credit Sheryl Gay Stolberg/The New York Times

So reluctant was Mrs. Loving to talk about her past that Mrs. Cosby, 36, says she learned the details of the story from movies about the case. Mostly, she remembers her grandmother as a "sweet, soft" woman, who cooked pot roast for Sunday dinner and taught her how to clean chitterlings - pig intestines, a Southern delicacy.

To explore the effects of Loving vs. Virginia, Race/Related would like to hear from you. Has being in an interracial relationship united or divided your family? Please tell us how, using this form. To join Race/Related, sign up here.

To get the conversation started, we put that question to Mrs. Cosby. She identifies as Native American and African-American, though she is often mistaken for Latino. On forms that ask questions about race, she pencils in "other." Her husband is fair-skinned, but considers himself black.

"Honestly, it's never had any effect either way," she said, of her own interracial union. "It's just normal to us. There's a lot of interracial couples in our family. Some of them worked, some of them didn't, but I don't think it was based on the color of their skin."

Georgetown University in Washington, seen from across the Potomac River. In 1838, the Jesuits sold 272 slaves to help keep what is now Georgetown afloat. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

Several descendants of the slaves sold to keep Georgetown University afloat in 1838 have received acceptance letters from the school. Two of them, Elizabeth and Shepard Thomas, and their mother, Sandra, joined Race/Related's Rachel Swarns and John Eligon for a discussion. [ Watch]

We examine topics related to race and culture each Wednesday at 9 p.m. Eastern on The Times's Facebook page.

Sidney Poitier and Katharine Houghton in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner." The film, about an interracial couple planning to marry, became a box-office hit in 1967, the same year as the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia. Credit Columbia Pictures

Here are some of the stories that we're talking about, beyond The Times.
Bill Maher once questioned a black woman's blackness over the N-word [ Read]

The forgotten riot that sparked Boston's racial unrest [ Read]

We're having the wrong conversation about food and cultural appropriation [ Read]

This viral Instagram account is changing Western perceptions of Africa [ Read]

Peggy Rusk, daughter of President Lyndon Johnson's secretary of state, Dean Rusk, and Guy Smith on their wedding day at Stanford University Chapel in September 1967. The union of a white woman and a black man was called "a marriage of enlightenment" by Time magazine, which featured the couple's wedding photo on its cover. Credit Rolls Press/Popperfoto, via Getty Images

The Times publishes many stories that touch on race. Here are a few you shouldn't miss, chosen by Race/Related editors.

How Interracial Love Is Saving America [ Read]

America's Hidden H.I.V. Epidemic [ Read]

Portland Killings Dredge Up Legacy of Racist Laws in Oregon [ Read]

What Was Bill Maher's Big Mistake? [ Read]

For Undocumented Mom, Somewhere to Shelter, but Nowhere to Run [ Read]

Nine Plays, One Truth: Mfoniso Udofia on Her Immigrant Experience, and Ours [ Read]

Elena Verdugo, Who Lifted Latina Image on TV, Dies at 92 [ Read]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is the latest edition of the Race/Related newsletter. To get it in your inbox weekly, sign up here . Tell your friends and share your stories . By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG CENTRAL POINT, Va. - The house Richard Loving built for his wife, Mildred, is empty now, its front yard overgrown, a giant maple tree shading a birdbath that is slightly askew.