The Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill refers to the 1922 Congressional effort to pass federal legislation to otherwise provide federal prosecution of nationwide lynchings, particularly those in the southern states (Jager, 2007). This bill was passed in result of the more than 1,200 blacks lynched in the South in the beginning of the 20th century.
Lynchings were predominantly action of whites against African-Americans in southern border states. Lynchings peaked in the years following the Civil War. Although numbers fell off sharply with the dissolution of the first Ku Klux Klan, they continued through the 1890s and the next two decades at relatively high levels.
Lynchings were the Southern whites’ efforts to maintain social control and white supremacy. This was after gaining disfranchisement of most blacks though discrimination at voter registration and imposing segregation.
The National Association of the Advancement of Colored People, also known as NAACP, published a report Thirty Years of Lynching in the United States, 1889-1919 (Jager, 2007). This created the fast momentum for action congressionally. The anti-lynching effort provided the NAACP valuable experience waging public relation campaigns and mastering the art of congressional relations.
James Weldon Johnson, NAACP secretary, acted as the group’s congressional lobbyist. He pushed for the reduction scheme at a congressional debate which began the shaping of NAACP’s campaign against lynching (NAACP, 2017).
This report disproved the myth that most lynchings were African-American attacks on white women.
A representative of the majority of African-American district, Leonidas C. Dyer took notice of the hate crimes and was disappointed in the disregard for laws in these types of riots. Dyer was concerned about the continued rate of lynchings in the South and the failure of authorities to prosecute them. This was the inspiration of his anti-lynching bill.
Republican U.S. President Warren G. Harding announced his support for Dyer's bill during a speaking engagement in Birmingham, Alabama (“Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, 2015). After this very important support of the President being received, activists found Representative Dyer to also be a willing ally in the anti-lynching reform.
Dyer was a Spanish-American War veteran and former aide to Missouri Governor. He represented the small portion of the southern and eastern sections of St. Louis.
Since his appointment to the House in 1911, Dyer showed a strong inclination towards advocating for the community of blacks (NAACP, 2017).
On April 1, 1918, Dyer, Republican of Missouri, introduced the first anti-lynching bill in Congress. The following year, civil rights activists held the first national anti-lynching conference in New York City, on May 5, 1919.
Some NAACP leaders were shy to support a federal anti-lynching law, believing that it would not be constitutional.
However, they changed their minds by the early 1920s. A federal anti-lynching law became one of the major goals of the NAACP in the 1920s and 1930s.
The Dyer Bill was ultimately defeated by a Southern Democratic obstruction in December 1922 and twice more (Hixson, 1969). Despite having the passage of an anti-lynching bill in their 1920 platform, Republicans were the primary sponsors of the legislation and were unable to pass a bill in the 1920s.
The Dyer Bill defined lynching as follows: “The phrase ‘mob or riotous assemblage,’ when used in this act, shall mean an assemblage composed of three or more acting in concert for the purpose of depriving any person of his life without the authority of law as a punishment for or to prevent the commission of some actual or supposed public offense,” (“History, Art & Archives,” 2008).
The constitutional validity for proposed legislation was found in the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Lynching was considered a private act outside the law, therefore, proponents argued that officials of the state did not uphold their duties after denying victims “equal protection of the laws.”
Opponents of the bill spoke of the role of local authorities to retain jurisdiction to enforce state criminal statutes and opposed federal intrusion into this area.
They completely disregarded the proponents’ arguments that in keeping the allowance of lynching, local authorities rejected their own constitutional enforcement duties (Jager, 2007).
Efforts were made to enact the legislation to at least 1901. However, during that time, much of the 20th century southern Democrats in Congress maintained a front against the Dyer Bill.
Southern Senators opposed anti-lynching laws and other civil rights legislation on the ground that blacks were responsible for more crime, more babies born out of wedlock, more welfare, and that strong measures were needed to keep them under control (“Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, 2015).
Although the bill was quickly passed by a large majority in the House of Representatives, it was prevented from coming to a vote in 1922, 1923, and 1924 in the U.S. Senate (Hixson, 1969).
Although the bill was quickly passed by a large majority in the House of Representatives, it was prevented from coming to a vote in 1922, 1923, and 1924 in the Senate (“Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, 2015).
The bill classified lynching as a federal felony, which would have allowed the US to prosecute cases. States and local authorities had rarely pursued prosecution in lynchings. The making of progress with the prosecution of these cases entailed the following punishment options.
A maximum of 5 years in prison or $5,000 fine for any state or city official who had the power to protect a person in his jurisdiction but failed to do so. This also applied to those who had the power to prosecute those responsible and failed to do so as well.
A minimum of 5 years in prison for anyone who participated in a lynching, whether they were an ordinary citizen or the official responsible for keeping the victim safe.
A $10,000 fine to be paid by the county in which the lynching took place. This fine would then be given to the victim’s family or the United States government. If the victim was seized in one county and killed in another, both counties were fined (“Lynching,” 2014).
In addition to these punishments following prosecution, the bill also prescribed actions of special circumstances in lynching occurrences.
If officers fail to equally protect all citizens, they can be prosecuted in federal court.
Foreign visitors were not exempt from the law and were to be prosecuted within the laws of the state, as well as protected by those same laws (“Lynching,” 2014).
From 1882-1968, almost 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 asked Congress to pass a federal law. No bill was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the southern Democrats.
Although Dyer’s measure was not enough to be thoroughly passed, it reintroduced the issue in each new Congress of the 1920s. It may have failed to retain political traction, however, the campaigning and the draw of the public’s attention pushed the NAACP to do more than ever.
Leonidas’s efforts raised public awareness relentlessly and significantly contributed to the decline in lynchings post-reviewing the bill in the 1920s.
This paper will discuss the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill effort of 1922. Between 1901-1929, more than 1,200 blacks were lynched in the South. NAACP representatives were initially reluctant to contribute to an anti-lynching law, however, their minds were changed and passing a law became one of the major goals of the early 1920s and 1930s. This paper will consider what the bill had to undergo in hopes of being passed and also the positive effect it had on society, although it was never passed. Even though the bill was rejected by many Souther democratic filibusters, the Dyer Bill had an important role in the treatment of African-Americans in the 20ths century. The bill called to attention the unequal punishment of certain crimes and established clear guidelines of the many issues occurring during the time. The Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill of 1922 led to a total of nearly 200 anti-lynching bills being introduced to Congress within the years to come. Three passed the House, but overall, the Dyer Bill brought most attention to the issue of lynching and classified lynching as a federal felony.
The Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill refers to the 1922 Congressional effort to pass federal legislation to otherwise provide federal prosecution of nationwide lynchings, particularly those in the southern states (Jager, 2007). This was an act to assure jurisdiction of equal protection of the laws and punishment for the crime of lynching. Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in the US in Congress, the phrase “mob assemblage,” would mean an assembly made up of three or more people, acting for the purpose of deprivation of one’s life without authority of law to prevent an actual public offense. This bill was passed in result of the more than 1,200 African-Americans, lynched in the South in the beginning of the 20th century.
Hangings and lynchings were primarily action of whites against African-Americans in southern border states. Public lynchings peaked in the years following the Civil War. Although numbers fell off sharply with the dissolution of the first Ku Klux Klan, they continued through the 1890s and the next two decades at relatively high levels. Lynchings were the Southern whites’ efforts to maintain social control and white supremacy. It was widely believed in the South that this was the way to maintain order. This was after gaining disfranchisement of most blacks though discrimination at voter registration and imposing segregation (“Lynching, 2014”). The National Association of the Advancement of Colored People, also known as NAACP, published a report Thirty Years of Lynching in the United States, 1889-1919 (Jager, 2007). This created the fast momentum for action congressionally. The anti-lynching effort provided the NAACP valuable experience waging public relation campaigns and mastering the art of congressional relations. James Weldon Johnson, NAACP secretary, acted as the group’s congressional lobbyist. He pushed for the reduction scheme at a congressional debate which began the shaping of NAACP’s campaign against lynching (NAACP, 2017). This report disproved the myth that most lynchings were in retaliation for African-American attacks on white people.
Progress made by the NAACP was made possible by the work of many. Black women played an important role in the NAACP along with the campaigning for the anti-Lynching bill. They publicized the horrors of lynchings and provided strong fundraising efforts for to maintain efforts on the bill. It was through the work of these women that the focus was sharpened on tragedy of black lynchings. The “Anti-Lynching Crusaders,” founded in 1922 under the NAACP, was a women’s organization formed solely for the purpose of raising money to promote the Dyer Bill and, in general, prevention of future lynchings.
A representative of the majority of punishment for African-American district, Leonidas C. Dyer took notice of the hate crimes and was disappointed in the disregard for laws in these types of riots. Dyer was concerned about the continued rate of lynchings in the South and the failure of authorities to prosecute them. This was the inspiration of his anti-lynching bill. Republican U.S. President Warren G. Harding announced his support for Dyer's bill during a speaking engagement in Birmingham, Alabama (“Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, 2015). After this critical support from the President was received, activists found Representative Dyer to also be a willing ally in the anti-lynching reform. Dyer was a Spanish-American War veteran and former aide to Missouri Governor. He represented the small portion of the southern and eastern sections of St. Louis.
Since his appointment to the House in 1911, Dyer showed a strong inclination toward advocating for the community of blacks (NAACP, 2017). On April 1, 1918, Dyer, Republican of Missouri, introduced the first anti-lynching bill in Congress. The following year, civil rights activists held the first national anti-lynching conference in New York City, on May 5, 1919. Some NAACP leaders were reluctant to support a federal anti-lynching law, believing that it would not be constitutional. However, they changed their minds by the early 1920s. A federal anti-lynching law became one of the major goals of the NAACP in the 1920s and 1930s. The Dyer Bill was ultimately defeated by a Southern Democratic obstruction in December 1922 and twice more (Hixson, 1969). It was widely believed that some of the Southern Democratic establishment were responsible for some of the lynchings. Despite having the passage of an anti-lynching bill in their 1920 platform, Republicans were the primary sponsors of the legislation and were unable to pass a bill in the 1920s.
The Dyer Bill defined lynching as follows: “The phrase ‘mob or riotous assemblage,’ when used in this act, shall mean an assemblage composed of three or more acting in concert for the purpose of depriving any person of his life without the authority of law as a punishment for or to prevent the commission of some actual or supposed public offense,” (NAACP, 2017). The constitutional validity for proposed legislation was found in the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Lynching was considered a private act outside the law, therefore, proponents argued that officials of the state did not uphold their duties after denying victims “equal protection of the laws.”
Opponents of the bill spoke of the role of local authorities to retain jurisdiction to enforce state criminal statutes and opposed federal intrusion into this area. They completely disregarded the proponents’ arguments that in keeping the allowance of lynching, local authorities rejected their own constitutional enforcement duties (Jager, 2007). Efforts were made to enact the legislation to at least 1901. However, during that time, most of the 20th century southern Democrats in Congress maintained a front against the Dyer Bill. These Southern Democratic Senators opposed anti-lynching laws and other civil rights legislation on the ground that blacks were responsible for more crime, more babies born out of wedlock, more welfare, and that strong measures were needed to keep them under control (“Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, 2015). Although the bill was quickly passed by a large majority in the House of Representatives, it was prevented from coming to a vote in 1922, 1923, and 1924 in the U.S. Senate (Hixson, 1969).
The first sections of the bill set a legislative designed to lay down a constitutional foundation. The propositions included the following: the due process and equal protection clauses impose on the states a duty to act affirmatively to protect all people without discrimination, state inaction may violate these clauses; when people are deprived by the state, or by private individuals without state condonation, of equal protection of the laws because of race, exercise of fundamental human rights and freedoms is limited; the law of nations requires that a person be secure in body and property from violence inflicted because of his race; the proposed legislation is necessary to effectuate the due process and equal protection clauses, treaties of the US, and to define and punish offenses against the law of nations; and the right to be free from lynching accrues by virtue of national citizenship in addition to any similar right which may exist because of state citizenship or presence within a state (NAACP, 2017).
The bill classified lynching as a federal felony, which would have allowed the US to prosecute cases (“Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, 2015). States and local authorities had rarely pursued prosecution in lynchings. The making of progress with the prosecution of these cases entailed the following punishment options (Jager, 2007): a maximum of 5 years in prison or $5,000 fine for any state or city official who had the power to protect a person in his jurisdiction but failed to do so. This also applied to those who had the power to prosecute those responsible and failed to do so as well. A minimum of 5 years in prison for anyone who participated in a lynching, whether an ordinary citizen or the official responsible for keeping the victim safe. A $10,000 fine to be paid by the county in which the lynching took place. This fine would then be given to the victim’s family or the United States government. If the victim was seized in one county and killed in another, both counties were fined (“Lynching,” 2014).
In addition to these punishments following prosecution, the bill also prescribed actions of special circumstances in lynching occurrences. If officers fail to equally protect all citizens, they can be prosecuted in federal court. Foreign visitors were not exempt from the law and were to be prosecuted within the laws of the state, as well as protected by those same laws.
After the bill was passed by the House in January of 1922, which allowed it to be approved by a wide margin due to the “insistent countrywide demand,” the bill was overall defeated by the filibusters of 1922-1942. Following two unsuccessful attempts to get his bill passed by the Senate, Dyer tried to gain national support for his anti-lynching bill in 1923. He toured western United States to generate support, and had the motto that “we have just begun to fight.” He attracted black and white audiences in various areas and had a lot of support from the NAACP. The association supported his bill and continuously publicized the terrible toll lynching was taking on the people of the US. By the end of 1923, Dyer’s campaign received positive attention coverage by white mainstream press which allowed a strengthening of the anti-lynching movement in the West.
From 1882-1968, almost 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 asked Congress to pass a federal law. No bill was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the southern Democrats. Although Dyer’s measure was not enough to be thoroughly passed, it reintroduced the issue in each new Congress of the 1920s. It may have failed to retain political traction, however, the campaigning, the media coverage, and the draw of the public’s attention pushed the NAACP to do more than ever. Leonidas’s efforts raised awareness around the world and significantly contributed to the decline in lynchings after the numerous reviews of the bill in the 1920s. The NAACP made a huge effort to pass the bill, and many lessons were learned by the public and the members throughout the fight for the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill. The publicity received and the strong focus of awareness would be put to use in the years following and ultimately end lynchings in America.
In summary, this paper was concerned of the problem of lynching. Leonidas Dyer, right from the start of his election to the House, had indicated his mentality toward the support of the African-American community. It was taken note of the important role the National Association of the Advancement of Colored People had during the time period, making obvious the urgency of the anti-lynching campaign through various statistics. The Dyer Bill had the purpose of punishing lynchings and mob violence. It tried to initiate the regulation for courtroom action by excluding participants and supporters of mob participants from the juries. The bill was reintroduced in sessions of Congress and passed by the House of Representatives in 1922, however, it was brought to a halt by a Southern Democratic obstruction in the Senate. Succeeding bills followed, but Congress was never able to outlaw lynching due to democratic opposition.