Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1875

Untitled

Isn't this the reason why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 used the Commerce Clause as its justification? In U.S. v. Heart of Atlanta Motel, the motel stated that it was not truly engaged in interstate commerce as nearly all of its guests were residents of other parts of Georgia and that its laundry was performed by residents of Georgia and that all of its employees were residents of Georgia, but the Supreme Court held that the motel was in fact engaged in interstate commerce because it was readily accessible by Federally-subsidized highways. This holding meant that as long as it was the operative interpretation of the Commerce Clause then Congress could largely regulate private behavior of the inhabitants of the several states without technically overturning the holding in the Civil Rights Cases. Rlquall 23:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed from Article due to the absence of sources

Please assist in verifying the following claims.

Additionally, the Act is notable for the large public outrage it generated, in both the North and the South, that led to Radical Republicans being defeated in large numbers in succeeding elections. It was so unpopular that Republicans did not even attempt to enforce it.

Mitchumch (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• The front page] of the the March 3, 1875 Daily Graphic shows some of the outrage, suggesting that it would lead to things like interracial marriage and the races mixing at the opera.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I placed the link in the "External link" section. However, I was looking for scholarly evidence for the following claims:

1. "the large public outrage it generated, in both the North and the South"

2. "led to Radical Republicans being defeated in large numbers in succeeding elections."

3. "so unpopular that Republicans did not even attempt to enforce it."

Mitchumch (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Gwillhickers I wanted to let you know there was no need to insert exerts from the law into the article. The complete text of the law is linked in the "External links" section as a Wikisource link. When I first edited this article, the entire text was posted into the article. I moved it to Wikisource.

Also, I understand your point that the law applies to everyone, but the law was enacted as a direct response to African Americans. That is also how it is always presented in histories of the act. We're only summarizing sources, not trying to make a personal point. Mitchumch (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Quotes and excerpts are common place in narratives throughout wikipedia, and are welcomed when added contextually and appropriately, however, I added a note of historical context to the phrase at issue in the lede, as indeed, the law was enacted in response to civil rights violations to blacks. If you feel the entire language is too much for the article then we should at least present the first section of the Act, with a link to the rest of it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers It is true that quotes and excerpts are common place on Wikipedia. And I also share your desire to make visible the text of the law. But, my objection isn't based on personal preference. You've created a "Language" subsection that only presents portions of the original text of the law. The "Language" subsection is "Overuse" as described in Wikipedia:Quotations. On 18 November 2012, I removed original text and placed it in Wikisource. I originally inserted the Wikisource box immediately beneath the infobox to increase visibility, but later moved it to the "External links" section to comply with MOS:LAYOUTEL as described in the "Links to sister projects" subsection.

My concern surrounding the short phrase in the lead is more of a quibble. Your most recent edit is okay. Mitchumch (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Civil Rights Act of 1875. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130318124850/http://media.nara.gov/nwl/S.1_12-1-1873_Civil_Rights_HR_43A-C1.pdf to http://media.nara.gov/nwl/S.1_12-1-1873_Civil_Rights_HR_43A-C1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)