Original Knights Of The Ku Klux — Part 1

184 pages · May 11, 2026 · Document date: Aug 17, 1965 · Broad topic: General · Topic: Original Knights Of The Ku Klux · 184 pages OCR'd

← Back to feed

‹

coat! County, Tennessee, a county in which no negroes were registered to vote. In the spring of 1959, a newly formed Civic and Welfare League, apparently similar to the Bogalusa Voters League, initiated a cam- ’ paign in Haywood and in Fayette Counties to encourage Negroes to regis- ter. This led to the institution ef a “white” primary in Payette; later prohibited by @ consent decree in April 1960. In the face of a renewed registration drive, white businessmen-in- both counties re- -_—— taliated by circulating a “blacklist" containing the names of the . Negroes who registered and white citizens who assisted them. The businessmen induced local merchants to boycott anyone whose name Ap- peared on t:he list, by denying credit and the right to buy necessities through the usual business relations. White landowners evicted share~ ‘eroppers and tenant farmers who had registered or whose names appeared * on the blacklist. The Attorney General sued the businessmen and land- 21 owners, under Section 1971, for immediate injunctive relief. The district judge granted a restraining order enjoining the businessmen from “interfering through intimidation and/or coercion", but refused to enjoin the landowners on the grouné that the Civil Rights Act did ; not vest the court with authority “to adjudge contracts and property rights". 6 Race Rel. L. Rep. 200. The Sixth Circuit affixmed the judgment as to ‘the businesamen and extended the injunction to the 22 , ’ landiords. In East Carroll Parish, Louisiana, cotton growers refused to gin cotton for Negro farmers who had attempted to register to vote. The Attorney Generril again sued under the 1957 Act. Judge Dawkins granted a restraining order, a8 preventive relief, against owners, operators, and managers of cotton gin businesses and certain other businesses. The Court restrained the defendants from “refusing to gin. . + refusing to sell goods or services, and to conduct ordinary business transactions with, any person for the purpose of discouraging or dissuading such person from attemptinc to vote and’. . » engaging nn: a oe

›

coat!

County, Tennessee, a county in which no negroes were registered to
vote. In the spring of 1959, a newly formed Civic and Welfare League,

apparently similar to the Bogalusa Voters League, initiated a cam-

’ paign in Haywood and in Fayette Counties to encourage Negroes to regis-

ter. This led to the institution ef a “white” primary in Payette;

later prohibited by @ consent decree in April 1960. In the face of a

renewed registration drive, white businessmen-in- both counties re-

-_——

taliated by circulating a “blacklist" containing the names of the

Negroes who registered and white citizens who assisted them. The
businessmen induced local merchants to boycott anyone whose name Ap-
peared on t:he list, by denying credit and the right to buy necessities

through the usual business relations. White landowners evicted share~

‘eroppers and tenant farmers who had registered or whose names appeared

* on the blacklist. The Attorney General sued the businessmen and land-

owners, under Section 1971, for immediate injunctive relief. The

district judge granted a restraining order enjoining the businessmen
from “interfering through intimidation and/or coercion", but refused

to enjoin the landowners on the grouné that the Civil Rights Act did

; not vest the court with authority “to adjudge contracts and property

rights". 6 Race Rel. L. Rep. 200. The Sixth Circuit affixmed the

judgment as to ‘the businesamen and extended the injunction to the
22 ,

’ landiords.

In East Carroll Parish, Louisiana, cotton growers refused to
gin cotton for Negro farmers who had attempted to register to vote. The
Attorney Generril again sued under the 1957 Act. Judge Dawkins granted a
restraining order, a8 preventive relief, against owners, operators,
and managers of cotton gin businesses and certain other businesses.
The Court restrained the defendants from “refusing to gin. . +
refusing to sell goods or services, and to conduct ordinary business
transactions with, any person for the purpose of discouraging or

dissuading such person from attemptinc to vote and’. . » engaging

nn: a oe