The Greene County Democrat

Tag: National Urban League President Marc Morial

  • Newswire : Carolyn Bryant Donham, Emmett Till’s false accuser, dies at 88

    Emmett Till and Carolyn B. Donham

    By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent

    The white woman who testified that a Black teenager named Emmett Till had made inappropriate approaches toward her, which led to his lynching and murder in Mississippi in 1955, has died.
According to a coroner’s report, Carolyn Bryant Donham, 88, died while receiving hospice care in Louisiana.
A death record issued on Thursday, April 27, in the Calcasieu Parish Coroner’s Office noted that Donham died in Westlake, Louisiana, two nights earlier.
Donham’s false claims against Emmett Till set off a chain of events that sparked the modern civil rights movement.
After the teen’s mother insisted his casket remain open during the funeral and photos of Till’s battered and mutilated body appeared in Jet Magazine, the world received a birds-eye view of the brutality of America’s rampant racism.
In August 1955, Till traveled from Chicago to Mississippi to spend time with relatives.
Donham, then 21 years old and going by the name Carolyn Bryant, accused Till of making inappropriate approaches toward her while she worked at a grocery shop in the small town of Money, Mississippi.
According to the Reverend Wheeler Parker, a cousin of Till who was present at the time, the 14-year-old Till whistled at the woman, which was an act that violated the racist social standards that were prevalent in Mississippi.
Evidence suggested a lady identified Emmett Till to Donham’s then-husband Roy Bryant and his half-brother J.W. Milam, who were responsible for Till’s murder.
An all-white jury acquitted the two white suspects, but the men later confessed their guilt in an interview with Look magazine.
In 2022, the Associated Press secured a copy of Donham’s unpublished memoir, in which she claimed that she had no idea what would become of Till.
The outlet noted that the Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting was the first organization to reveal the contents of the 99-page book titled “I am More Than A Wolf Whistle.”
Author and historian Timothy Tyson of Durham, North Carolina, gave reporters a copy of the book. Tyson claimed he received a copy from Donham in 2008 while interviewing her, the Associated Press reported.
Though Tyson claimed to have provided the FBI with the text, the agency ended its lengthy investigation into Donham in 2021. The book was deposited in an archive at the University of North Carolina with the promise that it would only be made public at a later time.
Tyson stated that he decided to make it public after individuals performing research at the Leflore County courthouse in Mississippi in June 2022 discovered an arrest warrant on abduction charges that were issued for “Mrs. Roy Bryant” in 1955 but were never served or executed.
In March 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Emmett Till Anti-lynching Act of 2022, making lynching a federal hate crime. Earlier, the bipartisan measure passed both chambers of Congress.
The legislation received pushback from three Republicans – Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and Chip Roy of Texas. Each was the lone vote against the bill.
“I could not have been prouder to stand behind President Biden as he signed the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act into law,” National Urban League President Marc Morial stated.
“The act of lynching is a weapon of racial terror that has been used for decades, and our communities are still impacted by these hate crimes to this day,” Morial continued.
“This bill is long overdue, and I applaud President Biden and Members of Congress for their leadership in honoring Emmett Till and other lynching victims by passing this significant piece of legislation.”
According to the bill’s text, “Whoever conspires to commit any offense… shall (A) if death results from the offense, be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.” “(B) In any other case, be subjected to the same penalties as the penalties prescribed for the offense of the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.”
Specifically, the legislation makes lynching a federal hate crime, punishable by up to life in prison.
The measure had faced defeat for over 100 years, with lawmakers attempting to pass the legislation more than 200 times. The House finally passed the bill on a 422-3 vote. It passed unanimously in the Senate.

  • Activists, Black Leaders anticipate what’s next as Federal Courts block Trump’s Travel Ban

     

    By Barrington M. Salmon

    (TriceEdneyWire.com) – Barely two weeks into his presidency, Donald Trump signed a travel ban targeting Muslims in seven countries effectively blocking citizens, visitors, students, professionals, refugees and even those who worked with the US military in Iraq from entering the United States.

    On Feb. 8, that ban was blocked by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is a ruling that the Trump Administration could appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court or the executive order could be re-written as an attempt to meet legal and constitutional muster.

    Before the court ruling, the order denied entry to anyone from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen for 90 days. Trump’s action drew widespread condemnation and fierce opposition from civil rights and immigrant groups, national security experts and analysts and others deeply angered by the discriminatory nature of the ban and their concerns about the ethical and constitutional implications of the executive order. At the same time, Americans spooked by Trump’s constant assertions of an impending terror attack by praised the executive order and are pushing for stricter controls.

    Black leaders, including National Urban League President Marc Morial, say the ban opposes American values.

    “With the easy stroke of a pen, and a messy rollout, President Trump summarily stopped an entire class of people from entering the country, throwing airports into chaos and confusion, sparking spontaneous protests, delaying or halting family reunions and disrupting the lives of lawful immigrants both within and outside our nation’s borders,” wrote Morial in a statement.

    While the executive order fulfilled an oft-repeated campaign promise, administration officials and pundit acknowledged that the hurried nature of the rollout of the order and the decision by the president not to consult with affected agencies or members of Congress created unforeseen problems. This included confusion among those responsible for enforcing the order and chaos at airports as Customs and Immigrations officials detained men, women and children, put others on airplanes back to their points of origin and revoked travelers’ visas.

    The ruling of the three-member panel of judges from the US Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, brought a semblance of calm and order by refusing to lift the emergency stay that a Seattle judge had earlier imposed.

    During oral arguments, the federal judges were unconvinced of the administration’s argument, citing among other issues, “the government’s shifting interpretations of the Executive Order and assertions of the president’s broad authority superseding that of the judiciary,” the three-judge panel wrote in the 29-page ruling. “The government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terror attack in the United States. (And) rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.”

    The panel’s ruling continued, “National defense cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power designed to promote such a goal. It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties … which make the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”

    Other critics of the travel moratorium – some of whom described it as “Un-American, counterproductive and possibly illegal – hailed the victory. Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Washington, DC-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, while praising the ruling, warned opponents of the measure not to get complacent.

    “We applaud this ruling as a reaffirmation of the strength and independence of our system of justice,” he said in a statement. “The decision adds to a long list of federal judges – both Republican and Democratic appointees – who found reason to block this discriminatory order. While this decision is critical, it is not the end of the legal process. Other courts across the country will be passing judgement on the order, and the US Supreme Court will likely weigh in at some point.”

    Hillary Clinton, who Trump bested to become president, posted a Twitter message saying simply, “3-0”.

    Prior to the ruling, Trump railed against judges in general and decried the politics he said suffuses the judicial system. He also blamed any judges who might rule against him as being responsible if there’s a terror attack against the United States.

    “SEE YOU IN COURT. THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE,” he tweeted immediately after the verdict.

    And to reporters at the White House Trump said: “It’s a political decision. We’re going to see them in court. It’s a very, very serious situation, so we look forward, as I just said, to seeing them in court. It’s a decision we’ll win, in my opinion, very easily.”

    Justice Department officials said in a statement that they were reviewing the decision and contemplating options. The case could be headed to the US Supreme Court which is short one justice. With the 4-4 liberal-conservative split on the High Court, it’s quite possible that the 9th Circuit ruling would reaffirm the lower court ruling. Perhaps this reality led administration officials to say that they would eschew going to the Supreme Court and pursue redress in federal courts.

    This legal saga portends what could be the first of any number of legal challenges to Trump’s controversial policies and pushback against his view that the executive has primacy over the judiciary despite constitutional checks and balances.

    The swift and furious public response to the travel ban caught authorities and activists observers by surprise.

    “The spontaneous support has been amazing. We called for a rally in Boston and 20,000 people came out. Normally, it’s like pulling teeth,” said Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for the Washington, DC-based Council for Islamic-American Relations. “I’m not surprised at all that this has happened. He’s been telegraphing his intention to impose a complete ban since last year. We’d been expecting, anticipating some type of ban. This has had a tremendous impact on travelers, visiting grandmothers, students, and people coming and going home. It’s been a nightmare.”