Why do clansmen burn crosses

As Jones' followers committed hundreds of terrorist acts authorized by KKK leadership, his claim was of course disingenuous, but it also contained a grain of truth: Jones and his fellow leaders did dissuade members -- many of whom combined rabid racism with unstable aggression -- from engaging in violence not approved by the KKK hierarchy.

In the absence of a broader organization with much to lose from a crack-down by authorities, racist violence can be much more difficult to prevent or police. The second caveat stems from KKK's history of emerging and receding in pronounced "waves. But in each case, some "reborn" version of the KKK has managed to rebound and survive.

So, while today the KKK appears an anachronism and, perhaps, less of a threat than other brands of racist hate, we still should vigilantly oppose racist entrepreneurs who seek to exploit the historical cachet of the KKK to organize new campaigns advancing white supremacist ends.

To me, this is one primary lesson from the KKK's past, and a compelling reason not to forget or dismiss the enduring relevance of that history. Has the KKK had any lasting political impact? By most straightforward measures, the KKK appears a failed social movement. Despite the Klan's political inroads during the s, when millions of its members succeeded in electing hundreds of KKK-backed candidates to local, state, and even federal office, the group proved unable to preserve its influence at the ballot box beyond that decade.

Later KKK waves have never been able to deliver on promises to rebuild this influential Klan voting bloc. Bob Jones' Carolina Klan came the closest to winning such influence, with mainstream candidates currying favor sometimes publicly, and more often covertly at Klan rallies and other events with Jones and other leaders in and But that effort appeared short-lived, with both Jones and the Carolina Klan all but disappearing by the early s.

More generally, the KKK's commitment to white supremacy, most clearly realized through Jim Crow-style segregation that endured for decades in the South, has by any formal measure receded as a real possibility in the U. However, in less overt ways, the KKK's impact can still be felt. Recent studies that I've undertaken with fellow sociologists Rory McVeigh and Justin Farrell have demonstrated how counties in which the KKK was active during the s differ from those in which the Klan never gained a foothold in two important ways.

First, counties in which the Klan was present during the civil rights era continue to exhibit higher rates of violent crime. This difference endures even 40 years after the movement itself disappeared, and certainly isn't explained by the fact that former Klansmen themselves commit more crimes. Instead, the Klan's impact operates more broadly, through the corrosive effect that organized vigilantism has on the overall community.

By flouting law and order, a culture of vigilantism calls into question the legitimacy of established authorities and weakens bonds that normally serve to maintain respect and order among community members. Once fractured, such bonds are difficult to repair, which explains why even today we see elevated rates of violent crime in former KKK strongholds.

Second, past Klan presence also helps to explain the most significant shift in regional voting patterns since the South's pronounced move toward the Republican Party.

While support for Republican candidates has grown region-wide since the s, we find that such shifts have been significantly more pronounced in areas in which the KKK was active. The Klan helped to produce this effect by encouraging voters to move away from Democratic candidates who were increasingly supporting civil rights reforms, and also by pushing racial conflicts to the fore and more clearly aligning those issues with party platforms.

As a result, by the s, racially-conservative attitudes among southerners strongly correlates with Republican support, but only in areas where the KKK had been active.

Is the KKK a movement mostly in the rural South? While many of the Klan's most infamous acts of deadly violence -- including the Freedom Summer killings , the murder of civil rights activist Viola Liuzzo, and the lynching of Michael Donald that led to the lawsuit that ultimately put the United Klans of America out of business for good -- occurred in the Deep South, during the s the KKK was truly a national movement, with urban centers like Detroit, Portland, Denver, and Indianapolis boasting tens of thousands of members and significant political influence.

Even in the s, when the KKK's public persona seemed synonymous with Mississippi and Alabama , more dues-paying Klan members resided in North Carolina than the rest of the South combined. KKK leaders found the Tar Heel State fertile recruiting ground, despite -- or perhaps because of -- the state's progressive image, which enabled the Klan to claim that they were the only group that would defend white North Carolinians against rising civil rights pressures.

While this message resonated in rural areas across the state's eastern coastal plain, the KKK built a significant following in cities like Greensboro and Raleigh as well. President Grant used these new powers to suppress the Klan in South Carolina, the effect of which severely curtailed the Klan in other States as well. By the end of Reconstruction in , the first Klan no longer existed. Pinette, U. Cross burning thereby became associated with the first Ku Klux Klan.

When D. In addition to the cross burnings in the movie, a poster advertising the film displayed a hooded Klansman riding a hooded horse, with his left hand holding the reins of the horse and his right hand holding a burning cross above his head. Wade Soon thereafter, in November , the second Klan began. From the inception of the second Klan, cross burnings have been used to communicate both threats of violence and messages of shared ideology.

The first initiation ceremony occurred on Stone Mountain near Atlanta, Georgia. While a foot cross burned on the mountain, the Klan members took their oaths of loyalty. See Kennedy This cross burning was the second recorded instance in the United States. Wade internal quotation marks omitted. Violence was also an elemental part of this new Klan. By September , the New York World newspaper documented acts of Klan violence, including 4 murders, 41 floggings, and 27 tar-and-featherings.

Often, the Klan used cross burnings as a tool of intimidation and a threat of impending violence. For example, in and , the Klan burned crosses in front of synagogues and churches. When the law fails you, call on us. These cross burnings embodied threats to people whom the Klan deemed antithetical to its goals.

And these threats had special force given the long history of Klan violence. These incidents of cross burning, among others, helped prompt Virginia to enact its first version of the cross-burning statute in The decision of this Court in Brown v.

Board of Education, U. These acts of violence included bombings, beatings, shootings, stabbings, and mutilations. See, e. Members of the Klan burned crosses on the lawns of those associated with the civil rights movement, assaulted the Freedom Riders, bombed churches, and murdered blacks as well as whites whom the Klan viewed as sympathetic toward the civil rights movement.

Throughout the history of the Klan, cross burnings have also remained potent symbols of shared group identity and ideology. The burning cross became a symbol of the Klan itself and a central feature of Klan gatherings. G ; see also Wade And the Klan has often published its newsletters and magazines under the name The Fiery Cross.

See Wade , At Klan gatherings across the country, cross burning became the climax of the rally or the initiation. Posters advertising an upcoming Klan rally often featured a Klan member holding a cross. See N. The Klan would then light the cross on fire, as the members raised their left arm toward the burning cross and sang The Old Rugged Cross.

For its own members, the cross was a sign of celebration and ceremony. In response to antimasking bills introduced in state legislatures after World War II, the Klan burned crosses in protest. See Chalmers On March 26, , the Klan engaged in rallies and cross burnings throughout the South in an attempt to recruit 10 million members.

See Wade Later in , the Klan became an issue in the third debate between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy, with both candidates renouncing the Klan. After this debate, the Klan reiterated its support for Nixon by burning crosses.

See id. And cross burnings featured prominently in Klan rallies when the Klan attempted to move toward more nonviolent tactics to stop integration. In short, a burning cross has remained a symbol of Klan ideology and of Klan unity. And while cross burning sometimes carries no intimidating message, at other times the intimidating message is the only message conveyed. For example, when a cross burning is directed at a particular person not affiliated with the Klan, the burning cross often serves as a message of intimidation, designed to inspire in the victim a fear of bodily harm.

Moreover, the history of violence associated with the Klan shows that the possibility of injury or death is not just hypothetical. In sum, while a burning cross does not inevitably convey a message of intimidation, often the cross burner intends that the recipients of the message fear for their lives.

And when a cross burning is used to intimidate, few if any messages are more powerful. Abrams v. United States, U. Johnson, U. California, U. The First Amendment affords protection to symbolic or expressive conduct as well as to actual speech. From the inception of the second Klan, cross burnings have been used to communicate both threats of violence and messages of shared ideology Throughout the history of the Klan, cross burnings have also remained potent symbols of shared group identity and ideology.

The burning cross became a symbol of the Klan itself and a central feature of Klan gatherings. Posters advertising an upcoming Klan rally often featured a Klan member holding a cross. The Klan would then light the cross on fire, as the members raised their left arm toward the burning cross and sang The Old Rugged Cross.

For example, when a cross burning is directed at a particular person not affiliated with the Klan, the burning cross often serves as a message of intimidation, designed to inspire in the victim a fear of bodily harm.

Moreover, the history of violence associated with the Klan shows that the possibility of injury or death is not just hypothetical. In sum, while a burning cross does not inevitably convey a message of intimidation, often the cross burner intends that the recipients of the message fear for their lives. And when a cross burning is used to intimidate, few if any messages are more powerful. III The protections afforded by the First Amendment are not absolute, and we have long recognized that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution.

See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Ohio The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Respondents do not contest that some cross burnings fit within this meaning of intimidating speech, and rightly so The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that in light of R.

City of St. Paul, even if it is constitutional to ban cross burning in a content-neutral manner, the Virginia cross-burning statute is unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of content and viewpoint.

It is true, as the Supreme Court of Virginia held, that the burning of a cross is symbolic expression. Individuals burn crosses as opposed to other means of communication because cross burning carries a message in an effective and dramatic manner. The fact that cross burning is symbolic expression, however, does not resolve the constitutional question. The Supreme Court of Virginia relied upon R. Paul, supra, to conclude that once a statute discriminates on the basis of this type of content, the law is unconstitutional.

We disagree. Such a reason, having been adjudged neutral enough to support exclusion of the entire class of speech from First Amendment protection, is also neutral enough to form the basis of distinction within the class. Unlike the statute at issue in R.

The First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation. Thus, just as a State may regulate only that obscenity which is the most obscene due to its prurient content, so too may a State choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm.