HRES-1382-117
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1531, H. Res. 1382 is considered passed House. (text: CR H10074)
Sponsored by Nikema Williams (D-GA)
What it does
This resolution formally condemns the actions of a mob that drove Black residents from their homes and businesses in Atlanta, Georgia in 1906, resulting in dozens of deaths and widespread destruction. It also expresses support for designating a national day of remembrance for victims of forced migrations of Black Americans. As a simple House resolution, it does not create law, appropriate funds, or impose any legal obligations.
Who benefits
Descendants of the victims and survivors of the 1906 Atlanta massacre, who would receive formal congressional acknowledgment of the event. Black Americans broadly, who supporters argue benefit from official recognition of historical violence. Historians, educators, and community organizations focused on preserving the history of racial violence in the United States. Advocates for a national day of remembrance, whose cause would receive congressional endorsement.
Who is hurt
This resolution carries no legal penalties, spending, or mandates, so no group faces a direct material harm. Critics who oppose congressional resolutions on historical events may object on procedural or philosophical grounds, but no specific group faces a concrete negative consequence from its passage.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the House of Representatives has a responsibility to formally acknowledge documented acts of racial violence that were never officially recognized at the time they occurred. The 1906 Atlanta massacre — in which mobs killed dozens of Black residents, destroyed Black-owned businesses, and displaced entire communities — was a significant historical event that shaped American history. Supporters contend that congressional condemnation provides a measure of dignity to victims and their descendants, helps establish an accurate public record, and reinforces the nation's stated commitment to equal protection under the law. They also argue that designating a day of remembrance serves an educational purpose, ensuring future generations understand this chapter of American history.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that simple resolutions of this kind are largely symbolic and do not produce tangible improvements in the lives of affected communities. Some contend that congressional floor time and resources are better directed toward legislation that creates concrete policy changes rather than non-binding statements about historical events. Others raise concerns about the selective nature of such resolutions — questioning why some historical events receive formal condemnation while others do not — and argue that a consistent, comprehensive framework for addressing historical grievances would be more appropriate than case-by-case resolutions. A few critics also argue that the federal government should not be in the business of issuing historical verdicts on events that occurred over a century ago.