It’s complicated? I don’t think it’d be fair to call it virtue-signaling in a blanket fashion, no. Despite the overwhelming decline of 2nd Klan membership acros

It’s complicated? I don’t think it’d be fair to call it virtue-signaling in a blanket fashion, no. Despite the overwhelming decline of 2nd Klan membership across the country, racism was still deeply entrenched in American society. Most Americans in heavily racist areas saw this as normal. A minority disagreed, and some were in positions of power to act on those convictions. I believe it’s more than fair to interpret the mask laws as being fueled by recognition (by some) that times were changing, and a desire to avoid returning to the hooded times of the 2nd Klan. They were likely interested in preventing hooded Klan marches and intimidation acts—for example, Georgia’s 1951 mask law came a couple years after a group of hooded Klansmen stood outside a polling place to deter black citizens from voting, iirc. I also think it’s wise to keep that interpretation balanced by recognizing that while perhaps not quite virtue-signaling, the mask laws—when viewed alongside the horrible racist violence allowed in the states that had mask laws—were passed by some people who wanted to unmask the Klan, and others who realized it was politically expedient to be seen doing so. In some cases—notably those states who allowed post-1954 Civil Rights-era violence and allied with local Klans—it provided an appearance of doing something, while then turning a blind eye toward the mask-free violence occurring in their states, and forging alliances with local Klan members. Ultimately, to understand the period, its actors, and their motivations, we’re left digging through whatever records exist of public arguments made at the time for the mask laws, and looking carefully at who made the arguments, and how those arguments square with their actions in their states. Sadly, I’m not sure if there are many publicly available records online of that sort for someone to dig through.