Senate FINALLY Passes Anti-Lynching Legislation

[budullewraagh]

From:

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,159348,00.html

Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws

 

Monday' date=' June 13, 2005

 

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Monday acknowledged its own failure to stand against the lynching of thousands of black people, a practice that continued well into the 20th century.

 

"It's important that we are honest with ourselves and that we tell the truth about what happened," Sen. Mary Landrieu (search), D-La., said before the Senate by voice vote approved an apology for blocking anti-lynching legislation at a time when mob violence against blacks was commonplace. At least 80 senators signed on as co-sponsors.

 

Nearly 200 descendants of lynching victims, and a 91-year-old man thought to be the only living survivor of a lynching attempt, listened from the visitors' gallery to speeches about what Sen. George Allen (search), R-Va., described as "the failure of the Senate to take action when action was most needed."

 

"I came here to bear witness on behalf of my cousin Jimmy," said Janet Langhart Cohen, wife of former Defense Secretary William Cohen (search) and a member of the group that has pushed for the apology.

 

Her third cousin, 17-year-old Jimmy Gillenwaters, was killed by a lynch mob near Bowling Green, Ky., in 1912.

 

He was one of 4,743 people killed by mob violence between 1882 and 1968, according to Tuskegee University records. Of those, nearly three-fourths, 3,446, were blacks. Lynchings reached a peak of 230 in 1892, but they were prevalent well into the 1930s. Twenty lynchings were reported in 1935.

 

During that time, nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law.

 

But the Senate, with Southern conservatives wielding their filibuster powers, refused to act. With the enactment of civil rights laws in the 1960s and changes in national attitudes, the issue faded away.

 

Lynching is variously defined as a violent act, usually racial in nature, that denies a person due process of law and is carried out with the complicity of the local society.

 

The sponsors of the resolution, Landrieu and Allen, said they were motivated in part by a recent book, "Without Sanctuary, Lynching Photography in America," in which author James Allen collected lynch pictures, mostly taken by those participating in the killings.

 

"More than a half-century ago, mere feet from where we sit ... the Senate failed you and your ancestors and our nation," Landrieu told descendants at a lunch in the Capitol.

 

Among those present was James Cameron, who as a shoeshine boy in Marion, Ind., in 1930 was dragged from a cell and had a rope placed around his neck. Two of his friends, also accused of the murder of a white man and the rape of a white woman, were hanged. Cameron, then 16, was spared when a man in the crowd proclaimed his innocence.

 

"I was saved by a miracle," said Cameron, who went on to found America's Black Holocaust Museum in Milwaukee. "They were going to lynch me between my two buddies," he said, with thousands of people "hollering for my blood when a voice said, 'Take this boy back."'

 

The nonbinding resolution apologizes to the victims for the Senate's failure to act and "expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of lynching, the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human dignity and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States."

 

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said President Bush talked about slavery and the travails of American democracy in a meeting Monday with five African leaders. The Senate, McClellan said, "has taken a step that they feel they need to take, given their own past inaction on what were great injustices."

 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who witnessed racial tensions as a child in Alabama, called the apology "a remarkable and wonderful thing" during an interview with MSNBC's "Hardball."

 

Acknowledging the mistakes of the past "is an immensely important first step," said Emma Coleman Jordan, professor at the Georgetown Law Center and an expert on the subject. Other steps, she said, could include establishing a national research center and showing atonement by setting up trust funds for the descendants of victims.

 

Congress in the past has apologized to Japanese-Americans and other persecuted groups, but the issue of reparations has complicated efforts to apologize to blacks for slavery. Jordan said a trust fund for lynching victims descendants would target a far smaller group.[/quote']

 

so the senate finally did it, after passing by over 200 bills. even in this day and age it took 6 weeks of filibustering, but FINALLY we realize that lynching is not a good idea.

 

if we go to the bbc, however, we will find more information.

Source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4090732.stm

 

The vote was passed without opposition - though 20 of the 100 senators did not put their names to a statement supporting it.

 

now why on earth would 20 people not be proud to sign their respective names on a piece of paper condemning lynching in this land of the free? what is so frightening is that these 20 people decided that supporting such legislation was very likely a bad choice, as it would lose them support more than it would gain them support. i, for one, am disgusted.

 

discuss as you wish

[-Demosthenes-]

The nonbinding resolution apologizes to the victims for the Senate's failure to act and "expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of lynching, the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human dignity and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States."

When I first saw the thread I though it was a Anti-Lynching Bill, but it seems a resolution of official apology.

 

Another thing, why wasn't linching covered under murder if the person is killed?

[budullewraagh]

"The vote was passed without opposition"

there was a vote on the legislation. there were apologies involved.

 

"Lynching is variously defined as a violent act, usually racial in nature, that denies a person due process of law and is carried out with the complicity of the local society."

and yeah, lynching can involve murder, but hey, they were blacks. property, right? if state governments dont care, nothing wrong with it, right?

[Pangloss]

It was felt, at various times, that a federal law was necessary because local law wasn't being enforced. Whether it would have done any good or not I don't know. Had I been a Senator during that time I would have voted for it and pushed hard for its enforcement. Some of the cases of what happened to those people are staggering to read and almost impossible to comprehend.

 

As to this business of a few of the Senators not signing, I am somewhat bothered by the jack-boots tone of the story as it played out in the media. Not signing a piece of paper condemning racism is not a declaration of racism, dammit, and it's about freaking time we learned that in this society. Still, some morons will draw that comparison.

 

Like I've said countless times, there is no worse abuser of a given freedom than its radically faithful defenders. Like listening to a free speech defender talk about how the opposition needs to be silenced. Some things just boggle the mind.

 

But in general I don't really see where opposition would necessarily, say, open the door for reparations (which may be important to some people out there, I don't know, but if they think they're going to get money from me that they didn't earn and I don't owe, they can kiss my lilly-white you-know-what).

 

Apologies are fine. We should never forget what happened to those people. Nor should we repeat the mistakes of history. Even the popular ones.

[-Demosthenes-]

and yeah, lynching can involve murder, but hey, they were blacks. property, right? if state governments dont care, nothing wrong with it, right?

I really don't see why it was legal to do it, I know local juries wouldn't convict them, but why didn't someone do something? Seriously someone should have done something then. An apology is nice, heck I apologize it was so horrible, but it will never replace what was not done when something should have been done.

[budullewraagh]

NOTE TO ALL: THIS POST CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES THAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT WANT TO VIEW

 

"that they didn't earn"

do people "earn" money by being damaged and suing?

 

"is not a declaration of racism, dammit, and it's about freaking time we learned that in this society. Still, some morons will draw that comparison."

not a declaration of racism, and i never made that assertion. but do tell me if you happen to know why these people decided not to sign.

 

"I really don't see why it was legal to do it"

terrible, but lynchings were common. see the above statistics. they were also considered social gatherings. priests went. families went. little children looked on and had the tendency to not flinch. if people did anything, the courts would laugh at them, the kkk would threaten them, and mobs of white people would burn their respective houses down.

 

see below for images:

note that these people aren't hooded

note the child

very social gathering. a family outing if you will.

[Pangloss]

"that they didn't earn"

do people "earn" money by being damaged and suing?

 

I'm not sure how you got to that' date=' since we weren't even talking about lawsuits. I was referring to (hypothetical) people who would ask the government for compensation, and specifically those who ask for compensation [i']for sins against their ancestors[/i]. I'm not opposed to compensation for actual lynching survivors, if any still exist.

 

 

"is not a declaration of racism, dammit, and it's about freaking time we learned that in this society. Still, some morons will draw that comparison."

not a declaration of racism, and i never made that assertion. but do tell me if you happen to know why these people decided not to sign.

 

I didn't say that you did.

[budullewraagh]

"I'm not sure how you got to that, since we weren't even talking about lawsuits. I was referring to (hypothetical) people who would ask the government for compensation, and specifically those who ask for compensation for sins against their ancestors. I'm not opposed to compensation for actual lynching survivors, if any still exist."

but now what about hypothetical family A. the patriarch was lynched. the matriarch had to raise several children, all of whom could have gone to college, except whoops, they had no money. they would have had enough, had the patriarch been alive to provide. what about these children? do they deserve compensation?

 

"I didn't say that you did."

but you implied it. otherwise you would have had no reason to say it. or you could call your statement irrelevant.

[-Demosthenes-]

I think that we all agree that these were wrong. There is no need to argue that, what some of are trying to say is that congress didn't pass a fedural law against linching, and now that they pass a "oops, sorry" resolution it doesn't make anyone feel any better.

[budullewraagh]

in the present day, you and i, and most others will agree that lynching isn't a good idea. whats so frightening is that senate republicans filibustered this for 6 weeks. whats more frightening is the fact that 20 people didn't want to put their respective names on a piece of legislation condemning the practice of lynching. one can infer that this is because they had fear that they would lose support from their respective voting bases, which seems to lead to the conclusion that many people still support lynching as a practice.

 

anyway, the house approved 200+ pieces of anti-lynching legislation previously, but all got filibustered in the senate.

 

laws are written so that they will be upheld. the whole anti-lynching thing needed to be passed, because lynching is a crime, according to the people of the united states and the basic rules to which it is managed by.

[john5746]

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

Robert Bennett (R-UT)

Christopher Bond (R-MO)

Jim Bunning (R-KY)

Conrad Burns (R-MT)

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)

Thad Cochran (R-MS)

Kent Conrad (D-ND)

John Cornyn (R-TX)

Michael Crapo (R-ID)

Michael Enzi (R-WY)

Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

Judd Gregg (R-NH)

Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Trent Lott (R-MS)

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

Richard Shelby (R-AL)

John Sununu (R-NH)

Craig Thomas (R-WY)

George Voinovich (R-OH)

 

These are the 20 senators. Overwhelmingly republican, but not all from the "DEEP SOUTH". I have a hard time believing Orrin Hatch had a problem with it. Does every senator need to co-sponsor a bill?

 

In any case, I bet they will wish they had. A bad move on their part.

[Pangloss]

but now what about hypothetical family A. the patriarch was lynched. the matriarch had to raise several children' date=' all of whom could have gone to college, except whoops, they had no money. they would have had enough, had the patriarch been alive to provide. what about these children? do they deserve compensation?

[/quote']

 

Not in my opinion, no. Who knows what said "patriarch" might have done with his life and his money, had he not become a victim? I don't, and neither do you. Assuming they would have been better off, and charging me on the basis of that assumption (especially when I didn't cause that harm), is ridiculous. Everyone would have a claim on that loose basis. I could claim that my grandfather would have been a millionaire if he hadn't been interned in a Japanese prison camp in WW2 (true) just because congress couldn't get its head out of the sand about isolationism. Sure, that's not as serious as what happened to the lynching victim, but I was harmed by an action of the government, wasn't I? I ought to be entitled to SOMETHING, shouldn't I? So where's my money? Hand it over!

 

Ridiculous. Life is not about sucking at the public teat for every ounce of milk you can possibly drag out of the rest of us. One of these days the far left will figure that out. Until then they're just giving liberals a bad name.

 

 

 

"I didn't say that you did."

but you implied it. otherwise you would have had no reason to say it. or you could call your statement irrelevant.

 

You're mistaken. I stand by what I said. I clearly addressed the issue at large, not your comments specifically. If you don't like it, talk to a mod.

 

For the record, I will not discuss this "hit-and-run, then swoop in for the kill when they take the bait" deal of yours any more. Future claims of words-in-mouth from you will be ignored. You're not fooling anybody, and I'm not going to play your little game anymore.

[-Demosthenes-]

I think that what happened discrimination, linching, and slavery are wrong. I think that a lot of people still carry the guilt of this. Maybe we should, or maybe not. Should we walk towards the future, or try to fix the past?

[Guest Donnie Darko]

What people need to understand is that the majority of these lynchings were of convicted murderers and rapists. Also, White people were lynched as well. Get over it.

 

Donnie Darko

[Ophiolite]

Thank you for your well reasoned, passionately rendered, eloquently expressed , accurately researched, objectively phrased contribution.

Now look up the word irony in the dictionary.

[budullewraagh]

pangloss, i, to a degree, believe that it wouldnt be good for several million lawsuits to be brought against the US. nonetheless, i don't see anything wrong in the son of one who was lynched by a mob suing the (living) man who lynched his father.

 

"For the record, I will not discuss this "hit-and-run, then swoop in for the kill when they take the bait" deal of yours any more. Future claims of words-in-mouth from you will be ignored. You're not fooling anybody, and I'm not going to play your little game anymore."

 

i just dont see any reason in your stating that not signing such a bill does not imply racism. nobody had made that assertion, and it seemed like you implied that i, specifically, had. to claim that you put words in my mouth is not as overt as the implications you made in that statement. im not playing a game. i care about the issues. i thought i'd discuss this issue, as nobody had brought it up a day after the decision.

 

"What people need to understand is that the majority of these lynchings were of convicted murderers and rapists. Also, White people were lynched as well. Get over it."

complete bs by definition. you may want to look up "lynching." see what you find. it was already addressed above.

 

john, thanks for the names.

[Pangloss]

nonetheless, i don't see anything wrong in the son of one who was lynched by a mob suing the (living) man who lynched his father.

 

I don't either.

[j_p]

now why on earth would 20 people not be proud to sign their respective names on a piece of paper condemning lynching in this land of the free?

 

Two possible acceptable reasons:

1.] They were out of town, and knew their signatures were unnecessary or no-one got around to asking them to co-sponsor the resolution. [Call me cynical, but if I were a Democrat party-politician, I wouldn't be chasing down Repulican Senators asking them to sign on.] And most of the Deep South states had at least one Senator co-sponsor the resolution.

 

2.] The non-signing senators think that apologizing for something that you didn't do is meaningless and self-serving; I believe that no current senator ever blocked an Anti-Lynching Bill.

 

I think the second reason has some validity. What is this apology, what force does it have? 4,743 are still dead. The Federal Government still did nothing to stop the murders. And African American social structures still reflect the deliberate destruction of African American family structure well into the 20th century.

 

"Sorry" doesn't cut it.

[-Demosthenes-]

i don't see anything wrong in the son of one who was lynched by a mob suing the (living) man who lynched his father.

The man should be charged with murder.

[Bettina]

What people need to understand is that the majority of these lynchings were of convicted murderers and rapists. Also' date=' White people were lynched as well. Get over it.

 

Donnie Darko[/quote']

 

Error...error....error.....Not true. I have read where a great many were lynched just because they were black. And......the white people with them were supporters of those black people. This was disgusting, and if I was born at that time, I would have been sick to be an american. Those people in congress who didn't want to sign a paper were sick too.

 

Bettina

[-Demosthenes-]

But we must understand that just becuase they didn't sign it doesn't mean they are racist or condone passed linchings.

[budullewraagh]

"But we must understand that just becuase they didn't sign it doesn't mean they are racist or condone passed linchings."

i just find it weird.

 

"

Two possible acceptable reasons:

1.] They were out of town, and knew their signatures were unnecessary or no-one got around to asking them to co-sponsor the resolution. [Call me cynical, but if I were a Democrat party-politician, I wouldn't be chasing down Repulican Senators asking them to sign on.] And most of the Deep South states had at least one Senator co-sponsor the resolution.

 

2.] The non-signing senators think that apologizing for something that you didn't do is meaningless and self-serving; I believe that no current senator ever blocked an Anti-Lynching Bill.

 

I think the second reason has some validity. What is this apology, what force does it have? 4,743 are still dead. The Federal Government still did nothing to stop the murders. And African American social structures still reflect the deliberate destruction of African American family structure well into the 20th century.

 

"Sorry" doesn't cut it."

1 isnt valid.

as for 2, it's better late than never. if i were to do something to offend you and i were to regret it, i would apologize. i wouldn't say "whoops, it already happened so i can't be sorry about it and apologize." thats not how it works. it can't be that. perhaps they think they would lose support among the voters?

plus, it was more than just an apology; it was legislation banning lynchings.

[-Demosthenes-]

plus, it was more than just an apology; it was legislation banning lynchings.

The nonbinding resolution apologizes to the victims for the Senate's failure to act and "expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of lynching, the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human dignity and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States."...Acknowledging the mistakes of the past "is an immensely important first step," said Emma Coleman Jordan, professor at the Georgetown Law Center and an expert on the subject. Other steps, she said, could include establishing a national research center and showing atonement by setting up trust funds for the descendants of victims.

Doesn't look like it was banning lynchings, looks like an apology to me.

[j_p]

1 isnt valid.

Why not? I really don't know the details; did they refuse to co-sponsor, or did they lack the opportunity to co-sponsor, or did some decide one representative [that is, one Senator] of a state co-sponsoring the bill was sufficient?

 

as for 2, it's better late than never. if i were to do something to offend you and i were to regret it, i would apologize. ...

And I would most graciously accept your apology even if I still wanted to cut your heart out with a rusty spoon.

 

However, if you were to apologize for something truly evil your grandfather had done to mine, I would, just as graciously, refuse the apology. You have not harmed me; if you feel guilty about what your grandfather did, that is the sins of the fathers being visited on you. There is no remedy. The dead can not apologize.

 

plus, it was more than just an apology; it was legislation banning lynchings.

No, it wasn't.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109iiykY9::

[-Demosthenes-]

However, if you were to apologize for something truly evil your grandfather had done to mine, I would, just as graciously, refuse the apology. You have not harmed me; if you feel guilty about what your grandfather did, that is the sins of the fathers being visited on you. There is no remedy. The dead can not apologize.

I have to disagree. It's fine for someone to apologize. All I was saying is that I am disapointed that no one did anything at the time, and apologizing doesn't really help. Just because it doesn't help doesn't mean it's not ok, I think it was even good to apoligize. Apologizing is almost like saying "oops, we see now that we could have help" and seems like an admittance of failure (probably why some opposed it).