Turn on thread page Beta

A Senate Apology for History on Lynching watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    .. With the exception of the following (from what I've seen):

    Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
    Thad Cochran (R-MS)
    John Cornyn (R-TX)
    Michael Enzi (R-WY)
    Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
    Judd Gregg (R-NH)
    Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
    Trent Lott (R-MS)
    John Sununu (R-NH)
    Craig Thomas (R-WY)

    A Senate Apology for History on Lynching

    Vote Condemns Past Failure to Act

    By Avis Thomas-Lester
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, June 14, 2005; A12



    The U.S. Senate last night approved a resolution apologizing for its failure to enact federal anti-lynching legislation decades ago, marking the first time the body has apologized for the nation's treatment of African Americans.

    One-hundred and five years after the first anti-lynching bill was proposed by a black congressman, senators approved by a voice vote Resolution 39, which called for the lawmakers to apologize to lynching victims, survivors and their descendants, several of whom watched from the gallery.

    "There may be no other injustice in American history for which the Senate so uniquely bears responsibility," Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said before the vote.

    Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), who with Landrieu led the resolution effort, said the vote finally put the Senate "on the record condemning the brutal atrocity that plagued our great nation."

    The moment lacked the drama of the fiery Senate filibusters that blocked the legislation three times in the past century. There were few senators on the floor last night and no roll call, no accounting for each vote. But 80 of the Senate's 100 members signed on as co-sponsors, signaling their support.

    Missing from that list were senators from the state that reported the most lynching incidents: Mississippi Republicans Trent Lott and Thad Cochran.

    "I am personally struck," Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said, "even at this significant moment, by the undeniable and inescapable reality that there aren't 100 senators and co-sponsors. Maybe by the end of the evening there will be, but as we stand here with this resolution now passed by voice vote, there aren't."

    In passing the measure, the senators in essence admitted that their predecessors' failure to act had helped perpetuate a horror that took the lives of more than 4,700 people from 1882 to 1968, most of them black men. At the turn of the last century, more than 100 lynching incidents were reported each year, many of them publicly orchestrated to humiliate the victims and instill fear in others. Lynching occurred in all but four states in the contiguous United States, and less than 1 percent of the perpetrators were brought to justice, historians say.

    The U.S. House of Representatives three times passed measures to make lynching a federal offense, but each time the bills were knocked down in the Senate. Powerful southern senators, such as Richard B. Russell Jr. (D-Ga.), whose name was given to the Senate office building where the resolution was drafted, used the filibuster to block votes.

    Excerpts from the Congressional Record show some senators argued that such laws would interfere with states' rights. Others, however, delivered impassioned speeches about how lynching helped control what they characterized as a threat to white women and also served to keep the races separate, according to records provided by the Committee for a Formal Apology, a group that has lobbied the Senate.

    "Whenever a Negro crosses this dead line between the white and the Negro races and lays his black hand on a white woman, he deserves to die," segregationist Sen. James Thomas Heflin (D-Ala.) said in 1930.

    In a 1938 debate, Russell repeatedly referred to a hypothetical lynching victim with a derogatory derivative of the word "Negro."

    Seven presidents lobbied Congress for anti-lynching legislation. And in a 1937 Washington Post article, George Gallup, director of the American Institute of Public Opinion, said polls showed 72 percent of Americans, including 57 percent of southerners, supported such a law.

    Several advocates would like to see lawmakers do more. The Committee for a Formal Apology would like to see Russell's name stripped from the Senate building.

    U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who grew up with Jim Crow laws and the specter of lynching, said he wants an apology for slavery.

    "The Senate has never issued an official apology for slavery and has never gone on the record condemning slavery," he said. "The U.S. government needs to apologize for the whole system of slavery. Lynching was just a part of it."

    The vote culminated a day of events for about 200 descendants and family friends of lynching victims who were invited to Washington to witness the historic vote. They were treated to a luncheon with senators, given a tour of the Capitol and introduced at a news conference, where they were asked about the resolution's significance.

    The descendants included Winona Puckett Padget, 78, of Detroit, whose uncle, Richard Puckett, was lynched in Laurens, S.C., in 1913, after he was accused of accosting a white woman. Also on hand was James Cameron, 91, of Milwaukee, who is believed to be the only living person to have survived a lynching. He was hanged by a rope from a maple tree in Marion, Ind., in 1930 but was cut down when someone in the crowd asked that he be spared.

    "We're actually calling this 'Freedom Summer,' " said Doria Johnson, 44, of Evanston, Ill., echoing a reference to the summer of 1964. "We've got the FBI's reopening of the Emmett Till murder case in Mississippi, the trial for the murders of civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner starting and the apology for lynching on the same day. We're finally feeling that our families' suffering is being acknowledged."

    At breakfast Sunday, Johnson -- whose great-great-grandfather Anthony P. Crawford was lynched in 1916 in Abbeville, S.C. -- contemplated the Senate's apology with Simeon Wright, 62, a cousin of Till, who was 14 when he was murdered in 1955 after he whistled at a white store owner's wife. The case sparked national outrage.

    "Years ago, African Americans were being beaten and hung, and the people who had the power to do something about it were afraid to do anything or just didn't," Wright said. "Now, their sons and daughters realize how wrong they were, and they want to do something. The apology is appropriate. It was a long time coming, but it is here."

    The two descendants talked about how their families were altered by lynching. Wright's mother left their home the night Till was abducted and moved to Chicago. Soon after, his father sold what possessions he could, then boarded a train with the children to join his wife.

    Johnson said her family scattered and their fortune was lost after Crawford's lynching. His children received his land and $200 each, but an executor related to a lynch mob member kept thousands, Johnson said. The family later went bankrupt, and the property was sold for a pittance, she said.

    "A family's wealth today is often based on what their grandfathers or great-grandfathers did," Johnson said, "but so many of our families had that wealth stolen as a result of lynching."
    Is this in any way justifiable?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    .. With the exception of the following (from what I've seen):

    Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
    Thad Cochran (R-MS)
    John Cornyn (R-TX)
    Michael Enzi (R-WY)
    Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
    Judd Gregg (R-NH)
    Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
    Trent Lott (R-MS)
    John Sununu (R-NH)
    Craig Thomas (R-WY)



    Is this in any way justifiable?
    Firstly any reason given why said republican senators voted against/abstained from condemning what were hghly unconstitutional crimes?

    Also, just in case anyone gets any ideas about republican bashing, they should note that back then many of the big opponents to an anti-lynching bill were in fact southern democrats...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Looking at some of those names, it looks like they're state rights (in contract to making the central government more powerful) supporters, who don't think it's the duty of the federal government to get involved in or apologize for actions committed within individual states.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    Also, just in case anyone gets any ideas about republican bashing, they should note that back then many of the big opponents to an anti-lynching bill were in fact southern democrats...
    Thank you Farian, for a Limey, you have a pretty good grasp on the history of the Southern Dems.
    Offline

    0
    The "apology" is a meaningless scam, another ridiculous exercise in political correctness.
    Does anybody think that any of voting senators actually gives a fat rats fu¢k about the lynchings?
    Sure, it was wrong, but that was then and this is now. Who has the right to apologize for something that was done by someone else?
    Has the senate apologized for killing 10's of thousands of indians and stealing their land?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Looking at some of those names, it looks like they're state rights (in contract to making the central government more powerful) supporters, who don't think it's the duty of the federal government to get involved in or apologize for actions committed within individual states.
    But shouldn't they have been more stringent in their enforcing of the 14th and 15th amendments?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I just about laughed myself out of my chair when I first heard about this. Robert Byrd is still in the Senate, and yet they are issuing an apology, as if to say "If only those senators who blocked this legislation would have known what we do today..." :rolleyes: What a farce.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    Has the senate apologized for killing 10's of thousands of indians and stealing their land?
    There's a slight difference. An actual person who survived a lynching is still alive, and there could be more out there. Whether this is the case or not, I don't see why it would be so hard just to collectively apologise, public relations exercise or not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    Thank you Farian, for a Limey, you have a pretty good grasp on the history of the Southern Dems.
    What he said is true, however that doesn't change the fact that in this present day, it happens to be Republican senators refusing to sign.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    What he said is true, however that doesn't change the fact that in this present day, it happens to be Republican senators refusing to sign.
    But they are refusing to sign a piece of legislation that is, in effect, obsolete. The same could not be said of the Dems who refused it decades ago.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    But they are refusing to sign a piece of legislation that is, in effect, obsolete. The same could not be said of the Dems who refused it decades ago.
    I'm not denying that. I'm just pointing out that those refusing to sign now are Republicans.

    I don't think it's obsolete. It'd be obsolete if it was a bill to BAN lynchings, for example. It's not though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I know a bit about American politics, but I've often wondered and never found the answer to a question that has been bothering my mind. So, my question is, why did the Democrats lose many of their Southern strongholds to the Republicans, who now seem to hold them as strongly as the Democrats once did?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    I know a bit about American politics, but I've often wondered and never found the answer to a question that has been bothering my mind. So, my question is, why did the Democrats lose many of their Southern strongholds to the Republicans, who now seem to hold them as strongly as the Democrats once did?
    The most common answer is that the Dems used to support "Jim Crow" and other segregation laws, but after WWII began increasingly to adopt a civil rights platform, angering & alienating conservative Southern protestants. By the late 1960s the Democrats as a party had become far more liberal than their southern constituency, and Republicans began to capitalize on this in their campaigns. The "Dixiecrats" of the South eventually died out or switched parties, and today's Democrats (still the party of progress or "progressivism") are seen by many in the conservative Southern states as anti-Christian, anti-tradition, anti-family, unpatriotic and perverse.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    The most common answer is that the Dems used to support "Jim Crow" and other segregation laws, but after WWII began increasingly to adopt a civil rights platform, angering & alienating conservative Southern protestants. By the late 1960s the Democrats as a party had become far more liberal than their southern constituency, and Republicans began to capitalize on this in their campaigns. The "Dixiecrats" of the South eventually died out or switched parties, and today's Democrats (still the party of progress or "progressivism") are seen by many in the conservative Southern states as anti-Christian, anti-tradition, anti-family, unpatriotic and perverse.
    Great. Thanks for your time If anyone else wants to expand on that, they're welcome.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    I'm not denying that. I'm just pointing out that those refusing to sign now are Republicans.

    I don't think it's obsolete. It'd be obsolete if it was a bill to BAN lynchings, for example. It's not though.
    The resolution is an apology for actions that the current members of the senate had nothing to do with. Apologies mean nothing unless they come from the offenders.

    It's obsolete because the measure may not be on the books, but I think you would be hard-pressed to encounter someone who previously thought that the current Senate would not have passed the anti-lynching bill back in the day.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    Great. Thanks for your time If anyone else wants to expand on that, they're welcome.
    I would just like tack on the idea of the protection of states' rights to that issue, as well.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Is it not the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that the constitution is enforced? Or is it the job of citizens to challenge states (or whoever else) via the supreme. E.g. Brown V Topeka, Plessey v Ferguson etc
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    I just about laughed myself out of my chair when I first heard about this. Robert Byrd is still in the Senate, and yet they are issuing an apology, as if to say "If only those senators who blocked this legislation would have known what we do today..." :rolleyes: What a farce.
    Yeah, ain't that rich? Mr KKK himself, Robert Byrd, a democrat in good standing, a man who enjoyed his Saturday night lynchings, but deplores the kicking of the Koran.
    Offline

    0
    The Mr. Byrd of yester-year.

    Civil Rights Filibuster Ended

    At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate.

    The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities—including private businesses offering public services—such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    Great. Thanks for your time If anyone else wants to expand on that, they're welcome.
    What Wiz is saying, without saying it, is that it was the republicans who got the 1964 civil rights act passed.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 25, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

3,029

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.