Page 1 of 1

Senate plans lynching apology

Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:18 am
by Matt
Senate plans lynching apology
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0613AZinDC13.html

Jun. 13, 2005 12:00 AM

The U.S. Senate plans today to officially apologize to the victims of lynchings and the descendants of those victims for its failure to ever pass anti-lynching legislation.

A voice vote will be taken on a non-binding "sense of the Senate" resolution (Senate Resolution 39), sponsored by Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and George Allen, R-Va., expressing remorse for the Senate's not helping to stop a crime that took the lives of at least 4,742 people, mostly Blacks, in at least 46 states between 1882 and 1968.

A lynching is a type of group violence that leads to someone being killed without a legal trial, usually by hanging. The exact number of lynchings that occurred across the nation is unknown.

In Arizona, there were 31 known lynchings from 1882 to 1968, according to Landrieu's spokesman, Adam Sharp.

U.S. Senate filibusters and other procedural delays blocked more than 200 anti-lynching bills over the first half of the 20th century.

A voice vote will not record which individual lawmakers actually vote for a measure. But its passage is certain.

Congressional records show that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and 67 other Republican and Democratic senators already have signed on as co-sponsors of the resolution. That number is expected to reach 80 senators by today, Sharp said.

Sharp said Arizona's other GOP senator, Jon Kyl, is among nine senators who, for various reasons, have declined to be co-sponsors, although they have informed Landrieu's office that they also will support the resolution.

Kyl's spokesman, Scot Montrey, did not return several telephone calls and messages on Friday as to why the senator is not listed as a co-sponsor.

Sharp said the explanation Kyl's office gave to Landrieu's office is that Kyl makes it "a practice" not to co-sponsor "sense of the Senate" resolutions. Such resolutions express opinions of the Senate but do not carry any legal weight.

Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:50 am
by MK
I feel ambivalent about these gestures. It's better than nothing, but then again, how many times does Congress have to fail at doing the right thing, only to apologize decades later? It's 'so obvious' now what they should've done, but a hell of a lot of people didn't want to do it back then. To be fair, Congress isn't an island, a good deal of people didn't want anti-lynching laws, but still...Even FDR was reluctant to push for anti-lynching laws because he was afraid of losing Congressional support for his New Deal legislation, which is more striking when you look at his wife's vocal support for anti-lynching legislation.

I came across some archival editorials and articles while researching a history paper once (it was on legislative process), and I remember two recurring points: 1) some states already had anti-lynching laws - not every state, and nor where they consistently enforced by local officials - so there was no need for the federal gov't to intrude 2) such laws would do little to stop lynchings.