Senate apologizes for not outlawing lynching

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vernal45

member
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
729
Location
USA, I travel alot.
Senate apologizes for not outlawing lynching


WASHINGTON (AP) -- One woman remembered a cousin who had died at the hands of a mob in Kentucky. Another recalled a teenager dragged from a relative's home in Mississippi only to turn up dead in a river.

James Cameron lived to recount his own brush with mob justice. In 1930 he and two others were taken from an Indiana jail to face a lynch mob. The mob hanged the two young men accused of murder and rape but spared Cameron when someone in the crowd contended that the 16-year-old was not involved.

"I was saved by a miracle," said Cameron, now 91. People were "hollering for my blood," he recalled, "when a voice said, 'Take this boy back."'

To the victims of lynching -- 4,743 people killed between 1882 and 1968, three out of four of them black -- the Senate issued an apology Monday night for not standing against the violence.

"The apology, while late, is very necessary," said Doria Dee Johnson, an expert on the subject of lynching and the great-great-granddaughter of a victim. "People suffered. When the United States government could have done something about it, it did not."

Johnson traveled from Evanston, Illinois, to witness, along with more than 100 other relatives of Anthony P. Crawford, the voice-vote passage of the Senate resolution. Crawford was lynched in 1916 in Abbeville, South Carolina.

One of the resolution's chief sponsors, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, noted that the public nature of many of the lynchings was particularly disturbing.

"This was a community spectacle and the Senate of the United States knew it," Landrieu said. "There may be no other injustice in American history for which the Senate so uniquely bears responsibility."

Seven presidents petitioned Congress to end lynchings. Nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in the first half of the 20th century. The House passed three anti-lynching measures between 1920 and 1940, but the Senate passed none.

Senators filibustered anti-lynching measures for a total of six weeks, said the main Republican sponsor of the resolution, Sen. George Allen of Virginia. "It's not easy for people to apologize, but I think it does show the character of the Senate today," he said.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, the Senate's only black member, said, "I do hope that this chamber also spends some time ... doing something concrete and tangible to heal the long shadow of slavery and the legacy of discrimination so that 100 years from now we can look back and be proud and not have to apologize once again."

Simeon Wright said, "Good men did nothing" as his cousin, Emmett Till, was dragged from his uncle's Mississippi home and murdered, reportedly for whistling at a white woman. Wright, who was there the night Till was abducted in 1955, said that if there had been a federal anti-lynching law, "there was no way men would have come into my house and taken him out and killed him."

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. There were reported lynchings in all but four states, with Mississippi at the top with 581 documented incidents between 1882 and 1968, according to researchers at Tuskegee University.

Asked why the resolution was not put to a straight yes-or-no vote and why the debate on the Senate floor had to take place at night, Landrieu said she had accepted the conditions she was offered by the Senate leadership. She noted Congress' busy schedule.

By early evening, at least 75 senators had signed onto the resolution.
 
Shouldnt the Senate be apologizing for legislating on criminal matters that have traditionally been the realm of the states?

I dont recall anything in the constitution that gave congress the power to outlaw lynching. It isnt commerce and it isnt interstate.

Yeah, those men totally would have not lynched anyone if it was against the law. Because murder isnt already illegal.
 
an unfortunate and terribly poor mark on the senate for not having had the balls to stand up against this when it could have. also disturbing that this wasn't a unanimous resolution.
 
"There may be no other injustice in American history for which the Senate so uniquely bears responsibility."

Huh? Kidnaping wasn't already illegal? Jailbreaking wasn't already illegal? Murder wasn't already illegal? Denial of due process wasn't already unconstitutional?

And what does the United States Senate have to do with this?

Simeon Wright...said that if there had been a federal anti-lynching law, "there was no way men would have come into my house and taken him out and killed him."

Riiiiiiight. Twelve or thirteen laws didn't stop anyone, but that fourteenth one would have surely done the trick.
 
Please don't anyone take this wrong, but isn't killing someone already illegal? Sounds like the antis, murders will stop if we add 5 years onto thier life sentence for using a handgun!
 
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.

Talk about "political correctness" gone mad! Lynching has a plain and simple meaning. With that definition you can call almost ANYTHING naughty lynching.

Just read the dictionary, you weasels. :barf:

Main Entry: lynch
Pronunciation: 'linch
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: lynch law
: to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction
- lynch·er noun
 
Per Matt Payne, "Huh? Kidnaping wasn't already illegal? Jailbreaking wasn't already illegal? Murder wasn't already illegal? Denial of due process wasn't already unconstitutional?"

The problem in large part was that in the Deep South (and other places as well) when the lynching was by whites on blacks, the local law was in collusion, or, afterwards, would take no action against friends and neighbors.

"And what does the United States Senate have to do with this?"

It was an early effort to federalize the specific crime of lynching so that federal efforts could be brought in. Much like the Civil Rights deal in Mississippi during the voting rights "warfare" of the 1960s.

Art
 
Mary Landrieu strikes again. Lynching is bad; finding ballot boxes floating in the bayou is good. Apparently.

It's good to know we have Senators hard at work combing through the history books looking for things to apologize for. I feel much better knowing that.
 
Just an observation: Maybe 50 years from now the Senate will appologize for not taking action agains the rogue states of New York, California, New Jersey, etc. which were rampantly denying the rights of their citizens.


Maybe not.
 
Just an aside, but I saw in an unrelated book that the word Lynch came from a judge in Virginia who was very hard on Tories after the Revolutionary War. I saw the name in the link below, but that link is solely about lynching of African slaves. According to the reference in that other book, it started out as essentially people taking revenge out on Tories in the US after the Revolutionary War. The particularly hard judge gave his name to the word. I am curious how it spread from there. That judge must have had quite a reputation.

Lynching is the illegal execution of an accused person by a mob. The term lynching probably derived from the name Charles Lynch (1736-96), a justice of the peace who administered rough justice in Virginia.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlynching.htm
 
Pandering - again ! I would never apologize for something someone else did !!
 
Pandering - again ! I would never apologize for something someone else did !!

If they spend time on this that is time they don't have to spend on an issue that could make a difference but might offend one of the big money dilberts who have bought and paid for the distingished Senators' services.
 
"There may be no other injustice in American history for which the Senate so uniquely bears responsibility."

The responsibility lies with those that did the lynching, those that did nothing prevent it, and those that did nothing to bring the lynchers to justice.

I don't ever recall the US Senate geting all whipped up and howling for some minority's blood...other than Clarence Thomas...and Janice Rogers Brown...and Miguel Estrada. Oops, well maybe the US Senate does need to work on their (high-tech) "lynching" problem.

Next time, perhaps they'll pass the "We're nice to fluffy puppies" resolution.

Oh, by the way, is Robert Byrd (D-KKK) one of the signers of this resolution?
 
So What?!?!?!?!

You know...since only three of the people in the Senate were in the Senate in 1968, just what does this appology mean?

Are Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd trying to get into Heaven?

Now...if Strom Thermond had signed some kind of appology, that might mean something. But, this is like me appologizing for something my dad did before I was born.

Along with the resolution recognizing the Importance of Sun Safety(6/9/05), this is a great use of the Tax Payers money.

greg
 
Any bets on whether this is the first step in setting up a reparations claim?
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, the Senate's only black member, said, "I do hope that this chamber also spends some time ... doing something concrete and tangible to heal the long shadow of slavery and the legacy of discrimination so that 100 years from now we can look back and be proud and not have to apologize once again."

To paraphrase Dan Ackroyd (sorry grammaw) Obama, you ignorant slut! :neener:
 
A meaningless, politically motivated, act on the part of the US Senate.

We should be ashamed to have such representation. (But, then again, we might just have the government that we deserve.)
 
We got 'em on the ropes.

We can now look forward to apologies for
--AWB
--Campaign Finance Control
--Failure to enforce our borders

What is sauce for the goose of denial of due process, is sauce for the gander of other extra-constitutional actions by the senate.
 
"And what does the United States Senate have to do with this?"

It was an early effort to federalize the specific crime of lynching so that federal efforts could be brought in. Much like the Civil Rights deal in Mississippi during the voting rights "warfare" of the 1960s.

Art, your point is well taken. With the local law not doing anything about the lynching, the Feds should indeed have stepped in.

I guess I'd liken this to when the Pope apologized about the Church's treatment of Galileo.

That too, was a nice sentiment, if a bit too late.
 
Lynching is just a part of the history. Many times it was done because the law didn't do it's job.Many times it was the citizens committee that tamed the West more then the sheriff did. Not all were unjustified.
 
I think he is talking about the lynching of black people by the klan, not the more common type of lynching that was used to administer an informal sort of justice to people who committed actual crimes.
 
This really <chaps me> because the media is going to use this to portray all the residents of Abbeville and the other towns as racists (I take this personally because I live in Abbeville). We down here in the South are viewed as hotheaded, racist hicks. It also <chaps me> that crimes committed by a group of people that do not involve hanging are called lynchings. :scrutiny:

Last year, there was a standoff in Abbeville between a nutcase with the last name of Bixeby (First name Steve, I believe) and the police because of Eminent Domain issues. Bixeby shot two LEO's (one of whom was black). The media immediatly portrayed all citizens of Abbeville as hot-headed, gun-crazy idiots. Thing was, Bixeby was not even from the South or Abbeville. However, the rest of the country viewes us as all Bixeby clones. :fire:

How long before <> Rev. Jesse Jackson comes onto the scene with the Rainbow Coalition? :barf:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top