Last night, the Senate passed a resolution apologizing for not outlawing lynching multiple times when they had the chance. From the AP story:
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.
Now what I think is interesting about this legislation is that it was passed late at night, on a voice vote. No record of who voted for it. No one voted against it, but not every Senator appeared to support the resolution. As Reuters notes:
Dan Duster, a descendant of Ida B. Wells, a former slave who became an anti-lynching crusader, praised senators who publicly backed the resolution of apology and scorned those who did not.
No lawmaker opposed the measure, but 20 of the 100 senators had not signed a statement of support of it shortly before a vote was taken on a nearly empty Senate floor.
"I think it's politics. They're afraid of losing votes from people of prejudice," Duster said of those who did not sign the statement of support.
Why weren't there 99 co-sponsors to Sen. Landrieu's resolution? Which twenty Senators refused to support legislation apologizing for lynching, for God's sake?
Let me ask you a favor: Scan this list of co-sponsors to S. Res. 39. See if your state's Senators are on it. And if they're not, call them. Ask them why they didn't co-sponsor the resolution.
Back to the AP story:
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.
So Cheney and Frist weren't willing to put this to a roll call vote? How convenient. Wasn't Frist the one beating the drum for full votes of the Senate?
Of all the times to demand "a straight up or down vote" on something in the Senate, this was it. Too bad the Senate leadership provided cover for bigots.
(Called to my attention by Monk.)
UPDATE: Here's a list of the Senators who refused to co-sponsor the resolution. Call 'em.
Maybe the senators that didn't support the apology were concerned that it might open the door toward some kind of reparations... I dunno.
I certainly think an apology or at least an expression of extreme regret is in order.
I don't think anyone would be pro-lynching unless we caught a suicide bomber before he could detonate.
Posted by: Jason Whong | June 15, 2005 at 11:23 PM
I don't see how expressing regret for the Senate's past history of not outlawing lynching (most of which efforts didn't happen while these Senators were even in office) could possibly be construed as supporting future efforts toward reparations.
I just think they're too scared of the bigot vote.
Posted by: Vidiot | June 16, 2005 at 11:05 AM