Senate Apologizes for Inaction on Lynching - Sort of

[mactastic]

Now it's all well and good that the Senate has apologized (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8206697/) for not enacting federal legislation against the practice of lynching (stalled for lack of an up-or-down vote ironically), but rumor has it the vote was taken as a voice vote to conceal the fact that up to a dozen Senators would not support it, fearing a backlash from constituents. The voice vote apparently was called for by the leadership of the Senate to protect the identities of these cowardly Senators. As a voice vote there will be no record of who voted for and against, just that it passed.

If true, this is a truly disgusting twist on an otherwise welcome development.

[miloblithe]

Ah the South, preserving racism and living off of the North for generations.

[Ugg]

Ah the South, preserving racism and living off of the North for generations.


Is it too late to let them finally succeed in seceding? Bunch of gutless B***ards for not standing up for what is right and worrying more about their jobs. Even worse all those in the South who can't get over losing the war.

On a side note, i wonder what Clarence Thomas thought of that? My guess is that he seems to think that any gesture to african Americans is unconstitutional.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Congress is a sad bunch, Term limits is the only answer for these mindless cowards of control and power. If the president has to have term limits then these clowns should also. Think Congress would ever do that to themself? Power & control freaks so you know the answer to that one.

[mactastic]

We tried term limits here in CA and I have to say that while it sounded like a good idea at the time it has contributed to the problems CA's legislature exhibits. Yes it has kicked out the bobo's but it has also removed the studious policy wonks who spend years becoming expert in some obscure portion of law. It has been particularly bad for the HoR because of the shortness of the term. 4 years is not much time to become a top performer at your job, particularly if your skill set is outside the area you become involved in. And lets face it, not many pols have expertise in things like land use issues, health care, or infrastructure.

The worst thing is that it hasn't removed the class of the 'professional pol'. Now they simply move from one post to another. City council to State Rep to Insurance Commissioner etc. doing none of them expertly. No, there's got to be a better way of reducing incumbent deadwood without torching the whole forest.

[wordmunger]

Is it too late to let them finally succeed in seceding? Bunch of gutless B***ards for not standing up for what is right and worrying more about their jobs. Even worse all those in the South who can't get over losing the war.

On a side note, i wonder what Clarence Thomas thought of that? My guess is that he seems to think that any gesture to african Americans is unconstitutional.

You realize we're talking about something that happened decades ago, right? No senator from the south supports lynching today, and I suspect we're all just a mite better off now without slavery.

I have one chilling scenario that could have occurred if we'd let the south secede. What if the south sided with Hitler in WWII? You think he might have had a slightly better chance of winning then?

[IJ Reilly]

We tried term limits here in CA and I have to say that while it sounded like a good idea at the time it has contributed to the problems CA's legislature exhibits. Yes it has kicked out the bobo's but it has also removed the studious policy wonks who spend years becoming expert in some obscure portion of law. It has been particularly bad for the HoR because of the shortness of the term.

You mean the California Legislature, right?

Anyway, term limits haven't necessarily kicked all the bobos out -- they invite new ones in (nice term, btw). In the case of our seat in the legislature, the wife of the termed-out legislator ran and won a race for his seat last year, with nothing more to recommend her than her last name. Don't cry for me California...

[mactastic]

You mean the California Legislature, right?

Anyway, term limits haven't necessarily kicked all the bobos out -- they invite new ones in (nice term, btw). In the case of our seat in the legislature, the wife of the termed-out legislator ran and won a race for his seat last year, with nothing more to recommend her than her last name. Don't cry for me California...

Yeah, sorry. I meant the California State Reps, that's where the problem is most acute. 3 two-year terms years and on to another elected position. And you're right, the new class has plenty of the bobos to replace the outgoing ones.

[mischief]

I'm getting so fed up with 2 out of the 3 parts of this republic's administrative model I'm really beginning to like the idea of some sort of revolt.

I want Computer Aided Democracy. :D ;) :rolleyes:

[Ugg]

You realize we're talking about something that happened decades ago, right? No senator from the south supports lynching today, and I suspect we're all just a mite better off now without slavery.

I have one chilling scenario that could have occurred if we'd let the south secede. What if the south sided with Hitler in WWII? You think he might have had a slightly better chance of winning then?

Well, although infrequent, lynchings have not ended. I hope senators from the south don't support lynchings but one thing I've learned about many southerners is that their public façade tends to obscure much of who they really are. Their lack of support for the measure just goes to show that many of their constituents have never really let go of the past. The fact that the south places at the bottom of most indexes regarding quality of life also shows that those who live in the past never get ahead.

Speculation about what might have happened is all well and good but who's to say for sure. Certainly US support for WWI may have been a lot less, Castro might never have come to power and the Cold War might never have taken place.

[mactastic]

List of cowards:

Here are the 20 Senators who 1) refused to co-sponsor the anti-lynching resolution passed yesterday, and 2) refused a roll-call vote so they'd have to put their name on the resolution.

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)

That's 1 in 5 Senators folks. And people wonder whether racism is alive or not. And I have to say, I'm surprised by people like Voinovich and Grassley.

Also the Democratic leaders should take Conrad out behind the woodshed for this. Anyone who has one of these chumps as a rep might want to consider asking them why they couldn't support the anti-lynching apology.

[Sayhey]

It not that there are sitting Senators who support lynching; it's that there are at least twelve Senators who are so beholden to political forces within their state that find a condemnation of lynching unacceptable.

Here are six of the cowardly twelve's names


Richard Shelby (R-Ala)
Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn)
John Cornyn (R-Tex)
Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Tex)
Thad Cochran (R-Miss)
Trent Lott (R-Miss)


If I lived in any of these states, I'd organize delegations to the Senator's office demanding an explanation why they didn't sponsor the resolution.

edit: you beat me to it, mac. And with a better list! ;)

[Ugg]

I'm amazed that 12 of them are not from the south. Utah, MT, ND, WY and AK aren't surprises really given the generally racist attitudes that prevail in those states. They're all big NRA states as well. Any possible connection there?

[zimv20]

who released the senators' names?

[mactastic]

who released the senators' names?

They're being compiled by looking at the list of sponsors. Things are still a little fuzzy, ie Hutchison is still being checked.

See here (http://www.chrisgeidner.com/blog/archive/003419.html)

[zimv20]

thank you!

[Desertrat]

Ugg, the NRA is open to anybody who's into guns'n'huntin' and has $35/year. It's never occurred to me to examine the demographics of our membership, but "color don't count". Man, woman, child; Asian, Latin, Black, White, Whatever: All are welcome.

I surely don't see any reason for Cornyn to vote against such a resolution. It's not an issue in Texas, nowadays, in any way I can think of. Political forces in Texas who'd object? Who's kidding whom? I see no way it would at all affect voters there, to vote for it.

Just guessing: There have been similar "apology" resolutions in the past. I gathered from the debates that some senators have felt that for people, today, to apologize for actions--or inactions--of over a half-century gone is meaningless.

But, even if meaningless to some particular senator, it seems to me to be harmless to say, "Yeah, sure, go ahead, I'll vote with ya..."

'Rat

[mactastic]

Lot's of 'wingers have recently postulated that no sitting Senators (except Byrd whom they never fail to mention) should apologize for actions taken by their predecessors, but this isn't a personal apology. It's an institutional apology, and all current members are part of an institution that could have done something to prevent domestic terrorism and didn't. I'm not a reperations person, but I believe apologies can and should be issued, partly to remind the Senate that these kinds of things have happened in the past and can happen again.

[Ugg]

Ugg, the NRA is open to anybody who's into guns'n'huntin' and has $35/year. It's never occurred to me to examine the demographics of our membership, but "color don't count". Man, woman, child; Asian, Latin, Black, White, Whatever: All are welcome.

I surely don't see any reason for Cornyn to vote against such a resolution. It's not an issue in Texas, nowadays, in any way I can think of. Political forces in Texas who'd object? Who's kidding whom? I see no way it would at all affect voters there, to vote for it.

Just guessing: There have been similar "apology" resolutions in the past. I gathered from the debates that some senators have felt that for people, today, to apologize for actions--or inactions--of over a half-century gone is meaningless.

But, even if meaningless to some particular senator, it seems to me to be harmless to say, "Yeah, sure, go ahead, I'll vote with ya..."

'Rat

I misread huntin' as hurtin' !

Sure the membership is open and I'm sure there are many minorities represented but I'll bet the membership is also overwhelmingly white male.

I wonder how many of these 20 naysayers would raise a holy stink if the tables were turned. The only way to deal with the past is to face up to it. Let's face it, those who refused to cast a vote are only condoning lynching, whether it's for re-election purposes or support of their constituents is irrelevant their support is all to obvious.

[IJ Reilly]

What could the Senate (or Congress as a whole) have done to prevent lynching? Just wondering... I recognize the potency of this issue, and that it remains very much within living memory as an issue of national shame, but how exactly did it land on the Senate's docket?

[wordmunger]

I'm amazed that 12 of them are not from the south. Utah, MT, ND, WY and AK aren't surprises really given the generally racist attitudes that prevail in those states. They're all big NRA states as well. Any possible connection there?

There are bigots everywhere. Glad to see that both NC Senators signed the petition.

[mactastic]

What could the Senate (or Congress as a whole) have done to prevent lynching? Just wondering... I recognize the potency of this issue, and that it remains very much within living memory as an issue of national shame, but how exactly did it land on the Senate's docket?

They could have made lynching a federal crime and prosecuted it, since govenors of states where this was a practice were unwilling to do so themselves. Remember, there was majority approval for discrimination up to and including lynching. It was carried out publicly with little regard for those involved having to face criminal charges. It's not that there were no perps to charge, it's that there was no will from the powers that be to prosecute.

It's a historical injustice that deserves recognition IMO.

[Lyle]

List of cowards:

Here are the 20 Senators who 1) refused to co-sponsor the anti-lynching resolution passed yesterday, and 2) refused a roll-call vote so they'd have to put their name on the resolution...You must be mistaken, mac: Well over half the names on your list are Senators from non-Southern states, and everyone knows that it's only Southerners who support lynching.

[IJ Reilly]

They could have made lynching a federal crime and prosecuted it, since govenors of states where this was a practice were unwilling to do so themselves. Remember, there was majority approval for discrimination up to and including lynching. It was carried out publicly with little regard for those involved having to face criminal charges. It's not that there were no perps to charge, it's that there was no will from the powers that be to prosecute.

It's a historical injustice that deserves recognition IMO.

Right. Making lynching a federal crime passed in the House but was filibustered in the Senate. I get it.

An excellent interview with Doria Dee Johnson, one of the forces behind the Senate resolution, ran on the NewsHour last night. Check out the video:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/#

Gwen Ifill did a wonderful job on this interview. I especially liked how she handled the part where Johnson lost her composure.

[wordmunger]

You must be mistaken, mac: Well over half the names on your list are Senators from non-Southern states, and everyone knows that it's only Southerners who support lynching.
That's right. I forgot about that. The NC Senators must have been tricked into signing ;)

[IJ Reilly]

You must be mistaken, mac: Well over half the names on your list are Senators from non-Southern states, and everyone knows that it's only Southerners who support lynching.

I believe you are missing the point. A number of senators (the exact number is unknown) from both northern and southern states didn't want to sign onto this resolution. I think it might be interesting to know why they thought having their names associated with it would be unpopular with their constituencies.

[Lyle]

I believe you are missing the point. A number of senators (the exact number is unknown) from both northern and southern states didn't want to sign onto this resolution. I think it might be interesting to know why they thought having their names associated with it would be unpopular with their constituencies.No, I didn't miss the point, and I would like to know why one of my senators (Shelby) didn't want to be associated with it. My comment was directed at some of the other posters who blithely assume that this was a uniquely Southern sentiment.

[mactastic]

You must be mistaken, mac: Well over half the names on your list are Senators from non-Southern states, and everyone knows that it's only Southerners who support lynching.

Lynchings took place in most of the states. I think I read somewhere that only 4 states never had a lynching. It's not just Southerners (or Republicans) that should be ashamed of their Senators actions.

[IJ Reilly]

No, I didn't miss the point, and I would like to know why one of my senators (Shelby) didn't want to be associated with it. My comment was directed at some of the other posters who blithely assume that this was a uniquely Southern sentiment.

Fair enough. I agree. At the time the federal anti-lynching laws were blocked, though, it was mainly Southern senators who did the deed -- all in the name of "states rights," I presume. The same is true for other civil rights legislation. I do accept that the political geography of the nation has changed, but I also note that some of the old attitudes toward race seem to have survived quite nicely in certain nooks and crannies of American society.

[mactastic]

No, I didn't miss the point, and I would like to know why one of my senators (Shelby) didn't want to be associated with it. My comment was directed at some of the other posters who blithely assume that this was a uniquely Southern sentiment.

Did I do that?? That wasn't my intent.

[Ugg]

No, I didn't miss the point, and I would like to know why one of my senators (Shelby) didn't want to be associated with it. My comment was directed at some of the other posters who blithely assume that this was a uniquely Southern sentiment.

Not uniquely but predominantly a southern sentiment. Institutional racism seems to be deeply entrenched in the south where the confederate flag is still frequently displayed. Who wants to be associated with the losing side anyway?

Speaking for myself I don't assume blithely, the evidence is all too clear that the south still has a lot of hurdles to overcome before blacks have an equal position in society.

[Brother Michael]

George Voinovich (R-OH)

That saddens and hurts me...a lot. I like Voinovich and helped vote him into office. I seem to feel that his political ideals match mine as close as they could. He even stood up for stem-cell research.

I am going to have to write a letter to him now asking what is up with this...

Mike

[mactastic]

That saddens and hurts me...a lot. I like Voinovich and helped vote him into office. I seem to feel that his political ideals match mine as close as they could. He even stood up for stem-cell research.

I am going to have to write a letter to him now asking what is up with this...

Mike

And he sort of stood against the Bolton nomination. I was getting to like Voinovich more and more up to this.

[Lyle]

Lynchings took place in most of the states. I think I read somewhere that only 4 states never had a lynching. It's not just Southerners (or Republicans) that should be ashamed of their Senators actions.Agreed.

[Lyle]

Did I do that?? That wasn't my intent.No, but I apologize for leaving you with that impression. I was responding to one or two other posters' earlier comments.

[Brother Michael]

You realize we're talking about something that happened decades ago, right? No senator from the south supports lynching today, and I suspect we're all just a mite better off now without slavery.

I have one chilling scenario that could have occurred if we'd let the south secede. What if the south sided with Hitler in WWII? You think he might have had a slightly better chance of winning then?

I agree and see what you are saying, however I think it should be said that the South seceded over the issue of States Rights (which I feel are lost today) not SOLELY over degrading black's.

Hitler's regime was based on annhiliating those different from you and total dictatorship (See Fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)).

The South's very reason for seperating from the Union contradicts Hitler/Mussolini and thus I doubt they would have sided with them.

Mike

[Brother Michael]

No, I didn't miss the point, and I would like to know why one of my senators (Shelby) didn't want to be associated with it. My comment was directed at some of the other posters who blithely assume that this was a uniquely Southern sentiment.

Just for everyone's information Ohio is in the North.

So let's stop pointing fingers at one region of the country over this matter.

Lyle, I too want to know why my Senator did not agree to sign this legislation either. I am hoping that there is a good reason such as, "There is already one on the books that no one knows about because people are too lazy to look."

Mike

EDIT: Lyle, why don't you drop your representative a message asking why? here is his site (http://shelby.senate.gov/)

[Thanatoast]

I have one chilling scenario that could have occurred if we'd let the south secede. What if the south sided with Hitler in WWII? You think he might have had a slightly better chance of winning then?
Off on a tangent for a moment...

Harry Turtledove has written a series of books based on this exact happenstance, except it was the North who sided with Germany in WWI, and again in WWII. His hypothesis: since the South won the Civil War, Britain and France had to recognize the independence of the Southern states. The North never forgave them.

It's a well-researched series, a fun read if you can devote the time.

[zimv20]

so has anyone seen bush's statement condemning those senators who didn't sign on?

'cuz i sure haven't....

of the administrations i remember (starting w/ ford's), i can easily see the WH issuing such a condemnation. or at least a statement supporting the resolution.

[skunk]

I agree and see what you are saying, however I think it should be said that the South succeeded over the issue of States Rights (which I feel are lost today) not SOLELY over degrading black's.I suspect they "seceded", because they didn't really succeed at all, did they?
:rolleyes:

[Brother Michael]

I suspect they "seceded", because they didn't really succeed at all, did they?
:rolleyes:

-puts foot in mouth-

:eek:

[IJ Reilly]

-puts foot in mouth-

:eek:

So, is this your first encounter with the Minister of Semantics?

Mandatory eye rolling to follow.










:rolleyes:

[skunk]

Hi! :rolleyes: :D

[Sayhey]

So, is this your first encounter with the Minister of Semantics?

Don't forget his hereditary titles as the Earl of Orthography and the Baron of Syntax. ;)

[skunk]

Barren of Repartee tonight. Writing an essay on Roman influence in Athens and Ephesus which should be finished by midnight...

[Ugg]

Fair enough. I agree. At the time the federal anti-lynching laws were blocked, though, it was mainly Southern senators who did the deed -- all in the name of "states rights," I presume. The same is true for other civil rights legislation. I do accept that the political geography of the nation has changed, but I also note that some of the old attitudes toward race seem to have survived quite nicely in certain nooks and crannies of American society.


Here's (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0615/p03s01-ussc.html) the Christian Science Monitor's take on the above.

Sometimes called a form of American holocaust, lynchings were effective as a kind of homegrown terrorism to keep intact the social structure that preceded the Civil War. They were driven by fear among whites as much as hatred of blacks. But dozens of postcard images of lynching gangs - and a body count kept by the Tuskegee Institute - were also responsible for changing attitudes about race, culminating in the civil rights movement and the ebbing not only of mob violence, but of separate water fountains.

Yet the changes took time. Between 1880 and 1960, 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced, and seven presidents urged their passing. Filibustering Southern senators scuttled the vote every time, saying a lack of law enforcement in the tumultuous postwar South necessitated mob justice.

Critics today say Congress's failure surely fueled the boldness of the mob. Acknowledging that role is a step forward, many say. The Senate's official apology, approved Monday, is one of only a handful it has issued throughout history.

"The Senate failed these Americans," said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) of Louisiana, who sponsored the action after the Committee for Public Apology began pressing the issue in 2003.


It seems like some members of Congress were working their butts off. 200 attempts in 80 years seems like a rather serious effort. Too bad the southern senators at the time were hate mongers.

[Xtremehkr]

Why am I not surprised that Trent Lott made the list of those who voted against it.

[Sayhey]

Barren of Repartee tonight. Writing an essay on Roman influence in Athens and Ephesus which should be finished by midnight...

just thought I should help.

[zimv20]

i preferred arykanda (http://www.antalya-ws.com/english/location/finike/history.asp?out=1). just me, my ex-gf, and a security guard who gave us a tour.

[Sayhey]

Why am I not surprised that Trent Lott made the list of those who voted against it.

He is almost the definition of those too closely tied politically to the descendants of the lynchers.

In fact, the ideas of the radical right are thriving in a number of venues. On hugely popular talk shows like "The O'Reilly Factor," conspiracy theories about non-white immigration that originated on the extreme right are now bandied about as fact. A number of major foundations are pushing the notion that a tiny group of German Jews are behind the destruction of "American culture." In much of the South, the idea of Abraham Lincoln as a racial emancipator is under attack by right-wing academics. Extremists have seized control of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a purportedly mainstream Southern heritage group with 32,000 members, a $5 million bank account, and an increasingly far-right political agenda.

"A lot of the white supremacist impulse has found its way into much more mainstream organizational and political life," says Leonard Zeskind, a long-time analyst of the radical right. Just as the early Klan withered away once Jim Crow laws had effectively rolled back Reconstruction, Zeskind argues, this movement of ideas into the mainstream has had the effect of weakening organized hate groups.

"You don't need the Aryan Nations," explains Zeskind, referring to an Idaho-based neo-Nazi group, "if you can run the Sons of Confederate Veterans."

Sam Francis, perhaps the leading intellectual of the radical right, recently wrote that the future of the movement lies with the softer-line hate groups like American Renaissance, a journal and allied foundation focusing on the "science" of race, and the Council of Conservative Citizens, which sees non-white immigration as a threat to the nation.

"Both have succeeded in learning how to discuss ... the scientific, social, and political realities of race without reliance on the old rhetoric of what was called 'white supremacy' and 'hate,'" Francis wrote.

The sad reality is that Francis is mostly right. Trent Lott is no longer Senate majority leader and white supremacist groups across the board have taken a serious body blow. But the ideas they represent are alive and doing surprisingly well.

Southern Poverty Law Center (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1)

Such are the depths that Mississippi GOP politics have sunk.

Weeks before Barbour's Nov. 4 election victory, media reports swirled linking Barbour to the racist and anti-Semitic Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) — the same group that landed fellow fraternity brother and GOP politician Sen. Trent Lott (Miss.) in hot water after several Lott speeches at CCC meetings became public in 1999.

The CCC is the reincarnation of the White Citizens Councils that worked to quash the civil rights movement in the 1950s and '60s.

Barbour was widely criticized by Democrats and many community leaders after a photo of him and a top CCC leader at a CCC -sponsored July barbecue, held to raise money for private academy school buses, appeared on the CCC Web site.

The photo appeared alongside a squib calling for the release of neo-Nazi Ernest Zundel, co-author of The Hitler We Loved and Why, from a Canadian jail. Also on the site were articles attacking Martin Luther King Jr., denying the Holocaust, and calling women the "weakest link" in society and Latinos "two-legged coca roaches." SPLC (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=145)

[Sayhey]

i preferred arykanda (http://www.antalya-ws.com/english/location/finike/history.asp?out=1). just me, my ex-gf, and a security guard who gave us a tour.

beautiful!

[mactastic]

Apparently one of the privileges of being a Senator is that one can go back and retroactively add one's self as a co-sponsor of any legislative item after the vote is taken. (Similar I suppose to the way Stanford students can drop a class after taking the final. ;) )

But, it seems that Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/14/165932/353) is saying that the lone Democratic holdout on this legislation has signed onto the bill post-vote. Apparently someone did take him out behind the Democratic woodshed. And I suppose late is better than never, but I'm not going to be favorably disposed towards Conrad anytime soon.

[Desertrat]

Those of the Senate who resisted passage of anti-lynching laws were a bunch of hypocritical SOBs for using the "lawlessness" BS. The lawlessness often included either active participation on the part of some law enforcement people or wilful ignoring of the mobs' actions. Federalization would have allowed some action against the mobs--much like the Civil Rights charges brought during the 1960s/'70s in the South.

Funny-odd: I was raised in Texas. I don't doubt "racism", but the style wasn't activist at all in Austin. I've always said that there is a cultural as well as a landform/vegetation similarity east from I-45 to the Atlantic. I got out of the Army in 1958 and for four years lived in northern Florida. Yeah, racist, but not active or hostile. My first job out of college was with Chevy in Detroit, and "Oh, wow!" Really active, outspoken hostility toward blacks. I was definitely surprised.

"Not uniquely but predominantly a southern sentiment. Institutional racism seems to be deeply entrenched in the south where the confederate flag is still frequently displayed. Who wants to be associated with the losing side anyway?"

Interesting to see this sort of comment and then look at the reality of the numbers of black electees to public office throughout the south. Atlanta's mayors come immediately to mind, as well as several of Georgia's US Reps. Similar sort of thing in Texas...

The flag most southerners fly is the battle flag, not the flag of the Confederacy. Nobody has ever had cause to question the valor of the rebel troops. It's less a "losing side" thing than a remembrance of the men; and, a symbol of resentment of such things as Sherman's "March to the sea" (a scorched-earth war on civilians' homes and crops) and the carpetbagger governments. I don't know about the eastern once-Confederate states, but the carpetbaggers in Texas are remembered to this day for their brutality and thievery.

'Rat

[miloblithe]

Anywhere you want to go in the US, you'll find racism. No doubt about it.

And almost anyone should be allowed to be proud of their history. Hopefully, and this is asking more than is realistic, people will be proud with open eyes, able to assess the good and bad and understand that any better future is built from the past, not by disregarding the past.

As for there being more black representatives from the South though, there are more black people in the south. Regions with higher percentages of black population should produce more black politicians. Atlanta should have more black mayors than Billington. Georgia more black reps than North Dakota. This doesn't seem surprising. What would be more interesting would be to compare like populations and polarization of those populations. How many white Southerners vote for black politicians?

[IJ Reilly]

More than once, this discussion has reminded me of these lyrics. (http://www.lyricsdepot.com/randy_newman/rednecks.html)

[mactastic]

STILL HAVEN'T COSPONSORED

Lamar Alexander (R-TN) - (202) 224-4944
Robert Bennett (R-UT) - (202) 224-5444
Thad Cochran (R-MS) - (202) 224-5054
John Cornyn (R-TX) - (202) 224-2934
Michael Crapo (R-ID) - (202) 224-6142
Michael Enzi (R-WY) - (202) 224-3424
Chuck Grassley (R-IA) - (202) 224-3744
Judd Gregg (R-NH) - (202) 224-3324
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) - (202) 224-5251
Kay Hutchison (R-TX) - (202) 224-5922
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) - (202) 224-4521
Trent Lott (R-MS) - (202) 224-6253
Richard Shelby (R-AL) - (202) 224-5744
John Sununu (R-NH) - (202) 224-2841
Craig Thomas (R-WY) - (202) 224-6441

LATEST TWO WHO NOW HAVE COSPONSORED

George Voinovich (R-OH)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

[Sayhey]

I guess Texas, Mississippi, Wyoming, and Utah have too large a militia/Sons of the Confederacy vote to be ignored. Wouldn't want to disturb those folks view of history where the guys in white sheets were "just defending State's Rights and their cultural heritage." It was only a reaction to Federal intrusion, right? :mad:

[Dont Hurt Me]

STILL HAVEN'T COSPONSORED

Lamar Alexander (R-TN) - (202) 224-4944
Robert Bennett (R-UT) - (202) 224-5444
Thad Cochran (R-MS) - (202) 224-5054
John Cornyn (R-TX) - (202) 224-2934
Michael Crapo (R-ID) - (202) 224-6142
Michael Enzi (R-WY) - (202) 224-3424
Chuck Grassley (R-IA) - (202) 224-3744
Judd Gregg (R-NH) - (202) 224-3324
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) - (202) 224-5251
Kay Hutchison (R-TX) - (202) 224-5922
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) - (202) 224-4521
Trent Lott (R-MS) - (202) 224-6253
Richard Shelby (R-AL) - (202) 224-5744
John Sununu (R-NH) - (202) 224-2841
Craig Thomas (R-WY) - (202) 224-6441

LATEST TWO WHO NOW HAVE COSPONSORED

George Voinovich (R-OH)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Pathetic, the whole system along with these guys are pathetic. America Vote out All Incumbants. Its the only Answer to these guys. Republicans are showing their true Colors.

[mactastic]

And Bill Frist is a lying sack of **** (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/0605/15natlynch.html)

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) refused repeated requests for a roll call vote that would have put senators on the record on a resolution apologizing for past failures to pass anti-lynching laws, officials involved in the negotiations said Tuesday.

And there was disagreement Tuesday over whether Saxby Chambliss, one of Georgia's two Republican senators, had supported the measure when it was approved Monday night.

As dozens of descendants of lynching victims watched from the Senate gallery, the resolution was adopted Monday evening under a voice vote procedure that did not require any senator's presence.

Eighty senators, however, had signed as co-sponsors, putting themselves on record as supporting the resolution. By the time the Senate recessed Tuesday evening, five other senators had added their names as co-sponsors, leaving 15 Republicans who had not.

Georgia Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson was among the 80 sponsors listed Monday night. Chambliss' name was added to the list of co-sponsors after the resolution was adopted, according to the Congressional Record. But his office said he had signed onto the bill as a co-sponsor before Monday's vote.

The resolution was adopted under what is called "unanimous consent," whereby it is adopted as long as no senator expresses opposition.

But the group that was the driving force behind the resolution had asked Frist for a formal procedure that would have required all 100 senators to vote. And the group had asked that the debate take place during "business hours" during the week, instead of Monday evening, when most senators were traveling back to the capital.

Frist declined both requests, the group's chief counsel, Mark Planning, said Tuesday evening.

"It was very disappointing" that Frist handled the matter the way he did, Planning said. "Other groups have gotten roll call votes, so there was nothing new to this, nothing different that we were asking for."

Bob Stevenson, Frist's chief spokesman, said Tuesday evening the procedure the majority leader established was "requested by the sponsors."

The chief sponsors of the resolution, Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and George Allen (R-Va.), disputed that assertion.

Landrieu said Monday before the resolution was adopted she would have preferred a roll call vote but had to accept the conditions set by Senate leaders.

When Stevenson was informed of Landrieu's statement, he amended his comments to say "at least one of the sponsors" had requested adoption on a voice vote and in combination with a resolution related to Black History Month.

Allen press secretary David Snepp took issue with Stevenson. "I don't know why Bob Stevenson would characterize it that way," he said.

Snepp said Allen, since agreeing to sponsor the resolution, had insisted that he preferred a roll call vote.

Planning agreed that Landrieu and Allen "made every effort" to have the resolution debated during the day, when it would attract the most attention from the public, and with a formal roll call of the senators.

"We were very perplexed" that Frist would not agree to that, Planning said.

Jan Cohen, the wife of former Defense Secretary William Cohen and one of the key figures in the Committee for a Formal Apology, expressed outrage over the lack of a roll call vote.

"America is home of the brave, but I'm afraid there may be a few cowards who have to cower to their very narrow-minded and backward, hateful constituency," Cohen told ABC News. "They're hiding out, and it's reminiscent of a pattern of hiding out under a hood, in the night, riding past, scaring people."

But he's not lying about oral sex, so I guess it's no big deal. :rolleyes:

[Desertrat]

"I guess Texas, Mississippi, Wyoming, and Utah have too large a militia/Sons of the Confederacy vote to be ignored. Wouldn't want to disturb those folks view of history where the guys in white sheets were "just defending State's Rights and their cultural heritage.""

Sayhey, that's just mouth music for the sake of smarting off. Sounds like the sort of stuff said by those who've never been to the places they're bad-mouthing.

I don't know of any reason pertaining to voting that would affect the Texas senators. I know a lot of people who have concluded that there was no reason for the US government NOT to have tolerated/allowed Secession, but it's the legal issue of Secession itself and States' Rights that's involved, not anything about race or slavery.

We've not objected to the breakup of Yugoslavia; what's wrong with the same thing here?

I'm clueless about these senators' specifics, but there are some folks who don't believe that THEY owe an apology for what somebody before their time did--or didn't do. My great-grandfather fought with Hood's Brigade during the War of Yankee Aggression :D , but I didn't. I don't feel any guilt about what somebody else did. Quien sabe?

'Rat

[zimv20]

I'm clueless about these senators' specifics, but there are some folks who don't believe that THEY owe an apology for what somebody before their time did--or didn't do.
i'm all ears, then. let's hear each senator's reason(s) for not signing on.

they've yet to volunteer that info, though. and given the secretive nature of the late-night vote, i suspect no senator has a palatable reason for voting against it.

is it wrong for me to assume what each gains politically from their constituency outweighs what each loses politically overall? or did they really think no one would notice?

[Ugg]

I'm clueless about these senators' specifics, but there are some folks who don't believe that THEY owe an apology for what somebody before their time did--or didn't do. My great-grandfather fought with Hood's Brigade during the War of Yankee Aggression :D , but I didn't. I don't feel any guilt about what somebody else did. Quien sabe?

'Rat

Rat, as a private citizen, you are entitled to your beliefs and if your ancestors committed gross crimes against humanity, I would hope you would stand up and say something to the effect that, you're sorry they took the wrong path or whatever. However, we're not talking about your grandfather, nor are we talking about the local sheriff, or banker or other people in positions of power. We're talking about state senators. We're talking about 200 attempts to pass a bill against lynching. A bill that was repeatedly voted down because of racist,white, southern males who refused to allow justice for all and were only interested in preserving a way of life that was degrading to everyone but them.

Once again rat, think do or say whatever you want but you would do damn well to remember that the lives of all those people who were lynched could have been saved had it not been for those damned southern senators. Senators who obviously continue to hold racist opinions and who evidently feel no sympathy whatsoever for the fact that justice failed to be served for well over a hundred years after the southern war of stupidity.

Do you value life, freedom and liberty and if you do, don't you think those 100 people in the senate should at least attempt to right the glaringly obvious wrongs of their predecessors? If you don't you've probably just spent too much time in the south.

[zimv20]

also, it's not a personal apology, but an institutional one.

[Sayhey]

Sayhey, that's just mouth music for the sake of smarting off. Sounds like the sort of stuff said by those who've never been to the places they're bad-mouthing.

I don't know of any reason pertaining to voting that would affect the Texas senators. I know a lot of people who have concluded that there was no reason for the US government NOT to have tolerated/allowed Secession, but it's the legal issue of Secession itself and States' Rights that's involved, not anything about race or slavery.

We've not objected to the breakup of Yugoslavia; what's wrong with the same thing here?

I'm clueless about these senators' specifics, but there are some folks who don't believe that THEY owe an apology for what somebody before their time did--or didn't do. My great-grandfather fought with Hood's Brigade during the War of Yankee Aggression :D , but I didn't. I don't feel any guilt about what somebody else did. Quien sabe?

'Rat

'Rat, no it's not just mouthing off. It's an honest assessment of the sad state of GOP politics in those 4 states. That's not an indictment of the millions of residents of those states, but it is a red flag to be noticed about who these Senators are afraid of angering. While I acknowledge you have much more experience with Texas politics, it doesn't take a local to notice the hard right tilt of the Texas Republican Party. The same can be said of the three other states mentioned.

There is no reason for both Senators from each of those states to not sign on to a resolution, not only condemning lynching, but acknowledging the wrongful role the US Senate played. If there was a reason against the resolution someone should have stood up a said what it was. But the cowards who want it both ways, have tried not to be counted for or against the resolution.

Two other points. First, the Civil War was all about Slavery - not State's Rights or the Right of Secession. There are pro-Confederate historians who would like to dress it up in some kind of principled stand against Federal intrusion, but it was all about the maintenance of that "peculiar institution" which enslaved and tortured millions on the basis of skin color. They also will tell you all about how kindly Slaveowners really were as well. If you believe that rot we have a topic for another thread. Second, I don't give a damn about whose great-granddad did what during the War; in regards to personal responsibility, I only care about what people do in their own lives, and most importantly what they do today. This week when it would have cost them next to nothing (other than the rabid support of know-nothing racists) both Senators from four states, including your own, couldn't do a very small thing by signing their name to a resolution that only has symbolic value. It has nothing to do with your great-grandfather or Kay Bailey Hutchinson's great-grandfather or John Coryn's great-grandmother's maiden aunt once removed. It is all about what they didn't do as US Senators and why they chose to not do it.

[mactastic]

also, it's not a personal apology, but an institutional one.

Exactly the point. The issue is not any individual person apologizing. The issue is to finally put into the historical record of the Senate an official acknowledgement that an injustice was allowed to occur.

And remember, these are people who have no problem having their names attached to, and roll call taken for, bills that benefit just about any corporate interest with enough money to buy access. Yet they somehow can't find it in themselves to sponsor (even long after the fact) something that costs nothing and does nothing other than say the Senate was wrong to kill anti-lynching legislation. And it's a reminder of the evil that can be allowed to occur even in America when the leaders of the country only serve a portion of their constituents.

[zimv20]

if these -- what is it now, 15? -- senators fail to see the symbolism of this piece of legislation, then i shall expect them to be against the flag amendment, too.

[Desertrat]

Hey, I'm not at all trying to rewrite the causes of the South. From what I've read, Jefferson Davis was staunchly pro-slavery. Slavery was primary issue for him and for many of his supporters.

Again, from what I've read, a heckuva lot of others in the South were far more involved in the issue of States' Rights and unfair taxation, etc. A lot of the very ancient, "THEY aren't gonna tell us what to do!" sort of thing.

Always keep in mind that in the opening year of the war, slavery was not an issue with Lincoln; while he disapproved, keeping all the states in the Union was his only real issue. Does anybody know of any writings to indicate other about the Emancipation Proclamation, besides the idea that the purpose was to stir up an uprising of slaves in the south?

IOW, I'm objecting to the idea that for ALL citizens of the South, the issue was ONLY about slavery.

zim, update me: Did these senators VOTE against the apology, or just avoid signing on as co-sponsrs?

Look: I think--as I thought I said before--that the Senate should have federalized the crime of lynching, given the absence of local enforcement of existing laws against murder. You don't even have to be non-racist to believe in equality under the law. Any of us can be contemptuous of any other ethnic group--but that group is still equal under the law. Anyway, I'm already on record here as calling those bygone Senates a bunch of hypocritical SOBs or something like that...

Me, personally? One of the more fun events while at FSU in 1958/59 was seeing a gathering of people along the sidwalks of Monroe Street, as I exited a movie theater. This was about three blocks north of the state capitol. I asked what was going on, and was told that a KKK parade was coming. I waited. I saw these 15 or 20 robed creatures coming, and as they passed by a thought occurred to me and as usual I acted. Now, my voice carries against a strong wind; I commented rather loudly, "Hey, look at the form-fitting hats!" I was mildly disappointed that I didn't get an attitude adjustment session; all I got was a burst of laughter from the crowd. :)

I don't care if you're (generic you) purple with orange polka dots. Anybody who acts halfway like a rational grownup, I'll sit and drink Budweiser 'til closing time, if there's mutual-interest stuff to BS about. All I go by is behavior and common interests in choosing buddies. Always have; always will.

As far as militias in Texas, if you gathered all of them up into one county, you'd barely swing the vote in Loving County...

'Rat

[zimv20]

there was a voice vote, which allowed the 20 senators who didn't sign it to vote 'no' w/o their names being part of the record.

it was by examining the co-sponsor list that "we" were able to determine who most likely voted no.

[mactastic]

there was a voice vote, which allowed the 20 senators who didn't sign it to vote 'no' w/o their names being part of the record.

it was by examining the co-sponsor list that "we" were able to determine who most likely voted no.

Who most likely WOULD have voted no. This was a unanimous consent vote, meaning as long as none of the less-than-a-dozen senators present when the issue was brought up objected to it, it passed. The voice vote was taken precisely to protect certain Senators from having to actually vote because they likely would have voted no.

It's just sad the number of times I heard the talking heads say they wanted to have a roll call vote to see where the Dems stood on the war, figuring to pressure them to vote the way public sentiment stood (at the time anyway).

[Desertrat]

"...most likely voted no."

Or didn't vote at all...Or mumbled, "Yeah, well, okay..."

Start a psychic hotline, why don't you?

'Rat

[zimv20]

Who most likely WOULD have voted no. This was a unanimous consent vote
righto, thanks for the clarification.