Well, you sure called this one right.

Did they have the decency to say why?

It sounds like they don't feel there is a need to aploogize 140 years after the fact for not passing anti-lynching laws in the south after the Civil War. It would have been a meaningful symbolic gesture, but I guess it would have called the morality of white southerners of the time into question.

Seriously, what would be the downside to voting yes? You might not get the support of some serious nut jobs, but who would they then support/

Seriously, what would be the downside to voting yes?  You might not get the support of some serious nut jobs, but who would they then support/

 

From my little bit of knowledge they didn't used to vote until Karl Rove got them involved.

I don't think they refused to 'come out against lynching', they just refused to apologize for something they didn't do that happened a long time ago. Maybe it's a little like doctors not wanting to say they are sorry when they screw up for fear of it being used against them later. Ask the 16 if they are against lynching, I bet they all say yes, they are against it.

Ask the 16 if they are against lynching, I bet they all say yes, they are against it.

And if they don't, ask them what their neck size is. That'll change their mind real quick.

if you could find a voting record of this, it would be appriciated. I looked at the Senates website (a handy website when it comes to Senate action) and i couldnt find a roll call on the votes

 

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.Res.39:

if you could find a voting record of this, it would be appriciated. I looked at the Senates website (a handy website when it comes to Senate action) and i couldnt find a roll call on the votes

 

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.Res.39:

No roll call, since it was a voice vote. I believe there were 84 sponsors and co-sponsors, so that's what the 16 "no" votes refer to. I think, under Senate rules, any of the 16 can add their names as co-sponsors for at least 5 days.

 

 

 

I don't think they refused to 'come out against lynching', they just refused to apologize for something they didn't do that happened a long time ago.  Maybe it's a little like doctors not wanting to say they are sorry when they screw up for fear of it being used against them later.  Ask the 16 if they are against lynching, I bet they all say yes, they are against it.

 

I'm not sure how the resolution was written, but I suspect it was an apology by the institution of the Senate for the wrongs of that body, not an apology of any individual Senators, or even an apology by the US.

 

As to your second point, you may be right about the caution of those Senators, but, IMO, I don't see any downside.

 

I don't think your third point is debatable. If there was a Senator today in favor of lynching, he or she certainly wouldn't say so.

No roll call, since it was a voice vote.  I believe there were 84 sponsors and co-sponsors, so that's what the 16 "no" votes refer to.  I think, under Senate rules, any of the 16 can add their names as co-sponsors for at least 5 days.

Sneaky f***ing bastards. Balta was right on about this.

I have an honest question here... Why is it that everyone is so upset that people refused to add their names to this amendment, but groups like Jesse Jackson are trying to stop things like the Emmitt Till excavation and investigation.

 

On one hand they are saying 140 years isn't too much for an apology (which I agree with, its symbolic, but honorable), but 50 years is too much to actually do something concrete about a specific crime. I don't understand the logic here? They have a chance to actually punish someone for a horrific crime, but they aren't interested, while publisizing who didn't want their name added to a symbolic gesture. I don't get it.

I was unaware of the fight to stop the Till excavation. I thought his family was behind it at least. I'd have to agree on the surface it makes no sense, unless there is some aspect of the mythos of the civil rights movement that might be turned on its ear by the findings. I'm merely speculating, but I would not put that sort of thought process entirely past Jesse Jackson, whose own national presence largely began with a possibly apocryphal 'Dr. King died in my arms' opening act.

By the way, the last Dem added his name to the co-sponsor list so the holdouts are an all GOP list. This smacks of crappy politics. It'll be "Senator X can't even come out against lynching" next year... just like "Senator X voted to raise taxes 832 times - even though that would include not voting for tax cuts, or counting the tax increases in "tax relief" bills (for example, when the last tax cut was pushed through, the President at the same time raised taxes over 60 separate ways to balance out part of the tax relief).

 

Blah. Like there isn't enough legitimate stuff to be pissed off at these guys about.

Did anyone ask former KKK recruiter, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, how many lynchings he was responsible for or watched?

Edited June 15, 200520 yr by mreye

Quick Update:

 

A couple more Senators have added their names to the cosponsors list. The "don't want to have my name on an anti-lynching resolution list now is:

 

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

Robert Bennett (R-UT)

Thad Cochran (R-MS)

John Cornyn (R-TX)

Michael Crapo (R-ID)

Michael Enzi (R-WY)

Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

Judd Gregg (R-NH)

Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Kay Hutchison (R-TX)

Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

Trent Lott (R-MS)

Richard Shelby (R-AL)

John Sununu (R-NH)

Craig Thomas (R-WY)

New Hampshire? Weird.

 

I'm also surprised that Grassley is on there--I've had the opportunity to meet him, and it's odd to me that he wouldnt' sign.

Shows how much I know, in that I stupidly assumed the dissenters would all be southerners.

 

Maybe it's a 'foot in the door' thing keeping them from signing on – fear that any sort of apology could open the door to future litigation aimed at securing reparations..... I don't know.