Blogs > Cliopatria > Senate and Anti-Lynching

Jun 20, 2005

Senate and Anti-Lynching




My colleague Ralph Luker recently posted on the Senate's anti-lynching resolution, and the peculiar decision of a handful of Senate Republicans to decline to co-sponsor the resolution (which passed by a voice vote). Today's Roll Call (subscription only) follows up on the story, asking each of the senators' offices for an explanation of their decisions. The results are below:

Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)

“I also condemn lynching. … But, rather than begin to catalog and apologize for all those times that some Americans have failed to reach our goals, I prefer to look ahead. I prefer to look to correct current injustices rather than to look to the past.”

Bob Bennett (Utah)

“I come from a State that does not have a history of lynchings, but that does not mean I should be absolved from the concern that all Americans should have over the lynchings that have occurred. I note that it was the filibuster that made it possible for the Senate to be the body that blocked this legislation in the past. I would hope that in the future, we would all realize that the filibuster should be used for more beneficial purposes than that.”

Thad Cochran (Miss.)

“I don’t feel I should apologize for the passage of or the failure to pass any legislation by the U.S. Senate. But I deplore and regret that lynchings occurred and that those committing them were not punished.”

John Cornyn (Texas)

“There are different ways to acknowledge those times when Americans have failed to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves.”

Mike Enzi (Wyo.)

“Sen. Enzi believes the lynchings that took place were tragic and that they never should have occurred. The legislation was passed by voice vote. Sen. Enzi agreed to that. He did not object.”

Judd Gregg (N.H.)

“The fact that this amendment passed unanimously showed the depth of the support this resolution rightfully received, and Sen. Gregg was pleased to offer his support.”

Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas)

“You don’t have to co-sponsor everything that you are in favor of. She abhors lynching and thinks it is a horrific part of American history.”

Jon Kyl (Ariz.)

No response.

Trent Lott (Miss.)

No response.

Richard Shelby (Ala.)

“There are many instances where Sen. Shelby supports legislation and resolutions without being a co-sponsor.”

Gordon Smith (Ore.)

“Sen. Smith strongly supports the resolution. He has a long record protecting civil rights.”

John Sununu (N.H.)

“Sen. Sununu supported the resolution, and was on the Senate floor Monday evening when the resolution passed unanimously by a voice vote.”

Craig Thomas (Wyo.)

“The Senator was working on the energy bill and CAFTA when that came around. ... If it passed by unanimous consent, that means everyone supported it. I don’t see the news value.”

It's interesting that Trent Lott's office didn't issue a statement, and the comments of Lamar Alexander, Craig Thomas, and Bob Bennett are rather odd, to say the least.

Thad Cochran's response, however, is more interesting. Cochran is clearly the most moderate Republican senator from the South. He argued that he would have supported anti-lynching legislation had he been in the Senate, and therefore should not have to apologize for the actions of people opposed to his position. When pressed by his hometown newspaper, the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, he noted that the paper had not yet responded for 50 years' worth of editorials opposing anti-lynching legislation.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Derek Charles Catsam - 6/20/2005

KC --
I wrote about this on Rebunk today, linking to a William Raspberry piece that pointed out that Cochran had in fact co-sponsored apologies to both Native Americans and Japaqnese Americans. Never mind that the Jackson Daily News has issued apologies in the past, or at leasr refuted its own editorial policies publicly. And that beinga senator is rather different from runninga newspaper. And that Thad Cochran is just plain butt-naked wrong on this one, as is every other Senator who did not support this (and who should have been subjected to an actual vote).
dc