Post-Gazette Editorial – 6/21/05

This page was last updated on June 25, 2005.

Non-apologists / Some senators kept an uneasy silence on lynching; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; June 21, 2005.

This idea of apologizing for something you had nothing to do with is silly. The only Senators who should have apologized were those who opposed the legislation the last time it came before the Senate. Apologies mean something only when offered by the person who erred.

My guess is this apology resolution was intended as a prelude to an eventual slavery reparations bill. After all, if you’re willing to take responsibility for lynchings by apologizing, why shouldn’t you take responsibility for slavery?

See if you can figure out two facts the editorial fails to note. I’ll tell you at the end.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“You’d think senators who prattle on about creating a ‘culture of life’ could get behind an apology for failing to pass anti-lynching legislation introduced over 200 times in the 20th century.”

[RWC] The author fails to note the last time an anti-lynching bill came before the Senate was in 1940, when Democrats had overwhelming control of the Senate with 69 seats. This comes from S. Res. 39 itself. Therefore, the last of the “over 200 times in the 20^th century” was 65 years ago, 19 years before any current senator was in office!

“For too long, the U.S. Senate could not see the value of outlawing the kind of savage vigilantism that had become far too common in America. Between the end of Reconstruction and 1968, 4,742 people were hanged, burned and shot by racist crowds in 48 states, but mostly in the South.”

[RWC] Something I haven’t heard mentioned by anyone is that lynching was illegal throughout the country because lynching was murder, and murder was illegal. The problem wasn’t that lynching wasn’t illegal; the problem was that the murderers escaped punishment. Unenforced laws serve no purpose. Had there been a federal anti-lynching law, would it have made a difference? That’s not support for not passing anti-lynching legislation, only recognition that the mere existence of a law doesn’t guarantee results.

“Sens. Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, and George Allen, a Virginia Republican, were justifiably embarrassed that anti-lynching legislation had been filibustered by Southern politicians. They became the prime sponsors of Resolution 39 ‘apologizing to the victims of lynching and descendants of those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation.’

“Joining their effort should have been a no-brainer. Republican Sens. Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania got on board as co-sponsors. The White House endorsed it. Even West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd, a former klansman, co-sponsored it. Who could be against apologizing on behalf of a negligent Senate for not standing up to lynching?

“Since the proposal was taken up last week on a voice vote, no senator could be recorded as voting against it. But individual senators could demonstrate official support by becoming a cosponsor. By last Thursday, three days after the resolution passed, 14 senators, all Republicans, still had not joined their colleagues as cosponsors. By not supporting the resolution, were they afraid of bigoted constituents or did their political philosophy preclude apologizing for the mistakes of their predecessors? Whatever the reason, it was a disgrace, pure and simple.”

[RWC] Notice the editorial mentioned that all who didn’t sign on to co-sponsor a worthless apology were Republicans. Below you’ll read about the hypocrisy of this tactic.

Why is it “a disgrace, pure and simple” not to apologize for someone else’s actions?

“We’re not surprised to see Orrin Hatch of Utah or Trent Lott of Mississippi on the list of non-supporters, but Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas? Maybe they think that being in the Senate means never having to say you’re sorry, no matter how grievous the offense.”

[RWC] As of June 24^th, Hatch and Hutchison had signed on as co-sponsors. For the other senators, maybe they believe they have no need to apologize for something they had nothing to do with. As noted above, no current senators were in office when the last anti-lynching legislation came before the Senate in 1940. I don’t have the statistics, but I suspect the majority of senators weren’t even alive in 1940.

Did you notice what the author failed to note?

First, you won’t find the word “filibuster.” The editorial failed to note a minority – primarily Southern Democrats – filibustered anti-lynching legislation at least three times, in 1922, 1935, and 1938. Had the anti-lynching legislation come up for a vote, it would have passed. Yet another wonderful example of the filibuster’s illustrious heritage. You’ll recall the PG published a pro-filibuster editorial in April.

Second, you won’t find mention of Democrats though Democrats did the filibustering. To be clear, I don’t accuse all Democrats of the time of being racists. I’m just pointing out that Democrat senators filibustered anti-lynching legislation at least three times. I could be wrong, but I suspect “Republican” would have been liberally spread through the editorial had Republican senators been the filibusterers. Heck, the PG even made a big deal about Republicans who didn’t co-sponsor a meaningless apology for something they didn’t do.

If you remember, the Beaver County Times failed to note these two points as well.

Some outlets were worse than the PG. MSNBC tried to dump the blame for no anti-lynching legislation on Republicans by referring to the filibustering Democrats as “Southern conservatives.”¹

1. Senate apologizes for inaction on lynchings; MSNBC News Services; June 13, 2005.