Non-apologists / Some senators kept an uneasy silence on lynching

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05172/525442.stm

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.

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.

<snip>

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.

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.

[LittleClarkie]

1. They're trying to make it about the Democrats

equating those who were against anti-lynching legislation, Southern Dems mostly, with the Dems today. Forgetting of course that through the magic of the Reagan revolution, many of those Southern Dems are now their very own Repubs. Funny how that worked out.