An Associated Press/Ipsos poll of the American people gives Congress a 31 percent approval rating, the lowest in the short history of the survey. A partial explanation of such low popularity is found in today's headlines, which detail a scramble among almost the entire Senate to associate with a non-binding resolution whose sole purpose is to award good publicity to senators. Granting that opposition to such symbolic votes can be career suicide, public-relations stunts of the like engaged in by the Senate today serve to breed cynicism among people paying attention.

The United States Senate apologized on Monday for the thousands of lynchings in American history. The Senate resolution "apologizes to the victims of lynching" and "expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of lynching, the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human dignity and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States." Why? None of the 100 Senators (even a certain former night rider from Appalachia) ever lynched anyone. The victims of lynch mobs obviously aren't any better off because of the belated "I'm sorry." So who benefits from the well-publicized apology? Every U.S. senator who signs onto this meaningless resolution. How typical of our age for "statesmen" to apologize for offenses they did not commit to parties that are beyond redress.

"Despite sitting amidst three other fellow Irishmen, and a section of other folks of a similar background, I rooted for Tyson. "
You are not Irish. You are american. McBride is an Irishman, which means, and I thought this is obvious, that he was born in Ireland. You are a yank. Please do not claim to be Irish. It is embaressing for genuine Irish people to have someone with your narrow, reactionary views be thought to be one of us, nevermind you not supporting McBride.

So, does that mean you're FOR lynching???

Yes, by all means, let us apologize for everything that we are against. I myself am apologizing for man's mortality. It's tough to die, and I'm damn sorry we all are compelled to go through it and be deprived of our constitutional rights afterward.

I also apologize for : lynching, murder, rape, property damage, Jerry Lewis, the Irish off topic poster above, Tyson, Arianna Huff, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, Olympic Judges, War, unmarried mothers, Hollywood, the seven deadly sins, the however many that aren't, et cetera.

So these are the quality of officials that we have available to us and choose elect to high office.

What a bunch of maroons.

Starting to think that the U.S. Congress and Mass. State Congress are one in the same.

Low quality.

I quite agree Declan old boy. Be proud to be an American Daniel my son, no one should ever claim to be Irish that is not. It is utterly repulsive to claim such heritage.

God Bless.

The Massachusetts Legislature is properly called the Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Interesting that the media coverage reports that one of the reasons for the apology is the use of the filibuster by 'southern conservatives' against the anti-lynching legislation proposed many times, and actualy passed in the House. These reports never specify, however, that it was exclusively Democrats that opposed these bills.

My country of birth is the U.S. So, it is true: I am an American. But my siblings and I are the first generation in both parents’ families to be born in this country. So, my genes say I’m Irish.

So, what’s wrong with saying I’m Irish-American? Does that offend you true natural born Irishmen that much?

At least we “Yanks” know how to stay on topic.

If Mr. Flynn is not an Irishman (and I agree he is not) why then would he necessarily support McBride, an Irishman, over Tyson, an American?

And although Mr. McBide was born in Ireland, he seems to prefer living in Dorchester.

Whatevah "Nobody". You get the drift.

Actually, if you want to "properly" call them anything, call them a bunch of lay about hacks who are on the public dole for full time work whilst working part time and who accomplish very little else than to come up with new and different ways to keep their hands in the pockets of Mass. taxpayers.

I apologize for mulletts, skinny ties, reality shows, the music of the Eagles, Gallagher and the movies of Corey Feldman.

Great point, Nobody Important. They want to apologize for it as long as the guilty party is in no way tied to them. A democract apologizing for what democrats did 80 years ago is way too politically dangerous. The apology they chose to give has no political costs.

Not only do I get your drift, I suffer daily under the "leadership" of said hacks and layabouts. There is a wonderful quote (I don't remember to whom it is attributed) that states "No man's life and property is safe while the legislature is in session."

Webster, you forgot non-alcoholic beer. I'm really, really sorry for that.

Yeah, I think that was Mark Twain speaking about Congress it applies in spades to the group of dim witted thieves up there on Beacon Hill.

I suppose I'm just jealous that they have those no heavy lifting jobs where the perks abound.

And speaking of apologies, our ex-speakah of da' houz will be apologizing in court soon. There may be hope yet of keeping these jackals in line.

Speaking of dimwits, how the hell do they keep getting elected? I mean, there can only be so many hack jobs for the relatives at the various courts, MassPort, convention center, etc. What's in it for the rest of us?

Well, from my own little corner of the Massachusetts Miracle, the story goes like this: a young idealistic lawyer (who I know personally) wants the Rep. job because he really thinks he can make a difference. He gets elected and his first term is gung-ho to serve to voters. Returns e-mails, phone calls, follows up inquiries with letters written on extravagant state stationary. At some point, he becomes removed and less responsive to the point where correspondence may or may not even get an acknowledgement. Now, if you see him or hear from him, it’s sure to be because he’s running for re-election but the fire is gone.

I suspect what happens to most of these (especially the less sleazy) is that they get “absorbed” by the system and take on the attitude that if you can’t beat them, join them. Then they become totally ineffective to the people they represent because they are now more in tune with what’s happening on the Hill than with their own districts.

Irish are delicious!

Eat me.

If the Senate ever passed legislation related to lynching that in any way condoned it - like defeating a bill that would have made it a federal crime - I can understand it attempting to make good on that. Other than that, yeah, this resolution is curious and even suspect.

Jeremiah: I didn't get what you said.

Do you think that intentionally not passing a bill that would make lynching a federal crime is equivalent to condoning lynching?

I guess it would depend on factors such as whether local and state remedies had been tried and exhausted (statutes, prosecutions, sentences); the wording of any proposed legislation; and if there were such legislation then the nature of senators' opposition to it from private papers as well as the public record).

I'm not familiar with legislative remedies sought regarding lynching nor what, if any, attention the Senate has paid that subject. (Aside from this recent symbolic vote.)

Jeremiah: I didn't get what you said.

Do you think that intentionally not passing a bill that would make lynching a federal crime is equivalent to condoning lynching?
Posted by short at June 14, 2005 04:35 PM

I would say that yes, if the Federal Government says "Lynching is not a Federal Crime" they might as well be condoning Lynching.

Ben, your answer suggests that you don't believe in federalism. Is this really what you wanted to convey?

Does "Federalism" refers to the idea that it's up to states to legislate on matters not specified in the Constitution? If so, then I bet there are sound arguments against any federal branch intervening for or against lynching.

But I do think that a legal case for federal intervention against this crime would have merit if acts of lynching involved the crossing of state borders, whether in the planning or committing of the crimes. And if it could be proven that punishments at the state-level for lynching were unconstitutionally denied. If someone else is convinced otherwise, short or anyone, I welcome your point of view

(I'm not familiar with The Law so I'd have to do some background reading to really argue a point much further.)

Lynching is just another act of murder, so it couldn't constitutionally be outlawed federally. Now of course if state lines are crossed then it can be federal, or if the state government participates in it(=denying due process) or refuses to prosecute in cases it otherwise would (=denying equal protection) then it could be a federal matter via the 14th amendment. But the federal government can't just outlaw murder by lynching or otherwise.

Besides, saying that not making something illegal is equivalent to condoning it is as recipe for totalitarianism. My question for Ben T (to paraphrase Homer on donuts): "The federal government, is there anything it can't do?"

"Lynching is just another act of murder"
I don't think so, if only because there's a group or conspiratorial nature to the murder (which I bet makes criminal prosecution more difficult).

"But the federal government can't just outlaw murder by lynching or otherwise."
If that's because the Constitution does not assign that power, ok.

"Besides, saying that not making something illegal is equivalent to condoning it is as recipe for totalitarianism."
Hmm, perhaps.

From the "lynchings" link in Dan's original blog entry: "Three times (1922, 1937, 1940) antilynching legislation passed the House of Representatives, only to be defeated in the Senate." Now this would be interesting to pursue further. Also, that approximately 1/4 of lynching victims from the 1880s to the 1940s were not African-American.

I wouldn't consider this to be a trivial "I'm sorry" that is just an example of empty, pointless, political correctness. Rather, this is the first foot in the door for reparations for slavery, as I'm sure an apology for slavery (that was certainly a worse injustice than lynching) will be forthcoming, and from there comes the reparations.

While I obviously don't support lynchings, a few things I think should be put in perspective. Here is a table for lynching statistics http://www.berea.edu/faculty/browners/chesnutt/classroom/lynchingstat.html

There were 4,742 recorded cases of lyncihg, and about 70% of the victims were black. I don't happen to know the statistics, but as blacks were about 1/3 of the Southern population at the time, I'd be willing to bet that even then their crime rate was at least twice that of whites, making those percentages not seem as bad. Furthermore, since the last known lynching in 1968, I'm sure the number of black on white murders compared to white on black murders greatly outnumbers the discrepancy of between white and black lynching victims.

While these people should have gotten a fair trial, aAlso, only 85 people (or 1.79% of people lynched) were lynched for "insulting white people") while that is terrible, compare that to the other causes for lynching: Murder (41%), Rape (19%), Attempted Rape (6%), Felonious Assault (5%) and Robbery (5%). We don't know how many of them were actually guilty; if most of them actually were guilty I'd feel much less sympathetic to the victims.

Finally, while I think individual states should have done something about Lynching (Strom Thurmond as governor actually enacted very tough anti-Lynching laws), It clearly was not in the authority of the federal government to make such laws, so even if we assume the duty of collective guilt, the Senators have nothing to apologize for.