I find myself indifferent about the Senate's recent apology over failing to pass anti-lynching legislation until the 1960's, in which around 5,000 blacks were murdered by white mobs.  I mean, it wouldn't hurt for them to do it, as it's nothing but a petition they signed.

But the apology really doesn't have any teeth, considering none of these senators were in office when this legislation was being considered.  It probably wouldn't have made much of a difference anyway, as federal judges generally came from the districts they resided in, and were probably just as bigoted as the state police and legislators in the South.  All it takes is one "not guilty", or an appellate court to yell "remanded", and the lowlifes are set free.

One little nugget that the press is leaving out of this story is why the legislation was never passed.  Indeed, it had support from at least seven presidents after the Civil War and was passed in the House of Representatives three times.  But in the Senate, Southern Democrats were able to kill those bills with a filibuster.  As we stated before, the cloture rule was at 3/4ths then instead of the current 3/5ths requirement it is now, so even a smaller majority was able to hold up anti-lynching legislation.

But this fact is being passed over quickly by the media.  Why?  Because the newspapers had just stood up in defense for the filibuster, and of course they can't trash the Democrats, who were reponsible for blocking every kind of civil rights legislation throughout the 20th century.

For example, take the New York Times (via Captain's Quarters):

There have been 4,742 recorded lynchings in American history, Ms. Landrieu said. Historians suspect that many more went undocumented. Although the House passed antilynching legislation three times in the first half of the 20th century, the Senate, controlled by Southern conservatives, repeatedly refused to do so.

Instead of reporting the truth, the NYT decided to protect the Democratic Party from their own historical grievances, spinning what truly happened.  The NYT decided to use the term "Southern conservatives" instead of Southern Democrats, which is what the senators were.  The Democrats literally ran every Southern state until the Republicans finally started catching up in the 1990's, but that's something that was obviously missed by the Times.

Another problem with this article is the idea that the Southern Democrats "controlled" the Senate, which is an outright lie.  The whole purpose of filibustering defeats that point, as the filibuster is a tool used by a minority of senators to kill legislation.  If the Southern Democrats controlled the Senate, then they could have easily brought it to the floor and voted it down or even killed it in committee.  Instead, they filibustered it because they had no other choice.  Southern Democrats never controlled the Senate.

It's doubtful if we'll ever see anyone tell the truth about why anti-lynching legislation was never passed.

---

UPDATE:  Captain's Quarters links to an LA Times op/ed by Andres Martinez that goes to the heart of the anti-lynching legislation opposition and the hypocisy of the media and the Senate for keeping the filibuster today:

What wasn't said is that the Senate was "uniquely culpable" because it cherished the filibuster — a procedural rule that enhances each member's individual power — over the Constitution. The Senate's failure to acknowledge the cause of its homicidal negligence robs its apology of much meaning or sincerity. ...

It's hardly shocking that Landrieu wanted to keep the f-word out of the resolution. She was one of those moderates who saved the filibuster from attempts by conservative Republicans to "nuke" it for judicial nominations — by allowing some of President Bush's stalled nominees to get a vote. During the Gang of 14 news conference, Landrieu exuberantly proclaimed: "I am so proud we were able to reach an agreement that truly reflects the best traditions of the Senate."

She went on to say that the deal "helps protect these cherished traditions by ensuring that the minority, even a lone individual, will continue to have the right to speak up and be heard." Her fellow sensible centrist, Republican Susan Collins of Maine, said the agreement "helps preserve the unique culture of this institution," a "culture in which legislative goals are reached with patience and perseverance."

Read the whole thing.