The Washington Post features an article on the coming apology from the U.S. Senate (on Monday), when it will vote on a resolution to apologize for the failure to enact an anti-lynching law that was first proposed in the year 1900.
“The apology is long overdue,” said Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), who is sponsoring the resolution with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). “Our history does include times when we failed to protect individual freedom and rights.”
The Senate’s action comes amid a series of conciliatory efforts nationwide that include reopening investigations and prosecutions in Mississippi. Advocates say the vote would mark the first time Congress has apologized for the nation’s treatment of African Americans.
African Americans weren’t the only ones lynched though. Consider the 1907 Anti-Hindu Riot in Bellingham, Washington:
“On September 4, 1907, a mob of about 500 men assaulted boarding houses and mills, forcefully expelling Hindus from Bellingham (Washington)in what is now known as the Anti-Hindu Riot.
It began as an attack on two East Indian workers on C Street and turned into a rock-throwing lynching, to ‘scare them so badly that they will not crowd white labour out of the mills.’ The small police force was overpowered. The next day about 300 Hindus fled Bellingham in fear.
The press, some civic leaders and churches denounced the riots. Threats were later made to other groups, though no major riots occurred.”
But why now? Why after all this time is the Senate finally acknowledging this dark chapter in U.S. History? In order to understand the Senate’s motivations let us first look at the reason that no anti-lynching legislation has thus far been passed:
Senate filibusters in the past blocked House bills and presidential requests to pass anti-lynching legislation, she [Doria Dee Johnson, an author and frequent lecturer on the subject of lynchings] said. “It will be nice to have an apology from that same body,” she said.
The Senate resolution, sponsored by Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and George Allen, R-Va., notes that nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in the first half of the 20th century and that seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to end lynching. But nothing got through the Senate.
Is this all starting to come together yet? Do you all see the Machiavellian plot being hatched here? George Allen is just as ambitious as Bill Frist in seeking the Presidency in ‘08. Seasoned pundits even see him as a frontrunner, and the campaigning has long since begun. In order to get the support of the religious right (which is an absolute imperative for Republicans in this country) he needs to help get rid of the Senate filibuster and get right-wing judges on the bench. By sponsoring this anti-lynching legislation he is really just trying to build the case against the filibuster AND trying to shore up black votes for his 2008 run. Believe it.
