Senate Lynching Apology

Lynching is certainly an ugly part of our history, and deserves to be condemned, but I don't think the Senate should apologize for failing to violate the Constitution by passing anti-lynching laws.

First, its apology is unnecessary. The Supreme Court ruled that federal anti-lynching laws are unconstitutional, because the Senate did pass such a law in 1870:

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/cruiksha.htm

The law was intended to enforce the 14th Amendment and was called the Enforcement Act, and was struck down in a case called Cruickshank. It is actually difficult to imagine a more hideous example of racial violence in our history than the facts of this case, where a posse and sheriff literally slaughtered over one hundred black men. But The Court struck it down.

This is the section of the law that is directly applicable to lynching:

The sixth section is as follows:----

'That if two or more persons shall band or conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway, or upon the premises of another, with intent to violate any provisions of this act, or to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or secured to him by the constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same, such persons shall be held guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of the court,--the fine not to exceed $5,000, and the imprisonment not to exceed ten years; and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to, and disabled from holding, any office or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the constitution or laws of the United States.'

And the Court did strike it on the grounds that Congress did not have the power delegated to it to pass this law...at least in part.

The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act. Thus, if a marshal of the United States is unlawfully resisted while executing the process of the courts within a State, and the resistance is accompanied by an assault on the officer, the sovereignty of the United States is violated by the resistance, and that of the State by the breach of peace, in the assault. So, too, if one passes counterfeited coin of the United States within a State, it may be an offence against the United States and the State: the United States, because it discredits the coin; and the State, because of the fraud upon him to whom it is passed. This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship *551 which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.

The government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States.


So perhaps the Supreme Court should apologize, and certainly the States, but not the Senate, because it did try and stop it.

But second, over 100 years, 4700 people dead from lynching really is not that many for a country of our size, despite the horror of it. I recognize that lynching was more than simply those killed, but also about a community that was held at bay and prevented from being full citizens, and I do not wish to downplay the importance of that aspect of our lynching history. But just for a little perspective, we currently average over 6,000 black murder victims every year from methods other than lynching- which is roughly the same number as white murder victims, but there are 6 times more whites than blacks in America...so blacks are 6 times more likely to be murdered TODAY than whites. That is something the current government should do something about, and maybe should apologize for failing to do so.