The Senate will debate whether to apologize for its role in blocking federal intervention in the quaint Southern tradition of lynching, in part by using the filibuster to block legislation making such vigilante murders a federal civil-rights offense. The Washington Post digs into its archives to reprint part of an 1894 report of the lynching of Stephen Williams, accused of "manhandling" a white woman -- the usual but hardly the only excuse for such murders -- and then notes that the Senate had three explicit opportunities to stop the practice:

At the time, there was no federal law against lynching, and most states refused to prosecute white men for killing black people. The U.S. House of Representatives, responding to pleas from presidents and civil rights groups, three times agreed to make the crime a federal offense. Each time, though, the measure died in the Senate at the hands of powerful southern lawmakers using the filibuster.

The Senate is set to correct that wrong Monday, when its members will vote on a resolution to apologize for the failure to enact an anti-lynching law first proposed 105 years ago. ...

Mob killings were often carnival-like events, attended by men, women and children who were not afraid of facing legal consequences, said Lawrence Guyot, 66, a Washington educator and civil rights activist.

Refreshments were sold. Trains made special trips to lynching sites. Schools and businesses closed to give people a chance to attend. Newspapers ran ads announcing locations and times. Corpses were displayed for days. Victims' ears, fingers and toes were taken as souvenirs, as well as parts of the ropes that hanged them.

"Lynching was the socially acceptable way to demonstrate control," Guyot said. "It sent a message that not only did this happen to this person, but if you as a black person thought about stepping outside of our racial code, it can happen to you. We want it to be public. We want everybody to see it. We want the body to stay up there as long as possible and all the gory details to be known."

Much of America, though, was revolted by the practice.

Some white writers, notably Mark Twain, railed against it. Two leading civil rights groups, the NAACP and B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League, sprang up in part to counter lynching. Black journalist Ida B. Wells-Barnett devoted her career to ending lynching. Seven presidents, starting with Benjamin Harrison in 1891, argued for making it a federal offense.

None of this swayed the Senate, where southern lawmakers insisted that a federal law would intrude on states' rights. One debate tied up the Senate for a total of six weeks in 1937 and 1938, and supporters were never able to break the filibuster.

That's what made the recent debate over the use of the filibuster such a tragic joke. Having Senator Robert Byrd, a former KKK recruiter, get up in the well of the Senate and lecture the GOP and the nation that ending the filibuster presented a danger to the Republic amounted to historical revisionism of the worst kind. While Harry Reid talked about Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (one of Frank Capra's worst and most idiotically idealistic films), the real, non-Hollywood Senate used the filibuster to ensure and to tacitly endorse the racial control that lynching provided. It isn't too far of a stretch to call it Southern terrorism.

Thanks to racists like Byrd, that tradition of filibustering continues today. In fact, Byrd (who isn't even mentioned in this article) filibustered the original Civil Rights Act in 1964, eating up 14 hours of debate before his own caucus finally put an end to his embarrassing display. It is a practice that allows the entire democratic process of the United States to be held hostage by a minority, even if it now requires a larger minority than before the rule changes which eliminated the need for continuous speechmaking.

Forget Capra films and Jimmy Stewart railing from a Hollywood set about corruption. This is the true legacy and historical purpose of the filibuster. Shame on those Senators who lined up next to Robert Byrd and proclaimed that protecting this rule from modification amounted to "saving the Republic". That ghoulish statement offended the ghosts of the people who met death at the hands of mobs while the Senate found itself held hostage to racist sympathizers who used that procedure to stop a nation from putting an end to that outrageous and disgusting practice.

The Senate has the right to set its own rules, including the filibuster for its internal processes, including legislation. That doesn't make the practice glorious or righteous. If the Senate wanted to truly make amends for its transgressions, it would eliminate the procedure that kept the nooses in play for decades without fear of prosecution.

ADDENDUM and BUMP: I'm putting this on top for the morning. The more I think about this story, the more incensed I become. The Gang of Fourteen stood in front of the American people and proclaimed that rescuing the filibuster amount to "saving the Republic", and the other thirteen stood there and endorsed that point of view from Robert Byrd, of all people.

What I would like to know is what lives the Senate saved through the filibuster? What overarching principle has the filibuster ever protected that would counter the cost of the innumerable victims of lynching that the filibuster allowed? The only principle the filibuster has ever protected, as far as I see, is naked partisanship and in the case of lynching, racial oppression and terror. And yet, these same modern-day Senators stood with a man who used the filibuster to keep blacks from voting and justified its use against confirming judges to the appellate court. Thatincludes one nominee, Janice Rogers Brown, whose family suffered under the threat and terror of lynching because of the same filibuster the Democrats used to keep her from her bench assignment. That isn't ironic; it's morally depraved.

The despicable nature of that ploy has yet to be fully argued. Perhaps this latest effort to give the proper historical perspective to the filibuster will awaken the American people to its true use in our history to extend terror and oppression, and finally force the Senate to disavow the antidemocratic procedure that has been stained with the blood of hundreds, if not thousands, of victims that the Senate could have saved.

UPDATE: Two bloggers believe that I go too far. Decision '08 lets me off the hook easy; the Commissar doesn't. Read both; you decide.

UPDATE AGAIN: Neither does Beth.

Perhaps I should refrain from blogging when I get pissed off ... but if you read this carefully, you will not see me calling the Gang of 14 lynchers or racists. Their self-aggrandizing rhetoric about saving the Republic, especially coming from the only member of the Senate to have filibustered the Civil Rights Act and vote against both black Supreme Court justices, is something I find appalling considering the history of how the Senate has used the filibuster in the past. And given that history, its use in keeping Brown off the appellate bench -- given her childhood and its relation to the lynching that the filibuster allowed to continue -- is particularly repellent. And I'm still waiting for an example of some greater good accomplished by the filibuster that makes up for all of its victims.

On the other hand, at least the compromise resolved that particular injustice, which may be the only positive aspect of it from either a Constitutional or historical point of view. I'm mindful of Beth's admonitions, but as the Post article shows, you can't talk about the filibuster in honest terms without pointing out its application in keeping the federal government from interceding on behalf of black Americans for decades. Next time, I'll try to temper my irritation before I post.

UPDATE IV: I'm going to let the trackbacks handle most of the criticism I'm getting on this post, but I want to note that the phrase "quaint Southern tradition" is unfair; lynching was a "quaint American tradition", as a number of people have told me via e-mail and comments, including a few here in the Upper Midwest. Six Meat Buffet weighs in on that and a few other points. And when Beth, Preston, and Rick tell you you're drunk ... well, it might be time to give the keys up for the evening.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference You Mean The Filibuster Isn't The Center Of The Republic? (Updates Galore):

» Maybe you missed this in The Chronicle? from MuskegonPundit
Bloggers have long memories. [Read More]

Tracked on June 11, 2005 10:07 AM

» Will there be a Senate debate on lynching apology? from Mark in Mexico
I don't think, with all due respects to The Captain, that there will be any "debate" in the Senate and I predict that the measure will pass by unanimous voice vote. We'll see. [Read More]

Tracked on June 11, 2005 10:51 AM

» Stomach-Turning Self-Enoblement from Hard Starboard
Even though my cynicism should be more than sufficient to insulate me from any measurable degree of amazement at the moral supremacism of the various and sundry factions of the extreme Left, I still end up shaking my head at rhetorical overkill like ... [Read More]

Tracked on June 11, 2005 12:49 PM

» Is The Filibuster An Artifact of Racism? from Decision '08
That's the implication of this post by Captain Ed. The good Captain reviews the use of the filibuster to sabotage anti-lynching legislation and to stall civil rights legislation. So far, so good; we can all use a history lesson. Then he goes further:... [Read More]

Tracked on June 11, 2005 3:04 PM

» Compromise = Lynching from The Politburo Diktat
Read the latest from Captain Ed, but not right after you've eaten. The Gang of Fourteen stood in front of the American people and proclaimed that rescuing the filibuster amount to "saving the Republic", and the other thirteen stood there and endorsed t... [Read More]

Tracked on June 11, 2005 3:21 PM

» Exactly to whom is this supposed to speak? from MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
All right, let's just get this straight right off the bat. I respect Captain Ed, he's a good guy who's been gracious with me in the past when I've disagreed with his point of view (on rare occasion, mind you). He is still gracious with others who dis... [Read More]

Tracked on June 11, 2005 4:55 PM

» Filibusters Don’t Lynch People from The Strata-Sphere
After a day of soccer games and honoring a great man in our community, I sat down to cacth up on the days political sites and ran across this post by Ed Morrissey (a blogger I read religuously) that was disturbing. [Sorry Capt, as I read this I see y... [Read More]

Tracked on June 11, 2005 5:53 PM

» DID THE CAPTAIN GO TOO FAR? from Right Wing Nut House
Captain Ed of Captains Quarters is a passionate man. Upon seeing that the Senate was going to pass a resolution apologizing to the American people for filibustering anti-lynching laws during the last 100 years, the Captain let it all hang out: The m... [Read More]

Tracked on June 11, 2005 7:16 PM

» Fillybluster from Six Meat Buffet
Captain “Not One Dime” Ed whacked a hornet’s nest earlier by examining a history of the filibuster, citing it as a contributor to the continuation of lynching in the South. [Read More]

Tracked on June 11, 2005 7:40 PM

» More Overwrought Rhetoric from the Commissar from Patterico's Pontifications
Read Captain Ed’s post on the past use of the filibuster to block civil rights legislation, and then tell me whether you think the Commissar is misrepresenting Ed’s position. I do. ... [Read More]

Tracked on June 11, 2005 8:13 PM

» That's Wiggedy Wiggedy Whacked from Vince Aut Morire
I want everyone to enjoy beating each other up. I shall crawl, Gollum-like, over your rotting, twisted corpses to the top of the Ecosystem. In the meantime, [Read More]

Tracked on June 12, 2005 1:22 AM

» Whiskey Sexy from Cao's Blog
You gotta love a man who acts like a man, and Captain Ed plainly said in this post that maybe he shouldn't blog when he's angry. Oh, c'mon now, Captain--to you I say: Whiskey, whiskey, sexy, sexy! Ok. With that off my chest--while recently Emmett... [Read More]

Tracked on June 12, 2005 7:41 AM

» It's 5:00 somewhere from Cao's Blog
Today's AAB is an interesting one. Captain Ed, in one of what I would characterize his better moments, talks about the illustrious history of the fillibuster and quotes the Washington Post in his post here: You mean the fillibuster isn't the center... [Read More]

Tracked on June 12, 2005 8:53 AM

» Round the Reader - Goma Edition from In Search Of Utopia
Digger takes us on a trip down memory lane... Wonder Woman, now she was HOT! Eagle Scouts aint quite what they used to be! When you live in Costa Rica, you have to be prepare for THIS, all the time.... [Read More]

Tracked on June 12, 2005 12:49 PM

» Caesar of Beef Jerky from NIF
Today's dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny ... only ~5 days until Friday! [Read More]

Tracked on June 13, 2005 8:03 AM

» L.A. Times Buries How Senate Obstructed Anti-Lynching Laws from Patterico's Pontifications
The L.A. Times reports: Senate Issues an Apology for Inaction on Lynchings. The sub-head reads: “An attack survivor and descendants of other victims are on hand as decades of obstruction are acknowledged. No compensation is offered.” How... [Read More]

Tracked on June 14, 2005 9:24 AM