A Senatorial atonement for past blocking of anti-lynching bills

[MichaeltheGreat]

Perhaps some of them realized it really never was properly a Federal issue?

[Ramo]

Except for that irritating 14th Amendment demanding equal protection under the law. A tad difficult with all-white juries in the South acquitting every lynch-mob it comes across, without a federal law.

[Mr. Harley]

Kuci - never had AP history, it wasn't offered in our school. Awesome. Oh, and Kid, sorry, I finally went in and deleted some mail.

Ned - let's do a Mexican-American War forum some time. I am quoting some of our own people of the time, who familiar with the facts and the cultural context made that statement. In fact it was Ulysses S. Grant who stated it was "one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation". He was there. I thought I had mentioned Andrew Jackson but I must have lost the reference when rearranging the Native American paragraph, and missed the fact I had deleted it.

MtG, thanks for you posts on the Native Americans (I had forgotten about that poisoning incident). I do have one disagreement with Oerdin. There were very few "innocent" settlers. Most people were aware there were now taking lands expopriated by the government from the non-Christian, Indian primitives/savages/whatever label you want to use to justify settling on someone else's land.

Just like with abolition, albeit with less support, people knew the land was being stolen. The settlers happily drove off/shot/beat Native Americans found on "their" land. They may not have been as bad as those who created the problem prior to them (though a major example, King Philips War, also begs that question) but they are still acts that of themselves were more than sufficient provocation to start a conflict. If someone shot your parent or sibling because the family member was hunting on land claimed by the interloper, and you had been hunting on the land back prior to your great-grandfather, you might be a trifle upset.

MtG, there was an attempt to create a Federal Anti-Lynching law, but FDR had to have the votes of Southern lawmakers, which is why he provided tepid support. FDR's wife pushed it much harder than he did, and she still failed. It's interesting to note that the first President to push Civil Rights law on principle, LBJ, both lost the South and was very aware of what he was doing, and helped set the groundwork for today's Republican majority. It turns out FDR had properly analyzed the politics - something he was a consumate master of. LBJ had the principles to say screw the analysis, and do what was right.

That's also why we can charge people with violating someone's Civil Rights when state murder or battery charges are ineffective. That gets right to the "12 white men" jury issue. I've never been very comfortable with some of the applications of those laws, as they can come distressingly close to double jeapordy, but I also grant the imperative that created them.

And yes, MtG, I hold lawmakers similarly in contempt. However, there is still a place for this kind of posturing. Look at various kinds of revisionist history that can get pushed, i.e. the blacks in the 1890's-1930's South didn't really live in an atmosphere of terror (not "War on..." but Stalinesque). Look at Ned's recap of the horrible savage justification - which is hardly extinct in this country. So in refence your comment on dealing with substantive issues - would I like to see national historical teaching/testing standards? Hell yes. Do you know what can of worms that would open up? (Hmm, Friday stir the hornets nest OT topic )

[Dinner]

Republican leader Bill Frist (of nuclear option fame) knew his boys were a bunch of bigots so he repeatedly blocked attempts for a role call vote. At least Republicans are intelligent enough to know what scum they are so they try to hide it.

Critics: Frist vetoed roll call (on lynching apology)

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) refused repeated requests for a roll call vote that would have put senators on the record on a resolution apologizing for past failures to pass anti-lynching laws, officials involved in the negotiations said Tuesday.

And there was disagreement Tuesday over whether Saxby Chambliss, one of Georgia's two Republican senators, had supported the measure when it was approved Monday night.

Bob Stevenson, Frist's chief spokesman, said Tuesday evening the procedure the majority leader established was "requested by the sponsors."

The chief sponsors of the resolution, Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and George Allen (R-Va.), disputed that assertion.

More...

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/0605/15natlynch.html

[MrFun]

MTG just likes to plug his ears, and shut his eyes tight, in denial that not wanting to atone for past lynchings could be motivated by racism for some of those people.


And Oerdin -- interesting post.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Ned
The Mexican-American war was a continuation of the Texan-Mexican war that was "continuing" because the Mexican government did not agree to the deal struck by their president, Santa Ana, after he was captured by Houston. "We" hardly provoked anything. At best, we intervened on the side of the Texans after the Mexican government refused to negotiate.

No, Ned.

Look on a map and find the Nueces River. This was the internationally recognized boundary between the Province of Texas and the rest of Mexico. The Texas colonists, however, wanted to move the border 150 miles south to the Rio Grande - the current border. President Polk agreed to support them on this AS LONG AS they would join the Union.

Then in 1846 Polk sent troops down into the disputed area which Mexico, naturally, considered an invasion. Prior to this Polk even announced publically that there were no open acts of agression coming from the Mexican Army - and remember this was nearly 10 years after the war between Texas and Mexico.

Its also important to note that Polk campaigned on the issue of acquiring California and (the then) northern Mexico by any means necessary, despite Mexico's refusal to sell it at any cost.

Clearly Polk wanted Texas and the rest of the west and did whatever he could to get it. This is pretty undipsuted history too.

[Dinner]

Jimmy my boy. You are ignoring the fact that the Mexicans signed a peace treaty ceding that land to Texas then later changed their minds about it. The US naturally demanded that the treaty be upheld and threatened war if Mexico continued to try to renage on its treaty obligations.

That's not to say the US didn't engage in dirty tricks. Polk sent a small observation force into southern Texas in order to provoke the Mexicans into starting a fight. When Mexicans entered Texas and killed a few Americans the US executed a preplanned invasion which had the entire US military preplaced and ready to go. The Mexicans duly got their asses kicked in short order.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Look on a map and find the Nueces River. This was the internationally recognized boundary between the Province of Texas and the rest of Mexico. The Texas colonists, however, wanted to move the border 150 miles south to the Rio Grande - the current border.

Oerdin is correct. Santa Anna signed a treaty with the Texans giving them up to the Rio Grande river. Later on, he said it was done by force (under duress) and the border was actually the Nueces.

[Ned]

JimmyCrackHead, your rendition of history does seem to ignore some critical facts as others here have pointed out. But, IIRC, the US did try to purchase California and the other territories before the war broke out. After the war, the US did in fact purchase these territories.

As to the "disputed" territories, they were disputed by the Mexicans who refused to recognize the peace treaty signed by Santa Ana. As a result, the 1836 war never really ended.

Also, IIRC, the Mexicans offered the Texans a truce on condition that they not be annexed by the US. I don't know what the Texans said to Mexico, but they had been seeking to become part of the US from 1836. It was the US that was reluctant given that such an acquisition would be buying a war with Mexico.

Polk would have like to settle all disputes peacefully. But the Mexicans would have none of it, and invaded the portion of Texas they disputed, but which the Texans "owned" by treaty. The US position becomes "dubious" only if one ignores all this history and simply assumes that Mexico was right on all points.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ramo
Except for that irritating 14th Amendment demanding equal protection under the law. A tad difficult with all-white juries in the South acquitting every lynch-mob it comes across, without a federal law.

And "equal protection" doesn't mean either jury nullification or federalizing any state statute if, as and when convenient to prove some sort of point.

[Dr Strangelove]

Golly, I wonder if this means that the Senate is on the verge of passing some of the very same anti-lynching legislation which they blocked so many years ago, or was that not part of the deal?

You never know when old habits are going to come back into vogue.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
OK, shawn, since I just took AP US History this year, I'll answer.

AP US History Exam

Piece of cake .

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
JimmyCrackHead, your rendition of history does seem to ignore some critical facts as others here have pointed out. But, IIRC, the US did try to purchase California and the other territories before the war broke out. After the war, the US did in fact purchase these territories.

As to the "disputed" territories, they were disputed by the Mexicans who refused to recognize the peace treaty signed by Santa Ana. As a result, the 1836 war never really ended.

Also, IIRC, the Mexicans offered the Texans a truce on condition that they not be annexed by the US. I don't know what the Texans said to Mexico, but they had been seeking to become part of the US from 1836. It was the US that was reluctant given that such an acquisition would be buying a war with Mexico.

Polk would have like to settle all disputes peacefully. But the Mexicans would have none of it, and invaded the portion of Texas they disputed, but which the Texans "owned" by treaty. The US position becomes "dubious" only if one ignores all this history and simply assumes that Mexico was right on all points.

Or if one ignores a history of reciprocal raiding by Texans and Mexicans across the Rio Grande that didn't amount to a small bucket of piss in signicance.

And if one ignores Lamar's ambitions to annex New Mexico, California, and the northern frontier states of Mexico to the Texas Republic and Lamar's failed Santa Fe expedition in 1841.

And if one ignores that Polk's whole campaign theme (54 40 or fight, et al) was based on annexation of territory or conquest.

And if one ignores the convenient timing of Polk sending a US force to Corpus Christi, then increasing that force in size when sending Slidell to "negotiate" for claimed damages and "offering" to buy California and New Mexico for 40 million.

And if one ignores US citizens entering Mexican territory and claiming land there without authorization of the sovereign government.

And if one ignores the prepositioning of Sloat's flotilla to blockade and invade well before the war started.

Etc.

You don't have to wait for someone to actually shoot or stab you before you defend yourself.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
AP US History Exam

Piece of cake .

Verily. Though not as easy as Physics.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Just one question - who here in a High School in the USA was taught about :

1) Lynchings and their widespread support. To be teaching versus a mention this needs to include Rosewood, FL and Tulsa, OK as well as the better known incidents of the civil rights period. It also needs to include the history of lynchings of other ethnic groups, such as Native Americans and Jews (Google Leo Frank) and the history of anti-lynching legislation - see FDR. Please include burning and maiming of the bodies, collectable and postcard sales, etc. that occured at the lychings.

2) Genocide. Were you taught about King Philip's War? George Washington's ethnic cleansing/genocide in the Ohio Valley (burn out small village and that winter the women and children do this funny thing - die)? The largest mass hanging in the US in Minnesota during the Civil War? (Native Americans and Minnesota - Google it) The Sand River Massacre? The genocide of Native Americans in California, including widespread "Injun hunting" for sport? Statements of prominent Americans including General Sheridan and Teddy Roosevelt, concerning Native Americans? Statements of early colonials about the Native Americans, i.e. see the Puritans in New England? The Indian "schools" and treatment of Native Americans in those schools, beatings, etc. (some leading to deaths - these were not mild beatings) and the placing of these children into domestic slavery with "deserving" good Christian families.

3) The Philippines after the Spanish American War, including atrocities that make Mai Lai look mild.

4) Internment of Native American, German, Italian, and Japanese ancestry US citizens during the World Wars?

5) Broken treaties by the US government, primarily with Native Americans. The Doctrine of Conquest, recently cited by Ginsberg in the most recent majority opinion in SCOTUS dealing with Native Americans.

6) The Mexican-American War, called one of the most unjust wars conducted by the USA by many of the politicians and military men of the time (as in were yhou taught ab out that?) The land rights guaranteed to the original inhabitants of the areas conquered during the Mexican-American War, and how they were abrogated and the land stolen? And how badly treated the inhabitants of those areas were?

7) Filibustering, i.e. Southern freebooters in Central America. Plus further interventions in Central America, including military interventions (i.e. killing people) at the behest of US Companies over an extended period of time.

8) Multiple interventions in the Cold War supporting "our" strong men against Democratic but not necessarily approved governments - i.e. Iran, Chile, et al.

9) US interventions in Asia in the late 1800's. Including support of imperialism in China (i.e. Boxer Rebellion), and the forcing of our trading interests on Japan (Google Commodore Perry).

10) US support of or initiation of mass bombing of population centers in WW2. Ned and I had an interesting argument over it, or at least its culmination, i.e. the A-bombs (Ned argued against the A-bombs, by the way). Even if you support those campaigns, which I do, it has some very murky reasoning when you look at the record, similarly to the treatment of terror suspects in today's "War on Terror." If you look at the actual things being said, the US military and government were far from unified on these issues, especially once they knew the war was won and they had become aware of the effects on women and children. Those for the bombings argued very eloquently for their viewpoint, but those who wanted to stop the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, i.e. fire -bombings and the A-bomb, had some excellent points, too. Please note this probably belongs in a college history setting, you are not going to teach this in one hour.

I know I'm still missing multiple other instances. If you were taught half of this in High School, send your teacher a VERY nice retirement present, you are a fraction of the upper one per cent. In fact, how many of you had American History in College and were taught this? While I have a dislike of this kind of thing as a gesture (ever noticed that it’s always done on the cheap without any real monetary damages paid to the surviving family) I must agree that it is better than nothing.

As I’ve oft repeated, the US has done many good things in history. It’s also done some pretty terrible things, as noted above. We are not doing a very good job of teaching our children just how easy it is for any person, including Americans, to participate in group atrocities unless you are very careful. Just ask Ms. England and the other guards.

AWESOME POST

We need to have our history books updated. The atrocities against Natives, Mexicans, and in the Phillipines should be explained in more detail.

None of these were explained in detail until I reached the University, and even then, Phillipines is still a footnote.

Los Colorados