The Lincoln Plawg - the blog with footnotes
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
That antilynching resolution again
One or two points (following up earlier piece):
Northern Democrats were quite happy to be allied to the Southern senators who filibustered those antilynching bills. (When the actual lynching was going on.) And FDR stuck like glue to his Realpolitik on the subject .
Whether you blame Duverger's Law or a desire not to miss out on all that Gilded Age gravy for re-cementing the Democratic Party's loyal and treasonous elements after the Civil War, today's Northern Democracy comes off a tad hypocritical when it carps at the electorally-driven cowardice of the likes of Cochran and Lott .
And then there's the Democratic non-sponsors. Missing from the names of the 78 co-sponsors shown right now on THOMAS (not the 79 which would make the 80 supporters of the resolution talked about in the media) are:
What's up with that? It can't be electoral considerations - perhaps they think the resolution is meaningless grandstanding and displacement activity. (How would they get that impression?) Or perhaps they suddenly discovered a genuine affection for states' rights...
On the question why there was a voice vote and not a roll call: I sense a deal. One of the Dem cosponsors might have demanded a RCV (needing 20% of senators present to support); which would presumably have drawn the antis out into some kind of dilatory activity, which would have flushed them out of their extremely snug cover.
Perfect. Except that, I'm thinking, some of the antis had a Senate 'hold' on the S Res 39 - which would have been secret, of course - and only lifted it when Landrieu agreed that they would not be embarrassed in that way.
And, naturally, Senate courtesy would ensure the deal was stuck to.
I can see no analysis on the Poor Man's Nexis of the actions of the Dem non-sponsors.
free website counter