Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak in support of S. Res. 39, apologizing for the Senate's failure to enact antilynching legislation. It is important for us to reflect on the statements that have been made by my colleagues, including the distinguished Senator from Louisiana and the distinguished Senator from Virginia, so that we can remember the history of this country and how America has been an America in progress. The past can be painted in statistics or it can be painted in the stories of people who have suffered from the unjust result of the absence of an antilynching law.

   We can speak about the time between 1882 and 1968 when there were nearly 5,000 lynchings. These lynchings that occurred were not lynchings that occurred just in the southern part of the United States of America but happened throughout most of the States of our country, including in my own home State of Colorado, where a historian has in his own research concluded that there were about 175 lynchings in Colorado between 1859 and 1919.

   It is appropriate and fitting that today we apologize for the absence of those laws, that we recognize people like James Cameron who became a survivor of the lynchings of that time period, recognize that this Senate today says we apologize for that past.

   It is perhaps even more important to look to the future of America and to look at the racial issues and the challenges we face as a nation to create an America that truly is an America of inclusion. It is one thing to stand in the Chamber of the Senate today, to look at our history, and to learn from that painful history, but it is equally as important to look to the future and to recognize the challenges we face in this America in the decade ahead, and the 100 years ahead require us to learn from those very painful lessons of the past.

   When one looks at those very painful lessons of the past, we have to recognize for the first 250 years of the beginnings of this Nation we had a system of law that recognized it was OK for one group of people to own another group of people under our system of slavery just because of the color of their skin. It is important for us, also, to recognize that it took the bloodiest war of the United States during the Civil War, for over half a million people were killed on our own soil in America to bring about an end to the system of slavery and to usher in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments which are the bedrock of the constitutional liberties we now endow upon all people of America.

   Notwithstanding the fact that in that time period of the Civil War we saw the blood and life of so many Americans laid down in this country, we still continued through another period of almost 100 years where we divided our

[Page: S6377]

   The destinies of the races, in this country, are indissolubly linked together and the interests of both require that the common government law shall not permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of law.

   That was over 100 years ago. Yet it took more than half a century, until 1954, in the decision of Brown v. Board of Education, for the U.S. Supreme Court under the leadership of Justice Warren to say in these United States, separate but equal was unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. It took more than half a century more for the U.S. Supreme Court to make that statement.

   So when we look to the future of America, when we look to the diversity that defines our country, it is my belief that this next century will be defined by how we as an American society embrace the concept of an inclusive America. When we embrace a concept of an inclusive America, we talk about including people of all backgrounds--be they Anglo Americans, French Americans, African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, women--that we as an American society will be challenged in the century ahead by how we deal with the issue of inclusion, and the greatness of this country will be defined by how successful we are in making sure we are inclusive of all people.

   There are some who have recognized this. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in the now famous decision of the University of Michigan from several years ago, made the following comment about the importance of diversity in higher education in the majority opinion:

   These benefits are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints.

   That was from the brief submitted by General Motors. She went on to say:

   What is more, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military assert, based on their decades of experience, a highly qualified racially diverse officer corps is essential to the military's ability to fulfill its principal mission to provide national security.

   It was in that articulation by Justice Day O'Connor, where she articulated the challenge and the opportunity that we have as an American society, the 21st century unfolds in front of us.

   In my estimation, the greatness of this country depends on our learning and not forgetting the painful lessons of the past, including the lynchings that occurred across America, while also looking forward to the challenge of including people of all backgrounds and all races in all of the business affairs and civic affairs of this Nation.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

   Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am very glad we are passing this resolution. There have been attempts in the past by other Members of Congress, such as my good friend, the former Congressman Tony Hall of Ohio, who had tried several years back to get a resolution of apology with regard to slavery. They never could work out all the details. I am very glad the Senate has come to this point that it could critique itself for this legislative body's failure to enact antilynching laws back at a time when it would have been so important to stop these kinds of mayhem and murderous rampages where mobs would take, supposedly, justice into their own hands.

   Thank goodness we have come to a point at which we can admit our mistakes, even though this is several generations later, and pass such a resolution as we will do tonight.

   Interestingly, one of my political heroes is a person who Americans rarely hear about. He was a British Parliamentarian in the late 1700s and the early 1800s named William Wilberforce. Wilberforce was elected to the Parliament at the age of 21 along with one of his best friends, William Pitt, the Younger. And in 3 years, at age 24, Pitt was elected Prime Minister. Of course, Wilberforce could have been in his Cabinet. But at that point Wilberforce had recognized the great evil of the day and dedicated his life to the elimination of the economic order of the day, which was the English slave trade where the captains would take the boats down off the coast of Africa under the guise of friendship, round up native Africans, put them in the holds of those slave ships, and take them to the New World and sell them.

   Wilberforce is a hero to me because, as a government official, a member of Parliament, he would not even join William Pitt, the Younger's Cabinet.

   He wanted to devote his life to the elimination of the slave trade. It took him 20 years to do it. Time after time, he was beat back, but he persevered, and he finally won, 20 years later. Then, before Wilberforce died, he saw that Parliament actually abolished slavery. That was some 30 years before slavery was abolished here in America.

   So it is a privilege for me to be here at long last to join our colleagues to apologize for the Senate's failure in the 1930s to pass legislation outlawing the barbaric practice of lynching. For more than a century, this country presented two realities to its citizens. Enshrined in our Constitution is a government and a legal system designed to protect the rights of all Americans so that our freedom cannot be taken away or infringed upon without due process of law. But for many decades, however, this system of justice and respect for the rule of law did not apply to all of the citizens of this country.

   In 1857, in the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, that guarantee in the U.S. Constitution that all men are created equal was not intended to include Blacks by that decision. For many years later, Black Americans found few protections in the constitutional guarantees of liberty and freedom and equal protection under the law. A Black man accused of a crime against a White person found that he had no access to the courts to prove his innocence, he had no access to a fair and impartial jury of his peers. All too often, White citizens, armed with guns and feelings of righteousness, would take the accused, as law enforcement officers stood by, and brutalize them and hang them in a public setting for other members of the community to view and feel avenged. How horrible would that be, a public spectacle that was supposed to intimidate, that was supposed to strike fear. Did it? You bet it did. It was meant to send a message to the members of the Black community that they better remain in their place, to remember that the guarantees of freedom and fairness in the Constitution did not include them.

   In my State of Florida, there were 61 lynchings of Black Americans between 1921 and 1946, which, of course, represents only a fraction of the total number that were committed in my State. There is no justification or explanation for these horrible acts of violence. As a nation that respects the rule of law and court-prescribed justice, what happened was vigilantism and mob rule. That is what determined ``justice.'' And that is never justifiable.

   There is a place in Florida called Rosewood. It was the site, in the 1920s, of what many describe as a massacre. That Black community was destroyed by Whites. No arrests were ever made in as many as 27 racial killings in that location.

   Florida finally passed the Nation's first compensation for Blacks who suffered from those past racial injustices. It was all directed back to the massacres that had occurred at Rosewood, FL. The 1994 Florida Legislature passed the Rosewood Claims Bill to compensate victims for loss of property as a result of the failure to prosecute those individuals responsible. I felt as a Floridian that this acknowledgement was long overdue, and it made me proud to see, at long last, that we addressed the tragedy of Rosewood.

   Now, as a Member of the Senate, I believe this resolution we are passing tonight is long overdue. In being proud of this event, I am also humbled to stand up as a Member of the Senate and to personally apologize for the Senate's failure to act--a failure to outlaw barbaric acts such as lynchings and racial massacres.

   I am proud, too, that we can today reaffirm that we are a nation of laws designed to protect the freedom and liberty of all Americans--all Americans--regardless of race.

   Mr. President, I yield the floor.

   Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is an issue that will be considered by the Senate later this evening, an issue of historic importance. It will be an official apology by the Senate for the Senate's failure to protect victims of lynching in America.

   Fifty years ago, on August 20, 1955, a Chicago woman named Mamie Till took her 14-year-old son Emmett to the 63rd Street Station in Chicago to catch the southbound train to Mississippi. Emmett was going to spend the summer with his great uncle and aunt in a town called Money, MS, in the heart of the Mississippi Delta.

   The next day, August 21, 1955, young Emmett Till arrived in Mississippi. He spent the next few days helping out around the house, working with his great uncle, Moses Wright, in the cotton fields.

   On August 24, after a long day of working in the fields, Emmett and a group of teenagers went into town to Bryant's Grocery Store for some refreshments. The store--owned by a White couple named Roy and Carolyn Bryant--served primarily Black workers, sharecroppers, and their kids. Emmett went into Bryant's Grocery Store to buy some bubble gum. Some kids who were hanging out outside the store accused Emmett of whistling at Carolyn Bryant, one of the proprietors of the store.

   Four days later, on August 28, Carolyn Bryant's husband and his half brother went to Moses Wright's home at 2:30 in the morning. They kidnapped young Emmett Till from his bed, and they committed one of the most notorious and horrific lynchings in American history. They brutally beat this young man from Chicago, IL, Emmett Till. They gouged out his eyes, they shot him in the head, they tied a large metal fan around his neck with barbed wire, and they threw his mangled, dead body into the Tallahatchie River.

   A few days later, his broken and bloated body was found floating in the river. Emmett Till was returned to his mother in Chicago in a coffin. On September 3, 1955, Mamie Till held a historic funeral for her son at Roberts Temple Church of God in Chicago. She did a courageous thing: She directed that the casket remain open so that everyone could see what hatred and racism had done to her little boy.

   Tens of thousands of Chicagoans came to say goodbye to 14-year-old Emmett Till, a young man who just a few weeks before got on that train to visit his family in Mississippi. News coverage of that funeral reached millions more around the world. Jet Magazine made a historic decision: They decided to print actual photographs of Emmett Till's mutilated body lying in the casket and cover his funeral. The decision by that magazine and the publicity that came with Emmett Till's tragic death changed people across America. I cannot tell you how many African Americans I have met who said that the world changed after the murder of Emmett Till. They came to realize that what happened to him should not be allowed to happen in America.

   One of my favorite friends in Congress, one of my heroes of all time, is a man named JOHN LEWIS. He represents Atlanta, GA, as a Member of the House of Representatives. He was one of the pioneers in the civil rights movement. He was 15 years old, 1 year older than Emmett Till, growing up in Alabama, when he saw those photographs of this young man. Like millions of African Americans, JOHN LEWIS was haunted by the image. He told a Washington Post reporter recently: I remember thinking it can happen to anyone, me or my brothers or my cousins. It created a sense of fear that it could happen to anyone who got out of line.

   Those images of Emmett Till inspired more than fear. In many people, they inspired courage and resolve. There was a decision made by so many at every level of life in America to no longer ever tolerate the brutal inhumanity of hatred and racism

   of Jim Crow laws. When Rosa Parks, the legendary civil rights leader, refused to give up her seat on that bus in Montgomery, AL, it was 100 days after Emmett Till's murder. She said, when asked later: How did you show the strength to do that, stand up against everybody and say, no, I will not sit in the back of the bus, she said she got her courage by thinking of that young man, Emmett Till.

   Eight years later, in a song entitled ``The Murder of Emmett Till,'' the great poet/songwriter Bob Dylan had the following lyrics:
 

If you can't speak out against this kind of thing,
a crime that's so unjust,
your eyes are filled with dead men's dirt,
your mind is filled with dust.

   Today, 50 years after Emmett Till's brutal murder, the Senate will formally and officially offer apologies to not just the families of Emmett Till but the nearly 4,800 other Americans who died at the hands of lynch mobs in our country, in this great Nation of America, between 1882 and 1968. We offer our apologies as well to the countless millions of Americans who were forced to live with the fear that they could be the next victim.

   Emmett Till's cousin, Simeon Wright, was lying next to Emmett the night he was kidnapped and lynched. Simeon Wright is with us today. Doria Johnson, from Evanston, IL, also is with us today. Her grandfather, Anthony Crawford, was lynched by a White mob in Abbeville, SC, in 1916. He was beaten, hanged, and shot more than 200 times. What kind of offense would merit that kind of punishment? What had Anthony Crawford done? Anthony Crawford, in 1916, in South Carolina, a Black man, got into an argument with a White man over the price of cotton seed at a store.

   To them and to all who lost a loved one to lynching and to those who lost a piece of their own childhood and their own sense of security, we say today formally and officially in the Senate that we were wrong--wrong for failing to protect them, wrong because we never said we were sorry.

   The murders of Emmett Till and Anthony Crawford are among those documented in a groundbreaking book and museum exhibit called ``Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America.'' The exhibit has traveled all over the United States and opened just last week at the Chicago Historical Society.

   Mr. President, just a few days ago, the Chicago Sun-Times did an editorial on this issue of lynching and this exhibit. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Exhibit of Lynching Photos Shows Evil we Must Remember

   The Chicago Historical Society's ``Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography In America'' seems an unlikely exhibition to launch in a Northern city. But the link between Chicago and ``murder by a mob of an individual outside the confines of the legal system,'' a definition that comes halfway through the exhibit, is long-standing. It has been 50 years since Chicagoan Emmett Till was lynched in Mississippi. That case is still with us.

   Till's murder, for allegedly whistling at a white woman, shocked an entire nation and sparked the civil rights movement in the North, but lynching had gone on for decades. Journalist Ida Wells-Barnett was crusading against it in 1892 when three successful black businessmen were lynched. Through her fearless reporting, Barnett established that lynching was not the white man's response to a black man's abuse of white women, but that most lynchings were caused by ``economic competition and racial hatred.''

   In 1893, Barnett stood outside the Chicago World's Fair and protested the exclusion of African Americans, while handing out copies of her pamphlet: ``Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases.'' Still, except for protest art such as Claude McKay's ``The Lynching'' and Billie Holiday's ``Strange Fruit,'' the sadistic killing of black Americans has mostly been hidden from America's mainstream.

   The Chicago Historical Society's exhibit will change that. And it strikes us as fitting that photographs and documents, many of which are on loan from private collections, have ended up here. Although the re-opening of the Till murder case has sparked new interest in this subject, many young Chicagoans probably do not know how widespread this crime was or that it occurred outside of the South in places such as Downstate Cairo.

   ``No part of the nation was immune,'' as the exhibit recalls with a quotation from W.E.B. Du Bois. ``We must remember because if the world forgets evil, evil is reborn.''

   The 53 images of lynchings that took place between 1870 and 1961 constitute a shocking testament to America's shame. The lynching exhibition runs through Dec. 4. Don't miss it.

   Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this editorial from the Chicago Sun-Times urges people to attend the exhibit and notes that ``many young Chicagoans probably do not know how widespread this crime was or that it occurred outside of the South in places such as

[Page: S6379]

   I commend Senators MARY LANDRIEU and GEORGE ALLEN for authoring this resolution and working so hard to have the Senate take it up and right this historical wrong. It is my hope the Senate will match the words of this resolution with action. It is not enough to apologize for the failure of our predecessors to protect their fellow citizens from violent prejudice. We have a responsibility to protect those who are targets of today's hate crimes as well. Senator TED KENNEDY, a Democrat, and Senator GORDON SMITH, a Republican, have been trying for years to persuade Congress to pass a new, stronger Federal hate crimes bill. Year after year, they have met with resistance.

   Listen to the arguments of those who oppose a stronger hate crimes bill today, and you hear the same arguments that were made against a Federal antilynching bill decades ago. The names have changed, the arguments and the excuses are the same.

   They say we in Congress cannot pass a strong hate crimes bill because it will infringe on States rights or because the Constitution does not give Congress explicit authority to pass such a law.

   Listen to what a Member of the House of Representatives, James Woods of Virginia, said in 1922:

   This bill, commonly known as the ``anti-lynching bill'' would be described more accurately if designated--from the standpoint of its effects rather than from its purpose--as a ``bill to override the Constitution of the United States, to foment race hatred, and to revive sectional animosity.'' If it were possible to put an end to lynching by a lawful act of Congress, none would support such legislation more earnestly than we of the South.

   The Constitution does not say anything explicitly about the Civil Rights Act, which the Senate passed 41 years ago, or the Voting Rights Act, which turns 40 today. There always will be political voices that will find excuses to delay acting on the moral challenges of our time.

   Finding the moral courage to deal with those challenges in our own time is the real test of leadership. What is it we are doing or failing to do today that would lead the Senate 50 years from now to apologize? That is the question.

   I hope Congress will pass the Kennedy-Smith hate crimes bill as tangible proof to the victims of lynching that we will never again withhold our protection when Americans are persecuted and killed simply for being who they are.

   When Mamie Till put her son on that train for Mississippi, he was wearing a watch he had been given by his father before his father died. The hands on that watch stopped when Emmitt Till was tortured and murdered.

   Much has changed in the 50 years since Emmitt Till died, but some small part of America's soul has always remained frozen in that time because of our failure to formally acknowledge that what happened was wrong. By apologizing to the victims of lynching--and by having the courage to protect the victims of hate crimes today--we can reclaim that piece of our soul and move forward in time as one Nation indivisible.

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the opportunity has finally come to make the record right--to begin to balance what has been an imbalance. We have come to this floor to apologize for the silence of the U.S. Senate regarding the lynching of our fellow Americans, primarily African Americans.

   Tonight, we begin to redress the lynching madness that swept our country from the 1880s and which continued unchecked through the 1950s, and even as recently as the 1960s. It is estimated that nearly 5,000 Americans were lynched during this time. African Americans were strung up from trees, burned at the stake, mutilated in the town square for all to see. Those who committed such atrocities went without punishment. Justice was not only denied, it was ignored, abdicated, and overthrown.

   The victims were not just those who were killed. A lynching is not only a heinous and savage act against one person; it is an act of violence against the rights of an entire community. Its victims are everyone who hears its hateful message.

   Ida B. Wells-Barnett explained well the nature of lynching in America. Born in Mississippi a few months before the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, Ida Wells-Barnett was the editor and co-owner of a Black newspaper called ``The Free Speech and Headlight.'' In 1900, she wrote:

   Our country's national crime is lynching. It is not the creature of an hour, the sudden outburst of uncontrolled fury, or the unspeakable brutality of an insane mob. It represents the cool, calculating deliberation of intelligent people who openly avow that there is an ``unwritten law'' that justifies them in putting human beings to death without complaint under oath, without trial by jury, without opportunity to make defense, and without right of appeal.

   Lynching was an attack on the rule of law itself, and yet the U.S. Senate did not act against it. Antilynching legislation was called for by seven U.S. Presidents. The House of Representatives passed three antilynching bills. This body passed none, though many were introduced.

   In 1935, Senator Edward Costigan spoke in favor of an antilynching bill he had introduced with Senator Robert Wagner. Having made a careful yet passionate argument for his proposed legislation, Senator Costigan concluded:

   If one can mention, much less picture such appalling facts as I have recited without being revolted, he is indeed hardened out of all semblance to humanity. They destroy our claim to civilized life. They must not be permitted to multiply. Every repetition of mob brutality denies its victims the right of speedy and impartial trial and the equal protection of laws guaranteed by the Constitution. No man can be permitted to usurp the combined functions of judge, jury, and executioner of his fellow men; and whenever any state fails to protect such equal rights, I submit that the federal government must do its utmost to repair the damage which is then chargeable to us all.

   Faced with both the opportunity and the responsibility to act, the Senate simply failed. That failure is a permanent stain on this body, and we are not trying to wipe it away. We only hope that acknowledging it will allow for some national healing.

   To the families of victims of lynching who sit in the Senate Gallery tonight, let me offer my personal sorrow over the injustice you have suffered. I hope our action today will bring you some comfort, though it cannot ease your loss.

   As the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, I also want to say a special word about the members of the American Armed Forces who were lynched in the country they had defended. Following both World War I and World War II, returning soldiers were lynched, many while still wearing their military uniforms. It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation. There would be no new respect for these brave African Americans who had fought for our country, only the old order of injustice and hate.

   Mr. President, it is easy for the Senate to apologize now. This is not a tough decision, only a somber one. But there are still tough decisions ahead. While we cannot bring justice to those who were lynched, we can continue to bring about the just society that was mocked and shredded by acts of lynching.

   In that spirit, I hope that today is part of a larger effort toward racial reconciliation and justice. We can continue by honoring the Tuskegee Airmen with the Congressional Gold Medal for their contributions to our Nation's defense and to its progress, as proposed in bipartisan legislation, S. 392, introduced on February 16, 2005. And we can make progress on so many vital issues--education, health care, jobs--that would improve the lives of African Americans and all Americans. We have moved past lynching, but we have not reached justice. I hope we will not fail to act.

   In closing, I would like to thank my able colleagues, Senator MARY LANDRIEU and Senator GEORGE ALLEN, for their diligence and leadership in bringing this healing resolution, which I was pleased to cosponsor, before the U.S. Senate.

   Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important resolution. I commend my friends and colleagues, Senator LANDRIEU and Senator ALLEN, for their leadership on this important issue.

   It is difficult to address this subject without noting the shameful record of Senate inaction on the issue of lynching. As noted in the text of the resolution, 4,742 people were lynched in the

[Page: S6380]

   This Senate Resolution is long, long overdue. As we all know, the Senate has a basic Federal responsibility to provide protection to those in need. While our predecessors failed in that regard, we have an opportunity today to begin healing the wounds that this body's failures have inflicted upon the African American community for so many years.

   The apology we issue today comes too late for the thousands of Americans brutally slain in this abhorrent manner. Hopefully, by our acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and our sincere apology, we can bring some solace to the family members who still recall--all too vividly--the horror of having a loved one murdered by lynching.

   We must never forget the thousands of men, women and children who were deprived of life, human dignity, and the Constitutional protections that are to be accorded all U.S. citizens, We have a responsibility--to all Americans--to ensure that the tragedy of lynching, and this body's failure to address it, will neither be forgotten, nor repeated.

   Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in condemning the shameful role of lynching in the Nation's history and the decades of refusal by the Nation, especially the United States Senate, to act against it. I commend my colleagues Senator Landrieu of Louisiana and Senator Allen of Virginia for bringing this important issue before the Senate floor and taking this long overdue action. And I thank the family members of the victims of lynching, many of whom traveled great distances to be here today.

   The history of lynching is a stain on the Nation's past. Over 4,700 persons were lynched in the United States from the 1880s to the 1960s.

   These lynchings involved acts of unspeakable cruelty. Many victims were shot, burned or hanged. Some of the victims were accused of criminal offenses, while others were attacked because of something they said or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

   The vast majority of victims were African Americans who were killed solely because of their race. In the year 1892 alone, 230 persons were lynched--at least one victim every other day. We must never forget that injustice. Many whites also fell victim to this brutality, singled out for their religion or ethnicity, their refusal to accept the racial hierarchy, or other reasons.

   Lynching was devastating to African American communities. It struck fear into the hearts and minds of African Americans, who knew they could be killed at any time for the most trivial of offenses or for no offense at all.

   Year after year, the Federal Government and State and local governments failed to respond effectively to the danger. The perpetrators had little reason to fear that they would be prosecuted or convicted. In some cases, scheduled lynchings were announced in newspapers beforehand, demonstrating the unwillingness of local law enforcement to intervene. Photos of lynchings show onlookers grinning at the camera. The failure of local authorities to prevent these atrocities dehumanized, demoralized, and terrorized black Americans.

   When the 370,000 African-American soldiers who served in World War I returned home, many believed that they had earned the equality they had previously been denied. Their hopes soon turned to frustration, as the discrimination of the pre-war years was renewed and reinvigorated. Even newly discharged soldiers were lynched, still wearing their uniforms.

   Lynching was more than isolated acts of brutality. It was vigilante mob murder that became systemic, ritualized and condoned by a racist society. It became a cruel weapon of white supremacy which took the lives of many African Americans and terrorized whole communities. Along with Jim Crow laws, segregated schools and dismal lack of property rights, lynching was used as an organized weapon of oppression that denied the fundamental rights of tens of millions of African Americans. As W.E.B. DuBois stated, the things that ``the white South feared more than Negro dishonesty, ignorance and incompetency, [were] Negro honesty, knowledge, and efficiency.'' Lynching was part of an organized attempt to oppress African-American communities and exclude them from the American dream.

   In 1900, African-American Congressman George White introduced the first antilynching bill, only to see it die in committee. Brave men and women like Ida B. Wells, W.E.B. DuBois, and others in the NAACP, lobbied tirelessly for Federal antilynching legislation in the first half of the twentieth century. Their efforts succeeded in the House of Representatives, which passed such legislation three times between 1922 and 1940. Each time, however, the legislation died in the Senate.

   In 1945, President Truman proposed a new antilynching bill, to make lynching a crime under Federal law. His proposal never made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

   We cannot undo the Senate's past failures to act against lynching. But we can and must do all we can to erase its bitter legacy.

   Today, there is strong need to strengthen laws against hate crimes and other violence motivated by bigotry. As the

   Supreme Court has stated, bias-motivated violence is ``more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest.'' Like acts of terrorism, hate crimes have an impact far greater than the impact suffered by individual victims; they are crimes against entire communities and against the whole Nation. Whether based on prejudice against the victim's race, religion, ethnic background, gender, disability, or sexual orientation, hate crimes are modern-day lynchings which threaten not just individuals, but our entire social and political order.

   My colleague, Senator Smith and I have introduced bipartisan legislation to strengthen our laws against hate crimes, and I urge all of our colleagues to support it. That bill passed the Senate last year and died in the House. We will not give up until it becomes law.

   As each of us knows, the past has consequences for the present, and past acts of lynching over many decades contributed substantially to the disparities between African American and Whites. We cannot undo that history, but if we are sincere in our apology today, we must match our words with deeds and work harder together to close the gaps.

   At the beginning of this year, members of the Congressional Black Caucus put forward a plan for doing so, and we should work to implement it as one of the most important issues before us in this Congress.

   We need to do more to ensure the job security of African Americans, whose unemployment rate is 10.1 percent--almost double the national average and more than double the unemployment rate of Whites.

   Thirty-four percent of African American children live in poverty, nearly double the national average. We know that education is the key to opportunity and a better life, and we should be doing more to improve education at every level. We need to do more to help the youngest children in American--and the earlier, the better. Head Start has a 30-year track record of achievement in preparing children for kindergarten. It makes an enormous difference for 300,000 young African American children.

   We must meet our promise of fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act. The President's proposed budget shortchanges elementary education under the Act by $12 billion--for a total deficit of $39 billion since the school reform law was first enacted. The No Child Left Behind Act is already leaving 3 million children behind.

   In fact, the President's proposed budget contains the first absolute reduction for education in a decade. It has a cumulative cut of $40 billion for education over the next 5 years. One out of every three programs eliminated by the President is a program in the Department of Education.

   We should also be doing more to fund opportunities for college. We know that African Americans are only half as likely as Whites to earn a college

[Page: S6381]

   The budget also reduces a number of important programs to help African Americans, while preserving tax cuts for the rich and powerful. It proposes a 5-year freeze on child care funding, which will reduce the number of low-income children receiving this assistance by 300,000 in 2009. The budget also cuts $10 billion over 5 years from Medicaid, the program that provides basic health care for the poor.

   As we review our legislative priorities, we cannot forget that we have a special duty to address the malignant disparities created by long-standing racial bigotry in this country--of which lynching was the most vicious example but far from the only example.

   It's fitting that we enact this apology today, the first day of the long overdue trial for the brutal lynching of civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner in 1964. Those murders, 41 years ago this month, took the lives of three young men whose only offense was attempting to register African Americans to vote in Mississippi, and it shows how deeply rooted racial violence once was in American life. All of us hope that the prosecution now taking place in that case, like the Senate apology today, can begin to heal these bitter wounds of injustice that the nation still feels because of the sordid legacy of lynching.

   I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve the great goal of genuine equal opportunity for all our citizens. May the passage of this resolution mark a new beginning of race relations in America.

   Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to clarify the record concerning my support for the resolution before us today.

   I chose to cosponsor this resolution because of my abhorrence for the crime of lynching. I have been told that the passage of this resolution will enable people whose families were affected by this terrible crime to resolve their frustration that Government authorities did not do more to stop it. If this resolution helps people deal with the past so that they can move on to the future, it is a worthwhile statement to make.

   Having said that, I am aware of concerns that have been raised about possible ``next steps'' based on the Senate's action on S. Res. 39. Let me just say that this resolution should not be interpreted--at least so far as this Senator is concerned--as any kind of an endorsement for some claim of compensation based on any action or inaction of the Federal Government.

   In fact, what brings me to the floor is a concern that the actions of a particular Senator long ago may be subjected to unfair, revisionist criticism from our perspective today. The Senator in question is my predecessor, known as ``the Lion of Idaho,'' William Borah.

   Senator Borah was one of the leaders of the Senate in blocking consideration of the anti-lynching legislation. I think it is important for the record to show that whatever motives others may have had at the time for blocking this legislation, William Borah offered convincing justifications for his position rooted in serious constitutional and policy concerns.

   This is the conclusion I have drawn from considerable historical research of the debates of the time, which has been condensed into a report by a talented law student, David Palmer, who served as my law clerk earlier this year. I am going to ask that this report be printed in the RECORD so that all my colleagues can review it. It is an absorbing read, and I think it supports the conclusion that Senator Borah made a principled stand at the time.

   I ask unanimous consent that the report of David Palmer concerning William Borah's arguments against Senate action be printed in the RECORD following my statement.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
 

To: Senator Craig
Fr: David Palmer
Re: William Borah's arguments against Senate anti-lynching bills in the 1920's & 1930's

   William Borah spoke out in opposition to the anti-lynching bills presented to the Senate on several occasions during the 1920s and 1930s. He did this primarily for two reasons: first, Senator Borah felt that such a bill represented an unconstitutional exercise of federal rights in the realm of criminal law (an area which had previously been reserved for the states); second--to a lesser degree--Senator Borah argued that even if such a bill were constitutional, it would be an ineffective law meant largely to penalize the South. Combining these rationales, and noting that lynching was a relatively infrequent crime of increasing rarity with each passing year, he argued that the tremendous costs to state sovereignty through federal intrusion in this matter would be much more dangerous to the good of all than any uncertain benefits that might come through passing such a bill. In short, Senator Borah was not a racist; rather, he was a man of deep commitment to this nation's federalist system, and this memo will present his respective constitutional and policy arguments against the anti-lynching bills of his day.

   1. William Borah's Constitutional Arguments Against the Anti-Lynching Bills

   Senator Borah felt that there were a number of constitutional infirmities with the anti-lynching bills he faced, although they all revolved around his firm belief in states' rights as a centerpiece of the entire government. His constitutional problems with the various anti-lynching bills, as well as his reasons for championing state sovereignty so strongly, are detailed below.

   A. BORAH: THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR ANTI-LYNCHING BILLS

   To put Senator Borah's arguments in context, the proponents of the anti-lynching bills typically based their opinion that such bills were constitutional on two grounds: first, that the Federal Government must guarantee a republican form of government to all citizens; second, that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause allowed for federal action in the face of state failure to prosecute lynchings. 79 Congo Rec. 6, 6524 (1935). Borah felt that the first point was ``utterly irrelevant'' (id.), and apparently so did his debating opponents, as almost all the constitutional debates Borah participated in dealt with aspects of the 14th Amendment.

   Regarding the 14th Amendment, Borah consistently argued that any attempt to apply the amendment to the actions of individuals by the Federal Government should be rejected, as the amendment's framers specifically rejected this idea. Id. at 6362. The anti-lynching bills invariably allowed the Federal Government to step in at some point to prosecute the perpetrators of a lynching if a state had not done its law-enforcement job, thus mandating federal intrusion into law enforcement against individual action which was not undertaken by the states. Borah argued that this simply cannot be justified under the 14th Amendment, as such a capacity for law enforcement by the Federal Government (against individuals not acting as official representatives of a state) was explicitly rejected by those who originally passed the 14th Amendment. Id.

   In a later debate (in 1937), Borah similarly argued that the 14th Amendment contains no clause whatsoever allowing the Federal Government to go into a state and establish civil liability for damages between citizens of the state, or between citizens and a subdivision of a state (as would have been allowed in that year's bill). He further argued that this anti-lynching bill was such a new proposition--constitutionally speaking--that the people of the United States should be consulted in the form of passing this bill as a constitutional amendment. Borah feared that it would ultimately result in the ``elimination of the states.'' 81 Congr. Rec. 8,8746-8 (1937).

   Additionally, Borah argued that if our nation were really concerned about the equal protection of the law being enforced where it is needed, then the 1937 bill should not have exempted violence due to ``gangsterism'' and racketeering. This was the area in which he felt that most states had truly failed to enforce the law. Instead, the exemption reinforced in Senator Borah's mind that the anti-lynching bill was really a sectional bill aimed at punishing the south while exempting the northern states for their own law enforcement failures. Id. at 8753.

   Finally, in 1938 Senator Borah cited several Supreme Court cases for the proposition that the 14th Amendment was not designed to transfer any power from the states to the Federal Government for protecting the lives, liberty and property of a particular state's citizens. 83 Congr. Rec. 2, 1492 (1938). Borah concluded his 14th Amendment arguments by stating that the only way a state could be liable under that amendment--in this area of the law--is if it were to not pass laws protecting its citizens from lynching. Id. at 1495. Because the states had done that, and given that the framers of the 14th Amendment (and the Supreme Court) had rejected the idea that the amendment transferred any power to the Federal Government for enforcing the criminal law, Senator Borah strongly opposed using the 14th Amendment as a basis for the antilynching bills.

   B. BORAH: MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND PRECLUDES THE ANTI-LYNCHING BILLS

   Senator Borah attacked the 1938 anti-lynching bill on an additional ground: it would have allowed the Federal Government to bring suit on behalf of an individual

[Page: S6382]

   Senator Borah began this argument by pointing out that McCulloch held the ability of one sovereign to tax another is the ability to destroy it, and this therefore is not constitutionally permissible. He further argued that the ability of one sovereign to bring suit against another is an equivalent power, and therefore it is unconstitutional on that ground as well. Finally, in response to another senator's argument, Borah went through a detailed list of how the Supreme Court had repeatedly issued decisions supporting his view (even in the cases decided since the passage of the 14th Amendment). Id. at 1491.

   There are three key points Borah made in support of this McCulloch argument. First, he pointed out that the anti-lynching bill would have allowed the Federal Government to sue counties on behalf of individuals, and these suits against counties would constitute direct interference by the Federal Government with the power of states over their counties. Numerous Supreme Court decisions have disallowed such actions because of their impingement on state sovereignty. Id. at 1492.

   Second, Borah argued that suing counties was the same thing as suing states (an idea supported by numerous Supreme Court decisions), and states could never consent to be sued by another sovereign (at most they could consent to be sued by their citizens). Id. at 1493.

   Last, he argued that states cannot be found liable for the actions of their employees when those employees are not acting in an official capacity. As states already had anti-lynching laws on their books, Borah argued that any lack of enforcement by state officials of those state laws indicated that county officials were not acting in an official capacity during the dereliction of their responsibilities. Therefore, to allow the Federal Government to take action against those officials would be to allow the government to sue the states (through their counties) in situations where no official state conduct had occurred. 83 Congr. Rec. 1, 141 (1938). This, Borah argued (citing several Supreme Court decisions for this proposition), is constitutionally impermissible. 83 Congr. Rec. 2, 1494 (1938).

   C. BORAH'S MISCELLANEOUS CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS

   In addition to the constitutional arguments already discussed, William Borah included two other, albeit less-emphasized, legal objections to the anti-lynching bills in his speeches. One such argument was an objection to the trigger of Federal intervention under these bills: when only one man committed a lynching, it did not allow Federal jurisdiction; rather, it required the actions of a group of people, and thus ``the Constitution is being made subject to construction in accordance with the number of persons present when the crime takes place.'' 79 Congr. Rec. 6, 6677 (1935). Borah concluded this argument by saying that the act should be rejected because ``we certainly have not one Constitution for a half dozen and another Constitution for an individual.'' Id. at 6504.

   Another point that Borah made regarding the constitutionality of the anti-lynching bills dovetails with his McCulloch arguments. He posed a question on the floor which implied that the particular anti-lynching bill before the Senate would create a cause of action for an individual against a county (and therefore a state), thus allowing an individual to sue a state--which is explicitly barred by the 11th Amendment. 83 Congr. Rec. 1, 965 (1938). While the senator to whom Borah asked this question replied that the suit technically was to be brought in the name of the United States Government on behalf of an individual, it is clear that this question was designed to cover Senator Borah's bases. In other words, if the suit was undertaken by the United States against a state, then the McCulloch reasoning would apply to make it unconstitutional; alternatively, if the action was undertaken by an individual, the 11th Amendment would apply. In either case the act would be unconstitutional.

   D. BORAH: THE ANTI-LYNCHING BILLS WOULD DESTROY ESSENTIAL STATES' RIGHTS

   Near the conclusion of William Borah's final speech regarding the anti-lynching bills, he summarized his position by stating that his only interest in opposing these bills was in preserving the integrity of the State. To him, the state was and remained ``the fountain source of the people's power in the Government; and when that is destroyed, democratic government is at an end.'' 83 Congr. Rec. 2, 1496 (1938). Racism did not enter that consideration, as his words and actions reveal a man of great devotion to the ideals of our federal system. Moreover, given the complete lack of a constitutional basis for any federal anti-lynching law, Borah felt that such a measure would constitute a naked intrusion by the Federal Government into state sovereignty. Furthermore, while Senator Borah repeatedly said that he had great respect for what the senators backing the anti-lynching bills were trying to do, he also could not allow any such bill to pass out of the Senate in order to have its constitutionality ruled on by the Supreme Court (as several senators had suggested as a course of action) without ``stultifying'' his own convictions. 79 Congr. Rec. 6, 6673-4 (1935). If the law were to be somehow found constitutional under an increasingly activist court, Borah felt that through this bill the Congress would ``have utterly annihilated all State sovereignty.'' Id. This was a possibility he could never support.

   A primary reason Senator Borah so passionately opposed the anti-lynching bills was that allowing federal intrusion through those bills would create a principle of law that he felt would justify further intrusion in almost unlimited circumstances. While supporters of such bills could argue that the legislation only allowed federal intrusion under limited circumstances, the legal principle of the matter was of supreme importance to William Borah. He stated ``[i]f the Federal Government can send a United States marshal into the State of Tennessee to arrest a sheriff because he has failed to protect a colored man from violence, it can, under the same principle, send a United States marshal into the State of New York to arrest a sheriff, or other officer on whom the duty is imposed, because he neglected to protect the life of a citizen against the violence of thugs.'' 83 Congr. Rec. 1, 141 (1938). Therefore, while an anti-lynching bill might only take a limited amount of power from the states in the short-term, Senator Borah was a man who looked at the long-term future; he saw that any such bill such held grave implications for the sovereignty of states. Along these lines, he also argued that allowing this level of federal intrusion would indicate the complete displacement of our nation's federalist system. After all, if a state could not be entrusted exclusively to enforce its own laws, then he felt there was no such thing as local government. Id.

   Additionally, Senator Borah included in his speeches some powerful language as to why he felt so strongly about protecting states' rights. In one speech, he explained that the experiences uniquely gained in local government shaped the political views of the founders of this nation. 83 Congr. Rec. 2, 1496 (1938). In another debate, he explained that in 1922 he opposed, in committee, the Dyer anti-lynching bill in part because he was convinced that it is not sound national policy ``to remove responsibility from the different local governments of the communities for the enforcement of the law. In the long run that results in breaking down all sense of duty upon the part of the citizen.'' 79 Congr. Rec. 6, 6673-74 (1935).

   Moreover, this opposition to encroaching federal power is consistent with Senator Borah's views on other New Deal legislation as detracting from state sovereignty. Regarding such legislation he went on record as stating that ``we can only have a great Federal Union by having great individual sovereign States.'' Id. Concerning all of these measures (including the anti-lynching bill), Borah expressed his heartfelt feeling that ``there is nothing in all the realm of government more essential to the happiness and well-being of the American people than the right of local self-government,'' and the increased power by the Federal Government constituted an ever-growing threat to this happiness and well-being. Id.

   In sum, Senator Borah felt that states necessarily had to retain their sovereign powers to make this union a great one. Any detraction from that power, particularly one with such far-reaching principles for federal intrusion as would be created under this bill, would be devastating to our federal system. Given the complete lack of constitutional support for such a bill in his eyes, William Borah could not in good conscience allow any of the anti-lynching bills to leave the Senate and potentially destroy the sovereignty of the states under an overreaching Supreme Court. Senator Borah was a deep believer in states' rights, his words and actions consistently supported that view, and to ascribe racism to him as a motivation is to both blatantly ignore the historical record as well as demean a man who dedicated his Senate service to furthering the form of government that would provide the greatest good for Americans of all races. As the Senator himself put it (in reference to the final anti-lynching bill put before him): ``[t]his, Mr. President, is another compromise with a vital principle of our dual system of government. It is bartering with the future for the supposed and transient demands of the present, and at a time when the present is taking care of the problem. It is another instance in which our confidence in our scheme of government is not strong enough to say to all races, all creeds, all groups, and all factions: Your problems, however serious, are subordinate to the principles of this Government, and you must work them out within the compass of the long-tested and well-accepted principles of democracy.'' 83 Congr. Rec. 1, 143 (1938).

   II. William Borah's Policy Arguments Against the Anti-Lynching Bills

   Although Senator Borah's opposition to the anti-lynching bills was primarily based on his belief that such legislation represented an unconstitutional infringement on states' rights, he also opposed the bills as poor policies. In his view, even if such bills were constitutional, they would merely result in an ineffective law that would destructively penalize the South. Given that lynching was declining each year as a crime, Borah believed that instituting an ineffective--and potentially damaging--bill to stop

[Page: S6383]

   A. BORAH: THE ANTI-LYNCHING BILLS ARE POTENTIALLY HARMFUL SECTIONAL MEASURES

   In an extended speech given in 1938, Senator Borah assumed, for purposes of arguing the wisdom of adopting such a policy, that the anti-lynching bill before the Senate was constitutional. He then attacked the potential law on several grounds, beginning with his belief that the bill was nothing more than a sectional measure aimed at the South. 83 Congr. Rec. 1, 138-9 (1938). By sectional measure, Borah meant that he believed this legislative measure to be based on the same idea that inspired so much of northern policy towards the South during Reconstruction: a desire to punish the area because the southerners were incapable of self-government. Id. Although the senator did not offer in his 1938 speech a great amount of evidence as to why this was a sectional measure, it seems clear from his earlier speeches regarding the exception of ``gangsterism'' from prosecution that he felt anti-lynching legislation was aimed at a crime primarily occurring in the South while simultaneously exempting northern cities and states from their own law enforcement failures.

   Senator Borah further explained that a measure aimed at the South would be both undeserved by the region and potentially harmful to the nation. He felt that the South had dealt as well as could possibly be expected with its ``race problem'' in the 70 years since the Civil War, and this was in part evidenced both by the economic progress of southern blacks as well as the lower per capita arrest rate by southern blacks (as compared to northern blacks). He finally stated his belief that nations are held together by more than just laws; mutual respect, confidence and tolerance from one part of the country to another is essential too. Borah feared that passing such a sectional bill would arouse old problems in the south that could potentially disrupt national unity. Id.

   B. BORAH: THE ANTI-LYNCHING BILLS WILL BE INEFFECTIVE

   Another policy argument that Senator Borah advanced against anti-lynching legislation was that it would be ineffective. He first stated this belief in the Congressional Record in 1935 when he argued that the legislation would be useless because lynching can only be effectively prevented by educating people. 79 Congr. Rec. 6, 6674 (1935). Borah reiterated that same argument in 1938, when he stated that educating both races ``to understand their responsibility to society'' would be the best way to end lynching, and he also noted that such education was underway in the South. 83 Congr. Rec. 1, 139 (1938).

   Additionally, Borah argued that the actual enforcement of the federal law would be ineffectual for two reasons. First, he pointed out that the Federal Government is simply incapable of enforcing criminal law; he cited the federally-controlled District of Columbia and its extraordinary murder and crime rate as his primary example of this ineptness. Id. His second reason aligned with his concern that this was a sectional bill: Senator Borah felt that if Congress were to pass a bill that the South would interpret as aimed at them, then it would be completely unrealistic to expect southerners--even those employed by the Federal Government--to enforce the anti-lynching laws to any greater degree than the state anti-lynching laws. He firmly believed that laws could not be enforced without being backed by public opinion. Id.

   C. BORAH: LYNCHING IS DISAPPEARING AS A PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES

   A final policy argument that Senator Borah made against anti-lynching laws is that it was a disappearing crime. In 1937 he offered the statistic that 40,000,000 Americans were living in poverty to support Senator Pepper's argument that the Senate should be dealing with the problems of the nation's poor instead of ``debating an anti-lynching bill, when the total toll of lynching last year, I think, was about 11, one of the minor categories of crime, nationally speaking, in the United States.'' 82 Congr. Rec. 1, 158 (1937). One year later Borah argued that lynching had dramatically decreased in the United States since 1918, and it had almost disappeared in many states by 1938. Given the extremely small number of lynchings in the two years prior to the introduction of the 1938 anti-lynching bill (combined with the national trend towards fewer lynchings each year) Senator Borah concluded that there was not a sufficient problem to justify judging the southern states (through passing a sectional measure against them) as having failed in their provision of free government. 83 Congr. Rec. 1, 140 (1938).

   III. Potential Problems With William Borah's Statements

   Although Senator William Borah's speeches convey the message that his real motivation for opposing anti-lynching legislation was based on his concern for state sovereignty, he did make one particular comment that needs to be addressed for its potential racial offensiveness. In 1938, Borah referred to a quotation by Henry W. Grady as true, and this quotation described the white and black races as two ``utterly dissimilar races on the same soil--with equal political and civil rights--almost equal in numbers but terribly unequal in intelligence and responsibility.'' Id. at 141. While this quote does on its face seem to be an overtly racist comment, there are a few reasons why this quote should not be taken as evidence that William Borah fought the anti-lynching bills because he was himself a racist.

   The first reason this is so is that following this quotation, Borah put what he meant by it in context. As he explained, he felt that no race of people would have the capacity to assume full citizenship following years of being enslaved. Id. (Borah then argued that the efforts by the South in the years since Reconstruction were the best that could be expected given the circumstances of the region's past, and therefore the region should not be punished by this sectional bill.) Given his statement that no race could have assumed full citizenship following such treatment, it implies that Borah considered any lack on the part of the blacks to be a result of their slavery rather than an innate racial defect. While it is not a flattering statement, it is not strictly a racist remark; instead, Borah does seem to indicate that any race under similar conditions would be unequal in some regards to the enslaving race.

   More important, William Borah's other speeches all strongly reinforce the point that his opposition to the anti-lynching bills were purely based on his views of the importance of state sovereignty. He repeatedly praised the intentions of his Senate colleagues who supported the anti-lynching bills, and none of those opponents ever imputed any racist motives to his beliefs. While opposing senators may have disagreed with his constitutional views, there is no record whatsoever that Borah's views were not legitimately held in this and other areas of federal expansion. To try and read such a motivation into the Congressional Record is to engage in revisionist history with no basis other than a personal agenda. Any description of William Borah as being racially motivated to oppose the anti-lynching legislation ignores all of the written record in order to manufacture a preferred reason for the senator's views.

   IV. Conclusion

   Senator William Borah was a passionate advocate for states' rights, and this--rather than racism--was the basis for his opposition to the anti-lynching bills presented to the Senate during the 1920s and 1930s. Senator Borah felt that those bills were unconstitutional for several reasons, and the 14th Amendment was certainly not a sound basis for them to pass constitutional muster. Moreover, Borah saw the anti-lynching bills as creating a principle that would justify repeated and destructive federal intrusion into the state sovereignty that was necessary for our nation's well-being. Finally, as lynching had dramatically decreased in the United States by the late 1930s, and given the Senator's feelings that anti-lynching legislation would be an ineffective solution to that disappearing problem (while at the same time threatening national unity), William Borah strongly believed that passing an anti-lynching bill would needlessly destroy our nation's federalist system without solving any problems at all.

   In his final Senate speech against an anti-lynching bill, Senator Borah eloquently concluded by arguing that a loose interpretation of the 14th Amendment would contribute to the downfall of our governmental system, and that ``a few lives will be lost if we do not pass this measure, ..... which we will all regret. But many lives were lost to establish this Government, to establish this dual system, and the happiness and contentment of many millions will be lost if we do not preserve it.'' 83 Congr. Rec. 2, 1497 (1938).