Deep South's response to a lynching apology (CSM)

[Up2Late]

USA > Society & Culture
from the June 15, 2005 edition

Deep South's response to a lynching apology

The Senate's gesture fits a larger pattern of attempts at reckoning - but to many, it comes too late.

By Patrik Jonsson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

GOLDSBORO, N.C. – Near here, at the crook of the Neuse River, they lynched John Richards in February 1916 after the solidly built black man confessed to killing a white cotton farmer with a shovel in order to steal $35. He was caught trying to buy a new pair of overalls at a nearby mental hospital with a $20 bill.

The execution was one of nearly 5,000 mob lynchings across the country, some for serious crimes, others for merely whistling at a white woman. To be sure, whites were killed, too, and only four states have no documented evidence of the existence of hanging trees. But 80 percent of lynchings occurred in the South and the images - snapshots of the victim, a mob, and a pine box - became emblematic of the haunting nature of the region's prejudices.

As part of a broader reckoning of past racist crimes, the US Senate this week - in front of the only man known to survive a lynching, 91-year-old James Cameron - formally apologized for its failure to enact federal anti-lynching legislation during the heyday of mob law.

To some blacks who live in areas where lynchings took place, the apology for a long-ago practice is an odd gesture that papers over today's racial inequities. For others, though, it's an overdue overture.

(more at link above)

[alfredo]

1. But some like Trent Lott can't even express regret over

this crime against humanity.

[CottonBear]

2. What did Lott say or not say? I've been away from the news and DU?

Lott is a racist bigot.

[gratuitous]

3. Lott refused to co-sponsor the apology

Along with his fellow Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran. And the Senate delegation from Texas. Apparently being anti-lynching is still not acceptable in some states.

[Ian David]

4. If lynching is outlawed, only outlaws would have lynchings

Lynchings don't kill people: people kill people.

Maybe, instead of "abortion" we can call it "fetus lynching" and then the Republicans would think it was OK.

[atreides1]

5. Where are the "Pro-Lynching" States in America???

Now we know which states at least don't seem to have aproblem with lynchings.

Mississippi and Texas being on that list of States with Sentors that
love a good lynching, does not surprise me, what were some of the other pro-lynching states?

[Conker]

10. Other Pro-Lynching states

Here are the senators who refused to sign anti lynching resolution.
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Christopher Bond (R-MO)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Michael Crapo (R-ID)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Sununu (R-NH)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
George Voinovich (R-OH)

BTW: Notice how most of them are in the south or areas where slavery was common?

[Up2Late]

15. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) DID end up signing, here's the latest...

...list that was posted this morning:

posted by AirAmFan <http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1853771#top>


The shameful 21 include 4 of 18 members of the Judiciary


Committee (Hatch, Kyl, Grassley, and Cornyn. This is a disgrace!

Lott, Cochran, Shelby, Alexander, and KBH are no surprise, given their Confederate urges to insult millions of their constitutents. But Voinovich, Smith, Bingaman, Reed, and Conrad? They had four months to sign on, so there's no excuse.

This list is the difference between the 79 sponsors/cosponsors of the apology (at <http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SE00039:@@@P> ) and the list of all 100 Senators (at <http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm> ).



R-AK Murkowski, Lisa
R-AL Shelby, Richard
R-AZ Kyl, Jon

R-IA Grassley, Chuck
R-ID Crapo, Michael
R-MS Cochran, Thad

R-MS Lott, Trent
R-NH Gregg, Judd
R-NH Sununu, John

R-OH Voinovich, George
R-OR Smith, Gordon
R-TN Alexander, Lamar

R-TX Cornyn, John
R-TX Hutchison, Kay
R-UT Bennett, Robert

R-UT Hatch, Orrin
R-WY Enzi, Michael
R-WY Thomas, Craig

D-ND Conrad, Kent
D-NM Bingaman, Jeff
D-RI Reed, Jack

[pokercat999]

18. WTF, my hope is the 3 dems were out of town? eom

[central scrutinizer]

34. thomas.loc.gov lists 83 co-signers

leaving only 17 who didn't

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SE00039:@@@P

I don't know what happened - did another four sign on at the last minute? They've had since February to sign the damn thing.

[Up2Late]

36. Looks like it, ALL the democrats are now on the list AND both...

...GA Republicans are now, without question on the list, The Atlanta Paper was questioning if Saxby was on there.

Now who can find the Newly added Republican?:shrug:

On Edit: I found Him, Ohio's Sen. George Voinovich! Going to vote against John Bolton, signed on to this, could this be a trend for Sen. Voinovich?

[QC]

25. "Notice how most of them are in the south" -- Bullshit.

Of the 21 who refused to sign, 15 are from outside the South. I know that the word "most" can sometimes be a bit ambiguous, but no one would describe 6 of 15 as "most."

And, of course, the two senators who introduced the bill are from Louisiana and Virginia.

[ROakes1019]

6. Lott and Cochran

As a Mississippian, I thought, when the resolution was agreed to on a voice vote, that these two rabid Repubs were among those who didn't want their names associated with the lynching apology. Lord, I hate all these diehard segregationists I have to live among. How I wish we could vote these embarrassments out of office.

[trof]

8. The story:

ABC News
Senate Apologizes for Not Enacting Anti-Lynching Law
More Than a Dozen Senators Decline to Sign On as Co-Sponsors of the Resolution, Outraging Supporters

Jun. 13, 2005 - The U.S. Senate formally apologized this evening for its role in one of the darkest chapters of American history.

At least 4,749 Americans are known to have been lynched during a time when the Senate failed to act on some 200 anti-lynching bills.

"The Senate has more than blood on their hands by not stopping it," said Jimmy Allen, editor of Without Sanctuary, a collection of lynching photographs that helped to spur the Senate resolution.

The resolution, initially introduced by Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Sen. George Allen, R-Va., apologizes to the victims and their descendants "for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation."

To the surprise and outrage of the resolution's supporters, more than a dozen senators declined to sign on as co-sponsors. Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., did not require a roll-call vote on the resolution and scheduled debate to begin after normal working hours.

With nearly 200 descendants of lynching victims observing the proceedings from the visitors' gallery, the Senate approved the measure by voice vote late today.

The Senate apology means a lot for at least one family in Abbeville, S.C.

It was in the Abbeville town square in 1916 that Anthony Crawford, a prosperous black farmer, was lynched by a mob of several hundred.

"For the Crawford family, it's generations of pain," said Crawford's great-granddaughter Doria Johnson of Evanston, Ill. "Grandpa Crawford's blood has never dried," she said.

According to family members, Crawford had refused to accept the price offered for his cotton seed, and he had dared to talk back to the white storekeeper.

He was taken into custody and then taken from the county jail by a mob of an estimated 200 to 300 people. "He was dragged around the square several times and then out to the fairgrounds where he was lynched and shot," said great-grandson Phillip Crawford of Abbeville.

Today's Senate apology had its own share of trouble getting to the floor. Among the senators who declined to co-sponsor the resolution were Mississippi Sens. Trent Lott and Thad Cochran, both Republicans. Cochran said he would not vote against it, but would not be present to vote for it.

Supporters expressed their outrage at the senators who would not sign on as co-sponsors.

"America is home of the brave but I'm afraid there may be a few cowards who have to cower to their very narrow-minded and backward, hateful constituency," said Janet Cohen, who is the descendant of a lynching victim in Kentucky. Her husband, former Defense Secretary William Cohen, was also a former Republican senator.

Cohen has been pushing for a roll-call vote so the names of the holdout senators will be known to the public. Frist declined her request.

"They're hiding out," said Cohen, "and it's reminiscent of a pattern of hiding out under a hood, in the night, riding past, scaring people."

Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures

[tnlefty]

17. Frist denied her request. I keep wondering why his name isn't on

this list along with Alexander.

[CottonBear]

12. Why am I not surprised.

:( My husband's nephew moved from Slidell, LA to Pearl River, Mississippi because he didn't want to live next door to a black family who'd moved in next door.

[alfredo]

7. He didn't support the apology for lynching.

[CottonBear]

14. That is so awful but not at all surprising.

The racists that vote for him would howl in protest.

[alfredo]

22. Intolerance is acceptable to the Neo Cons and Dominionist.

So is Old Testament justice.

[Up2Late]

11. Here's the picture of the former Texas Governor that should go with this..

...Headline!

"Deep South's response to a lynching apology"

[dad]

29. Stop with the Deep South BS

As someone noted above, 15 of the 21 pro-lynching Senators are not from the South.

[Up2Late]

33. That's the Headline to the original article, I'm not making it up

plus I posted that several hours before that response was posted.

Plus, I don't think anyone's ever accused N.Carolina as being the "Deep South," that's mostly associated with Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, maybe Arkansas.

Sometimes Tennessee, Georgia and parts of Florida, but I can tell you from experience, grouping Florida and Most of Modern Georgia is unjustified. South-West Georgia is a rather sad place to drive through though.

[saigon68]

32. The Fucker has this picture over his bed (graphic photo)

This is what it is all about kids

LOOK AT THE ADORING FACES OF THE CRACKER CROWD, AS THE "NEGRO" GETS HIS JUST REWARD



(LOOK AT THE VAPID FACES OF THE 2 MEN AND THEIR "DATES" ON THE LOWER LEFT THEY ARE HAVING SO MUCH FUN, THEY ARE IN A STATE OF AROUSAL)





Lynching 1930

A mob of 10,000 whites took sledgehammers to the county jailhouse doors to get at these two young blacks accused of raping a white girl; the girl’s uncle saved the life of a third by proclaiming the man’s innocence. Although this was Marion, Ind., most of the nearly 5,000 lynchings documented between Reconstruction and the late 1960s were perpetrated in the South. (Hangings, beatings and mutilations were called the sentence of “Judge Lynch.”) Some lynching photos were made into postcards designed to boost white supremacy, but the tortured bodies and grotesquely happy crowds ended up revolting as many as they scared.

[Skittles]

30. that bastard doesn't want to upset his racist base, ya know? eom

[anotherdrew]

9. this nation bathed at birth in the blood of the people who were here first

what oh what is to be done?

[Demrock6]

13. FYI.... Conrad signed on today

He was unable to co-sponsor last night. Now the list is all Republicans.

[me b zola]

16. What is the author of this article trying to say?

The one & only example of a lynching, the lead paragraph no less, seems to be building a case that the lynchings were justifiable.


"GOLDSBORO, N.C. – Near here, at the crook of the Neuse River, they lynched John Richards in February 1916 after the solidly built black man confessed to killing a white cotton farmer with a shovel in order to steal $35. He was caught trying to buy a new pair of overalls at a nearby mental hospital with a $20 bill."

-snip-


"solidly built black man"? :wtf:

Black men were routinely lynched who were guilty of nothing more than being black.


It seems to me that the author of this article is making excuses for the racists in Congress who did not vote for the anti-lynching legislation.


:argh: :nuke:

[Up2Late]

21. Sorry, I don't see it

No offense intended, but their is an old expression that goes:

"can’t see the forest for the trees"

<http://www.bartleby.com/59/4/cantseethefo.html>

From: The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition.

An expression used of someone who is too involved in the details of a problem to look at the situation as a whole: “The congressman became so involved in the wording of his bill that he couldn’t see the forest for the trees; he did not realize that the bill could never pass.”

[me b zola]

26. Forest for the trees...

It is difficult to read about the history of lynching and not see the article from the CSM as softening the legacy of lynching, perhaps to not offend certain readers/constituents. The myth & stereotype of 'the big, strong Blackman' gonna rape, pillage and murder was used widely, mostly in the South, as a means of justifying the brutality used against Blacks.


The first paragraph of the story, gives details of the *case* against Mr. Richards who was *accused* of murdering a man during a robbery. Contrast that to the seventh paragraph that barely mentions the lynching & murder of Emmitt Till, but makes no mention of the details, including the fact that all he was accused of was flirting with a white girl.


Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute Home
The Negro Holocaust: Lynching and Race Riots in the United States,1880-1950
by
Robert A. Gibson

In the last decades of the nineteenth century, the lynching of Black people in the Southern and border states became an institutionalized method used by whites to terrorize Blacks and maintain white supremacy. In the South, during the period 1880 to 1940, there was deep-seated and all-pervading hatred and fear of the Negro which led white mobs to turn to “lynch law” as a means of social control. Lynchings—open public murders of individuals suspected of crime conceived and carried out more or less spontaneously by a mob—seem to have been an American invention. In Lynch-Law, the first scholarly investigation of lynching, written in 1905, author James E. Cutler stated that “lynching is a criminal practice which is peculiar to the United States.”1
Most of the lynchings were by hanging or shooting, or both. However, many were of a more hideous nature—burning at the stake, maiming, dismemberment, castration, and other brutal methods of physical torture. Lynching therefore was a cruel combination of racism and sadism, which was utilized primarily to sustain the caste system in the South. Many white people believed that Negroes could only be controlled by fear. To them, lynching was seen as the most effective means of control.

~more~

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html#a


Control by fear. Justify brutality. Somethings never change.

[Up2Late]

31. I would respond to what you wrote, if it made any sense or was...

...relavent to this article.

First, If you can find a better article from long established American, non-Local, non-blog, non-web only, Newspaper, which is held in as high regard as Christian Science Monitor and gives as many perspectives in one article as this article did, and was about THIS subject (U.S./Southern reaction to this lynching apology resolution passed by the Senate), and was published within 2 hours of this article, I'd like to read it. It's not out there, I looked.

This was a very good (but not perfect) article, and your criticism of it is idealistic and just plain silly.

Second, I understand the issue. What the hell does this "Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute Home..." you posted have to do with your argument? Is that supposed to impress me? That has nothing to do with your nit-picking of the language in the first paragraph.

And, the first paragraph does NOT "...gives details of the *case* against Mr. Richards who was *accused* of murdering a man during a robbery...."

The first paragraph is a very short summery of a very old, very Southern newspaper account, where the language used, would have been far too objectionable (so it had to be changed and modernized) if used today.

I can't even begin to guess where you were going with you Emmitt Till reference. Not only are you wrong about his case being briefly mentioned (it only referred to him as part of the retrial of Edgar Ray Killen, yes I know who he is), but combined with the previous sentence, it makes no sense at all, separately, they are both incomplete thoughts.

:think:How about this, you tell me how you would have written the first paragraph, but it must convey the same amount of information, in the same, or nearly the same, amount of space. Below is the original source material for you to refer to:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USGENWEB NOTICE: In keeping with our policy of providing free information on the Internet, data may be used by non-commercial entities, as long as this message remains on all copied material. The electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit or for presentation by other persons or organizations. Persons or organizations desiring to use this material for purposes other than stated above must obtain the written consent of the file contributor, and contact the listed USGenWeb archivist with proof of this consent.
The submitter has given permission to the USGenWeb Archives to store the file permanently for free access.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wayne County, NC - Court Records

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by
[e-mail]

Smithfield Herald Jan 1916

A.T. Gurley Killed In Wayne

Negro Confesses the Crime. John Richards In Statement Implicates Other Negroes.

Goldsboro, N.C. Jan 8 - John Richards, Negro arrested this morning charged with the
murder of Mr. Anderson T. Gurley, in the presence of prison officials and newspaper
men this afternoon made a confession and statement in which he implicated as
confederates in the crime two other negroes, Isham Smith and Ben Coley. At the end
of an exciting chase this afternoon Smith was captured by Sheriff Edwards. Coley is
still at large.

The body of Mr. Gurley was found in the river near here yesterday morning about 10
o'clock following an all night search by officers and citizens which was inaugurated
soon after evidences were found Thursday afternoon indicating that the Buck Swamp
planter had been waylaid on his way home a short distance from Goldsboro, clubbed to
death, robbed and his body dragged toward the river, while his two horse team was
left wandering. Mr. Gurley had sold a load of cotton here Thursday and it is almost
postively known that he had amout $35.00 in cash on his person when he started home.
When his body was found only $3.30 was found in his pockets.

In his confession this afternoon Richards said he had shot a fellow several days ago
at a factory and was skulking to keep from being arrested; that he was in the
neighborhood of Wayne Red Brick Company's yard near the Little River bridge Thursday
afternoon when Isham Smith and Ben Coley came up with him and told him they were on
their way to hold up a "rich old man who had sold cotton today in Goldsboro" and would
cross the river on his way home and for him (Richards) to come along with them.

When they had been at the bridge a little while, they saw Mr. Gurley approach sitting
in his wagon, alone, and Isham Smith said "there's our man"; that the three of them
started walking slowly across the bridge and when Gurley passed they said to him
"good evening". He said "good evening", then Ben Coley walked ahead of the team and
Isham Smith who had a slim piece of iron walked behind the wagon until they got into
the curve of the road protected from view and at this point Ben Coley suddenly said
"Whoah" to the team and held them while Isham Smith sprang into the wagon and struck
Mr. Gurley over the head with the iron before he could rise from his seat, falling
him (instantly) and killing him with a second blow on the head. They then turned the
team back towards the river bridge, robbed the body of what money they could find and
his watch, knife and pistol and then threw the body in the river.

According to the evidence given the officers, John Richards went to a small country
store near the colored insane asylum about one mile from the scene of the murder early
yesterday (Friday) morning and tried to purchase a pair of overalls. Failing in this
he tried to get change for a $20 bill which plainly showed blood had been smeared on
the bill which had the appearance of being fresh. Frank Coley, another Negro arrested
by the officers stated that Richards had tried to get him to come into Goldsboro and
purchase him a pair of overalls, and stated to the officer that the pair of overalls
Richards had on while he, Coley, was in the presence of Richards was covered with
fresh blood and that while in his presence Richards picked up several hands full of
dirt and tried to rub the blood off the front of his overall jacket, which was well
coated.

Richards says Frank Coley had no hand in the murder.

(W.T. Gurley was actually William Anderson Gurley, son of Wiley Gurley and Sallie
Hines. Anderson was married to Lula Ellen Radford, daughter of William Taylor Radford
and Annie Holland.)

***

Smithfield Herald Friday Jan 12, 1916

Negro Lynched In Wayne

The Confessed Slayer of Anderson Gurley Is Taken From The Goldsboro Jail by a Mob of
a Hundred Armed Men and Hanged to a Tree Near The Scene of His Crime and His Body
Riddled By Shots

Goldsboro, Jan 12 - Taken from the Wayne County jail here by a mob of a hundred
armed men, John Richards, a negro, alleged confessed murderer of Anderson T. Gurley,
a prominent farmer of Fork township, early today was taken to Hooks Bridge, near the
scene of the crime, hanged from a tree and his body riddled by shots. Coroner C.E.
Stantey, who empanelled a jury to investigate the lynching, declared tonight that he
would have names of the hangmen by Friday when he will call upon the jurors to place
blame for the negro's death. He said the perpertrators will be punished.

The lynching, which was predicted by the News and Observer correspondent last week,
occurred shortly after midnight this morning. About that time Robert Anderson, the
jailer, according to his statement today, heard persons beating on the door of his
room. He arose, he said, and was confronted by members of the mob who demanded the
keys to the jail. He produced the keys, but the lock on the door of the jail cell
was found broken.

Deputy Toler was summoned by telephone. When he arrived on the scene the mob had two
Negroes, Smith and Coley charged with complicity in the crime by Richard's alleged
confession. Asked which Negro was Richards, Toler told the mob neither of the men were
the one they wanted. He was told to stand aside and the blacks were taken back into
the cell.

Richards was next produced, seized by a dozen men and rushed to a waiting automobile
in which he was taken to Hooks Bridge, other members of the party following in autos.

At the bridge the Negro was taken to a tree near where the murder is believed to have
been committed and hung to a high limb.

Stories of the lynching conflict. One is to the effect that the Negro was shot in the
head before the noose was tightened around his neck. Another states that he was hanged
and then his body filled with buckshot.

When the corpse was cut down and taken in charge it was found pierced by bullet wounds
in a hundred places. All the bark on the trunk of the tree to which the man was hanged
was shot away. The shooting, it is said, was done with pistols and shotguns.

It is not known whether the black confessed before he was hanged or what transpired at
the bridge.

Richards was arrested Friday, following the finding of Gurley's body in the Neuse river
near the bridge. He is said to have confessed to killing the farmer and is declared to
have named Smith and Coley as his confederates. The alleged confession, it is said,
was made in the presence of newspaper men and Toler.

Gurley was murdered Thursday afternoon when he was returning to his home in Fork
Township after selling a load of cotton here. He was robbed of $35.00. Richards was
arrested when trying to get a blood-stained $10 bill changed.

Smith and Coley, Richards is declared to have said, were not directly connected with
the killing, but are said to have been with him at the time.

The lynching, which is the first affair of its kind in this county, has created a
profound sensation here and in nearby towns. Coroner Stanley's announcement that he
will get the names of the lynchers also has caused considerable excitement.

Smith and Coley tonight were taken to Raleigh by the sheriff and were lodged in the
State Prison for safe keeping. No violence was attempted. Angry citizens forming in
groups here and there indicated that there might be further trouble and the step was
taken largely by way of precaution against another tragedy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USGENWEB NOTICE: In keeping with our policy of providing free information on the Internet, data may be used by non-commercial entities, as long as this message remains on all copied material. The electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit or for presentation by other persons or organizations. Persons or organizations desiring to use this material for purposes other than stated above must obtain the written consent of the file contributor, and contact the listed USGenWeb archivist with proof of this consent.
The submitter has given permission to the USGenWeb Archives to store the file permanently for free access.

[me b zola]

37. *sigh*

""I would respond to what you wrote, if it made any sense or was..."...relavent to this article."

Your non-response was rather wordy, amongst other things, and as for the relevence to the article, I will address that in a moment.

"First, If you can find a better article from long established American, non-Local, non-blog, non-web only, Newspaper, which is held in as high regard as Christian Science Monitor and gives as many perspectives in one article as this article did, and was about THIS subject (U.S./Southern reaction to this lynching apology resolution passed by the Senate), and was published within 2 hours of this article, I'd like to read it. It's not out there, I looked."
"This was a very good (but not perfect) article, and your criticism of it is idealistic and just plain silly."


Nowhere in my reply did I suggest that the article you cited should not have been used, and more importantly, I was not attacking you for citing this article. What I did do, however, was to question the POV of the author of the article, point out that it was penned in a way to not to offend old stereotypes, and questioned why the author would write an article in this manner. It is quite common for DUers to "nit-pick" at such things within an article, evaluating just what the author is communicating. Quite frankly, I have never seen a DUer so offended, or become so insulting for someone to remark on the tone or content of the article cited.

"Second, I understand the issue. What the hell does this "Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute Home..." you posted have to do with your argument?"

I will spell it out for you, just one more moment.

"Is that supposed to impress me?"

Uh, no :eyes: Do you often have delusions of grandure?

"How about this, you tell me how you would have written the first paragraph, but it must convey the same amount of information, in the same, or nearly the same, amount of space. Below is the original source material for you to refer to:"

Uh, no :eyes: Do you often have delusions of grandure?

Now on to the meat of the subject, that is, to reiterate the point of my response. The article began with a brief summery of a man who was the victim of lynching. There were thousands of vicims of lynching, and the reasons/excuses the mobs gave as to why a person was lynched ranged from the victim was accused of a serious, violent crime to a Black man looked at a white female or a Black person tried to vote. These vicims of lynchings were not afforded a trial, this was mob rule.

The paper that I cited explained that the lynchings, particuarly in the South, were used to incite fear & as a means of social control; "an institutionalized method used by whites to terrorize Blacks and maintain white supremacy." The methods used were often cruel, sadistic tourture.

How the paper that I cited ties with my disaproval of the first paragragh of the OP is that the mobs often justified their sadistic, criminal behavior with accusing their vicim of a crime (hiding the criminal mob behavior with claims of law & order/justice). Often the violent crimes (rape, murder) that an African American was lynched for was in fact committed by a white person. Accusations of violent, criminal behavior was the rationalization used by the white people in the communities that condoned lynching and used it to excuse their own barbaric behavior; it made them feel as though they were justified in their actions.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of accounts of lynchings of African Americans who were accused of non-violent "crimes", such as trying to vote, or "talking back" to a white person. But the author of the article chose to not only lead with an account of the lynching of a Black man who was accused of murder, but within a short paragragh noted some of the circumstantial evidence that the newspaper account said pointed to his guilt:

"...they lynched John Richards in February 1916 after the solidly built black man confessed to killing a white cotton farmer with a shovel in order to steal $35. He was caught trying to buy a new pair of overalls at a nearby mental hospital with a $20 bill."


I questioned why the author would begin the article with the account of Mr. Richards, as opposed to using the same amount of words in an account of an African American who was lynched for attempting to vote. You may believe that this is "nit-picking" but I feel as though the content & tone of the lead paragragh to be a "softening" of the subject for some readers who may have a need to feel as though the practice of lynching was justifiable.



You may not agree with me, but if you had spent less time snarking at me and more time reading what I had written, you may have at least understood my post.

[denverbill]

19. I would REALLY like to hear their logic for this.

Surely at least one of them must have given a reason for not signing, other than 'I was busy' or something along those lines.

[Joj Bush]

20. Seriously

Imagine if someone were writing about Auschwitz and started with:
This fence marks the location where a Jew was shot after having become too frail to walk due to overworking for the SS and malnutrition. Before he was sent to Auschwitz he was a greedy moneylender who caused many families to go bankrupt. Many other Jews were treated similarly.

This would not be okay to write, but apparently lynching is acceptable enough to the author and expected American readership.

[Jack_DeLeon]

23. I dont apoligize for lynching

I have nothing to apologize for since I never lynched anyone.

BTW what is anti-lynching legislation, isnt murder already illegal?

[President Kerry]

24. it's not about individuals.. it's about societies

People represent a society, and as such at times bear responsibility for others' actions. It especially applies to politicians.

That's why Germany apologized for nazism, and America would do well to apologize for the atomic bombing in Japan, japanese internments, slavery, death squads in central america, and pretty much all of Bush's legacy.

[Old sixties guy]

27. Lynching

"Isn't murder already illegal"?
Well,yes,only for much of this country's history it was quite all right to muder someone who wasn't white.
YOU may have never lynched anyone but many of those who were not complicit in the deed were shamefully silent when the deeds were occuring.
Hopefully you were not one of those folks.

[calimary]

35. Welcome to DU!

Glad you're here! We need you to Get To Work!

[me b zola]

28. "isnt murder already illegal?" That depends on who you are

During the 1980's I lived in a rural Missouri town that still had a law on the books that said that you could hang a Black person (the word used was NOT Black) if they were on the streets after dark. My best guess would be that there are many Southern communities that to this day have similar laws, and that would be the need for the legislation.

Inequities persist in our country, and until we acknowledge them and take steps to eradicate those inequities, they will continue.