Lynching question

[Nickyjo]

I have read a couple of books on the topic of lynching, most recently "At the Hands of Persons Unknown" by Philip Dray, and have seen the tables of stats there and elsewhere. Tho I have gone on the website of the memorial museum in Alabama, I can't find a part of it to pose this question: while the vast majority of those lynched in say, Mississippi, were black, the minority number of whites lynched is more than the total number of *all* lynchings in the New England or mid-Atlantic states. I know why blacks were lynched in the South. Why so many whites? What in southern culture or politics caused this?

So I thought I would go to my colleagues on DP to see if they have an answer, could speculate, whatever.

 

[phoenix2020]

Taking the common definition of a lynching as an extrajudicial killing, the only thing I can wonder if this was a result of cultural norms that today have become part of Old West tropes like "outlaw justice" and the like. I wonder whether all the depictions in movies of someone strung up and hung from a tree in "ye olde West" are the evolution of what was a more common practice in the South and the South West for a period of time. This is just speculation however.

 

[Nickyjo]

Taking the common definition of a lynching as an extrajudicial killing, the only thing I can wonder if this was a result of cultural norms that today have become part of Old West tropes like "outlaw justice" and the like. I wonder whether all the depictions in movies of someone strung up and hung from a tree in "ye olde West" are the evolution of what was a more common practice in the South and the South West for a period of time. This is just speculation however.

Good speculation. What scared me more recently and what I have noted in this forum in previous posts was Trump's Central Park Five ad, with language that seemed to come from lynch culture.

 

[Lovebug]

Good speculation. What scared me more recently and what I have noted in this forum in previous posts was Trump's Central Park Five ad, with language that seemed to come from lynch culture.

or the fact that some can't live with people that are "that".

 

[DataPoint]

The term 'incorporation by violence' or 'disincorporation by violence' was coined to identify and define extra-judicial killings to maintain or challenge the civilized norms of the time and area.

Think of Elijah Lovejoy (victim), Joseph Smith (victim), and Tom Horn (killer).

 

[Napoleon]

I have read a couple of books on the topic of lynching, most recently "At the Hands of Persons Unknown" by Philip Dray, and have seen the tables of stats there and elsewhere. Tho I have gone on the website of the memorial museum in Alabama, I can't find a part of it to pose this question: while the vast majority of those lynched in say, Mississippi, were black, the minority number of whites lynched is more than the total number of *all* lynchings in the New England or mid-Atlantic states. I know why blacks were lynched in the South. Why so many whites? What in southern culture or politics caused this?

So I thought I would go to my colleagues on DP to see if they have an answer, could speculate, whatever.

It’s really all for the same reason. Mob hangings were not unusual in Britain in cases where people felt an injustice had been done. The message was, more or less, intended to intimidate would-be criminals by sending the message that if the justice system didn’t get you then a mob of your peers would. That practice, of course, carried over into the colonies. Such extrajudicial mob hangings of royalists took place during the American Revolution.

From this evolved judicially sanctioned public hangings aka lynching almost as a form of entertainment to demonstrate to the general public aka the mob that a judge was in lockstep with their expectations of justice. It didn’t matter what color your skin was. What mattered was the severity of the crime you were accused and convicted of. And of course, mob hangings still took place when people thought it best to take justice into their own hands.

 

[reflechissez]

It’s really all for the same reason. Mob hangings were not unusual in Britain in cases where people felt an injustice had been done. The message was, more or less, intended to intimidate would-be criminals by sending the message that if the justice system didn’t get you then a mob of your peers would. That practice, of course, carried over into the colonies. Such extrajudicial mob hangings of royalists took place during the American Revolution.

From this evolved judicially sanctioned public hangings aka lynching almost as a form of entertainment to demonstrate to the general public aka the mob that a judge was in lockstep with their expectations of justice. It didn’t matter what color your skin was. What mattered was the severity of the crime you were accused and convicted of. And of course, mob hangings still took place when people thought it best to take justice into their own hands.

 

[joluoto]

I found this when looking into it:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ite-lynching/9A9EBA253D333444176126C4E67A7654

I think it would be a mistake to say white-on-white lynching wasn't racial. The victims were the "wrong kind of whites", who did not live up to the expectations of what being white means. They were poor, or had the wrong religion, or had the wrong ethnic background

 

[Glitch]

I found this when looking into it:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ite-lynching/9A9EBA253D333444176126C4E67A7654

I think it would be a mistake to say white-on-white lynching wasn't racial. The victims were the "wrong kind of whites", who did not live up to the expectations of what being white means. They were poor, or had the wrong religion, or had the wrong ethnic background

It also took 130 years to make lynching in the US a federal crime. Beginning in 1890 the Republican Party introduced legislation to make lynching a federal crime, and it was filibustered by the Democrats. This occurred every few years whenever the Republicans brought up a bill to make lynching a federal crime, the Democratic Party always filibustered the bill. Finally, in February 2020 the Republicans once again introduced a bill to make lynching a federal crime and Democrats did not filibuster the bill. It finally became law after 130 years of being stalled by Democrats.

I'll let you guess which political party was responsible for all the lynching, but here is a hint: It wasn't the Republican Party.

 

[reflechissez]

It also took 130 years to make lynching in the US a federal crime. Beginning in 1890 the Republican Party introduced legislation to make lynching a federal crime, and it was filibustered by the Democrats. This occurred every few years whenever the Republicans brought up a bill to make lynching a federal crime, the Democratic Party always filibustered the bill. Finally, in February 2020 the Republicans once again introduced a bill to make lynching a federal crime and Democrats did not filibuster the bill. It finally became law after 130 years of being stalled by Democrats.

I'll let you guess which political party was responsible for all the lynching, but here is a hint: It wasn't the Republican Party.

You're right. It was the ideology that is and has always been against social progress. Today we call those people republicans.

 

[Yakshi]

It also took 130 years to make lynching in the US a federal crime. Beginning in 1890 the Republican Party introduced legislation to make lynching a federal crime, and it was filibustered by the Democrats. This occurred every few years whenever the Republicans brought up a bill to make lynching a federal crime, the Democratic Party always filibustered the bill. Finally, in February 2020 the Republicans once again introduced a bill to make lynching a federal crime and Democrats did not filibuster the bill. It finally became law after 130 years of being stalled by Democrats.

I'll let you guess which political party was responsible for all the lynching, but here is a hint: It wasn't the Republican Party.

One of these days, by which I mean absolutely never, people who make such comically dumb posts are going to understand the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans of then and the Democrats and Republicans of now.

Until that date, which might as well be March 45th because it'll never happen, they're going to pretend that the Democratic and Republican parties were static throughout time, never changing in the least, such that Democratic acts from a century ago can be conveniently pinned on the Democratic party of now with a "Gotcha" and a snicker.

As a debate strategy, it is either ignorant or cowardly, or both. If there's a third option, I'll leave it up to the reader to unearth it.

Concerning the passing of anti-lynching laws: over most of that period, fewer than one percent of those who murdered by lynching were ever convicted anyway.

Some people demand not to be respected for their thoughts and opinions.

 

[Glitch]

One of these days, by which I mean absolutely never, people who make such comically dumb posts are going to understand the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans of then and the Democrats and Republicans of now.

Yet another leftist delusion. What makes you think Democrat filth from 193 years ago are any different from the Democrat filth that exists today? Democrat Presidents were committing atrocities against Americans in the 1830s, just as Democrat Presidents were committing atrocities against Americans in the 1940s.

The very same bigotry of leftist Democrats who started the Civil War to preserve their institution of slavery exists today with their bigoted institution of Affirmative Action. Still demeaning all minorities as usual. You've even elected a Dixiecrat as President. So tell me again how much the Democratic Party has changed - I could use a good laugh.

You spew all this nonsense about how Democrats are supposedly different today that they have been for the last 193 years, yet offer absolutely no evidence that anything has changed at all because absolutely nothing has changed. The Democratic Party remains the most vile anti-American POS terrorist organization on the planet today, responsible for killing more Americans that all the foreign wars that the US has ever fought, and the greatest threat the US has ever faced.

 

[Nickyjo]

It also took 130 years to make lynching in the US a federal crime. Beginning in 1890 the Republican Party introduced legislation to make lynching a federal crime, and it was filibustered by the Democrats. This occurred every few years whenever the Republicans brought up a bill to make lynching a federal crime, the Democratic Party always filibustered the bill. Finally, in February 2020 the Republicans once again introduced a bill to make lynching a federal crime and Democrats did not filibuster the bill. It finally became law after 130 years of being stalled by Democrats.

I'll let you guess which political party was responsible for all the lynching, but here is a hint: It wasn't the Republican Party.

Then what causes so few blacks to vote Republican these days? Hard to figure, but I guess they must realize that time changes things, political parties changes. Southern strategy and all that.

Talking about the democrats in the 1800s? You might as well talk about Federalists and Whigs.

 

[Glitch]

Then what causes so few blacks to vote Republican these days? Hard to figure, but I guess they must realize that time changes things, political parties changes. Southern strategy and all that.

Talking about the democrats in the 1800s? You might as well talk about Federalists and Whigs.

Blacks first began voting for Democrats during the 1930s, when leftist filth violated the US Constitution and started bribing voters with illegal funding. FDR, by the way, was an anti-Semitic bigot, as well as being a socialist fascist.

The Federalists and Whigs did not exist at the same time. The Whig Party was created after Andrew Jackson created the Democratic Party in 1828. All the federalists became Democrat scum. Most the former Democratic-Republicans became Whigs, while a few became Democrat filth.

Once again demonstrating your ignorance of American history.

 

[Jredbaron96]

What makes you think Democrat filth from 193 years ago are any different from the Democrat filth that exists today?

Tell me, what do you think Democrats 193 years ago would think about same-sex marriage?

 

[ultmd]

I have read a couple of books on the topic of lynching, most recently "At the Hands of Persons Unknown" by Philip Dray, and have seen the tables of stats there and elsewhere. Tho I have gone on the website of the memorial museum in Alabama, I can't find a part of it to pose this question: while the vast majority of those lynched in say, Mississippi, were black, the minority number of whites lynched is more than the total number of *all* lynchings in the New England or mid-Atlantic states. I know why blacks were lynched in the South. Why so many whites? What in southern culture or politics caused this?

So I thought I would go to my colleagues on DP to see if they have an answer, could speculate, whatever.

Your question is a good one, and one that is easily answered.

I'm a black man, born and raised in the South.

Most whites who faced lynching, during (and before) the Jim Crow era, were lynched for for helping or protecting African-Americans in some tangible way.

Breaking/violating the Black Codes was a lynchable offense for a white man or woman, for example.

If you don't know about the Black Codes, you can google them.

Secondly, during the early Post-Reconstruction years (when most white lynchings took place) white liberals (i.e. REPUBLICANS at that time) were the targets for intimidation by groups like the KKK, so that Republicans would not be elected to public office in the South.

But those are the 2 primary reasons why most whites were lynched, back in the "good old days" (as our modern GOP friends prefer to view them).

One more point to note: About 20% of all documented lynchings occurred OUTSIDE of the former Confederate states.

 

[Nickyjo]

Blacks first began voting for Democrats during the 1930s, when leftist filth violated the US Constitution and started bribing voters with illegal funding. FDR, by the way, was an anti-Semitic bigot, as well as being a socialist fascist.

The Federalists and Whigs did not exist at the same time. The Whig Party was created after Andrew Jackson created the Democratic Party in 1828. All the federalists became Democrat scum. Most the former Democratic-Republicans became Whigs, while a few became Democrat filth.

Once again demonstrating your ignorance of American history.

1- you seem to have problems with analogies. I said that talking about the Democrats of the 1800s (one thing) was as irrelevant as talking about Whigs or Federalists (another thing. We call that analogy. 2- as to violation of the Constitution, I know the National Recovery Act but parts of it remained in effect. Was there a case challenging the New Deal that succeeded? 3- And FDR as a bigot and a fascist? You must have hated Trump.

As to the change in black’s attitudes towards Democrats, yes, happened under FDR, but Goldwater helped accelerate the change. But I have to ask, as I do when people put down socialism as something negative: as it happens, I type this from a hospital, where my bill will be paid for by socialist Medicare. I, a filthy leftist, am receiving an infusion of a drug which no doubt was reviewed and approved by the socialist FDA. What’s not to like?

 

[Glitch]

1- you seem to have problems with analogies. I said that talking about the Democrats of the 1800s (one thing) was as irrelevant as talking about Whigs or Federalists (another thing. We call that analogy. 2- as to violation of the Constitution, I know the National Recovery Act but parts of it remained in effect. Was there a case challenging the New Deal that succeeded? 3- And FDR as a bigot and a fascist? You must have hated Trump.

Actually, 11 of the 15 New Deal programs passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress that FDR wanted were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Such as United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936). That is when FDR began replacing the entire Supreme Court, between 1937 and 1943, whether they wanted to be replaced or not - exactly like any fascist would.

The last time I checked, Trump did not replace all nine Supreme Court Justices like FDR. Trump also did not put 120,000 Americans into concentration camps without due process like FDR did. So what exactly do you think Trump did that could possibly be construed as fascist?

FYI, I was not a Trump supporter, I voted for other candidates in 2016 and 2020. I only vote for conservatives, and Trump is not, and never has been, a conservative. Trump was a NYC leftist Democrat until 2012, when he registered as a Republican for the very first time in an attempt to intentionally deceive Republicans that he was one of their ilk. But I'm also not a "Never Trumper" nut-job either.

When Trump ran as a Reform Party candidate in 2000 he didn't even come close to winning the nomination. Which is why he registered as a Republican in 2012. Trump is obviously not a Republican. Or to be more accurate, Trump is a true RINO (like most Republicans these days).

As to the change in black’s attitudes towards Democrats, yes, happened under FDR, but Goldwater helped accelerate the change. But I have to ask, as I do when people put down socialism as something negative: as it happens, I type this from a hospital, where my bill will be paid for by socialist Medicare. I, a filthy leftist, am receiving an infusion of a drug which no doubt was reviewed and approved by the socialist FDA. What’s not to like?

People started thinking socialism was something negative after socialists slaughtered more than 100 million people during the last century.

Its funny how that works. When you slaughter a few million people because they don't like your ideology, and then suddenly people find you distasteful. Gee, I wonder why?

I guess your indoctrination centers will just have to work harder to scrub out the leftist atrocities of the 20th century.

 

[DataPoint]

The righties have no idea what is socialism, or that they themselves are benefiting from it in a social market democracy.

 

[Nickyjo]

Actually, 11 of the 15 New Deal programs passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress that FDR wanted were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Such as United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936). That is when FDR began replacing the entire Supreme Court, between 1937 and 1943, whether they wanted to be replaced or not - exactly like any fascist would.

The last time I checked, Trump did not replace all nine Supreme Court Justices like FDR. Trump also did not put 120,000 Americans into concentration camps without due process like FDR did. So what exactly do you think Trump did that could possibly be construed as fascist?

FYI, I was not a Trump supporter, I voted for other candidates in 2016 and 2020. I only vote for conservatives, and Trump is not, and never has been, a conservative. Trump was a NYC leftist Democrat until 2012, when he registered as a Republican for the very first time in an attempt to intentionally deceive Republicans that he was one of their ilk. But I'm also not a "Never Trumper" nut-job either.

When Trump ran as a Reform Party candidate in 2000 he didn't even come close to winning the nomination. Which is why he registered as a Republican in 2012. Trump is obviously not a Republican. Or to be more accurate, Trump is a true RINO (like most Republicans these days).


People started thinking socialism was something negative after socialists slaughtered more than 100 million people during the last century.

Its funny how that works. When you slaughter a few million people because they don't like your ideology, and then suddenly people find you distasteful. Gee, I wonder why?

I guess your indoctrination centers will just have to work harder to scrub out the leftist atrocities of the 20th century.

The Norwegians slaughtered that many? The Dutch? French? Swedes? Canadians, ANZUS.? You are talking about Stalin, Pol Pot, even Hitler, whose party used the “s” word. You can think of them and hide under your bed. I’ll think of enjoying Social Security, Medicare, the interstate, FDA, FEMA, the Post Office, the ACA. Vets can think of the VA. Poor people of Medicaid.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Nowadays it seems we just lynch them with patrol cars.

The videos show Cole's white shirt covered in blood, and he appears to be holding something up to his face shortly before the vehicle runs him over. Officers are seen exiting their vehicles and moving toward Cole after the cruiser drove over him. Graf said Wednesday that the officers rendered aid to Cole.

 

[Glitch]

The Norwegians slaughtered that many? The Dutch? French? Swedes? Canadians, ANZUS.? You are talking about Stalin, Pol Pot, even Hitler, whose party used the “s” word. You can think of them and hide under your bed. I’ll think of enjoying Social Security, Medicare, the interstate, FDA, FEMA, the Post Office, the ACA. Vets can think of the VA. Poor people of Medicaid.

Of course you do, because all leftists support fascism. As you just demonstrated. Who cares if you have to kill 100+ million people who don't want your oppressive socialism, you and your ilk know what is better for them.

 

[Nickyjo]

Of course you do, because all leftists support fascism. As you just demonstrated. Who cares if you have to kill 100+ million people who don't want your oppressive socialism, you and your ilk know what is better for them.

Huh? Trump was a fascist in style and in his support of war crimes. Didn't support him. And again, you see no daylight between Stalin and Denmark? Hitler and Holland?