My objection was with the broad characterization that the majority of  
Whites supported lynching. Obviously in many/most cases a substantial  
portion or even a majority of the local White population supported a  
specific lynching. Without some support the large public lynchings  
could not have taken place, nor could those involved have been  
acquitted when tried. It may even be true that across portions of the  
US, lynchings were not geographically evenly distributed, a  
significant number or even a majority of the White population  
supported lynchings. But the fact that they were rare in the North  
would lead a reasonable person to assume that they were not supported  
in the North. Else Northerners would have been just as likely to have  
strung up Blacks as Southerners. Unless one assumes that Northerners  
were more likely to support the rule of law.

Believing someone deserves punishment and lynching them, or  
supporting lynching them, is quite different. And to assume that the  
majority of all Whites in the USA supported lynching is racist. There  
is a fundamental difference between supporting miscegenation laws and  
murdering those who violate them. Just as there is a substantial  
difference between disagreeing with someone over the form of the  
Trinity, and burning them at the stake. While many Whites may have  
been unwilling to stop lynchings, for a variety of reasons, it is a  
stretch to assume that the majority supported extra judicial executions.

James Brothers, RPA
[log in to unmask]



On Jun 24, 2007, at 12:23, Kevin Joel Berland wrote:

> While it is certainly true that public extrajudicial murders  
> (lynchings)
> primarily targeted people of color, there were political lynchings  
> as well that
> targeted primarily left-wing organizers.  There were several  
> lynchings of
> Wobblies (IWW organizers) in the first quarter of the century, in  
> the Pacific
> Northwest, I believe.
>
> Lynchings of black Americans were carried out with the implicit  
> consent of a
> majority of the white community.  Certainly there were those who  
> just went
> along out of curiosity or fear, but the fact remains that a  
> significant number
> of the white majority participated.  To say everybody was complicit is
> overstatement, but it should be noted that politicians and law- 
> enforcement
> officers who participated openly in lynchings continued to get  
> reelected.
>
> Perhaps it would be useful to temper our rejection of the lynching  
> mentality
> with an attempt to understand the cultural context of the time.  As  
> cruel as it
> often was, and as fear-ridden, it may seem obvious to us that  
> people should
> have risen above it.  One of the problems with studying a culture  
> based on
> principles we reject is that we tend to assume that our standards  
> today are
> universal, and that the people of the past could have been as wise  
> as we are
> today if they really tried.
>
> Or not.  As Burke once said, "All that is necessary for evil to  
> triumph is for
> good men to do nothing."
>
> Hmm.
>
>
> Cheers -- Kevin