That with the exception of Leo Frank (Jewish) in Georgia in 1906 (date?) and 
the lynching of a number of southern Italians in New Orleans in the 1880s 
(the so-called Matranga conspiracy), all those lynched (public, often 
previously announced extra-judicial murders) were people of color, should 
give one pause.  "Racist" to observe that public murders of people of color, 
chiefly in the South, but extending over almost the entire US, had the 
support of the majority if not near the entirity of the white population?  I 
don't think so.

I could say more but I will leave it at that.

Harold S. Forsythe
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Brothers" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: The Law & Lynching


> An argument could be made that anti-lynching laws were, and are, 
> redundant because it is generally against the law to kill someone.
>
> I would also take exception to the idea that lynchings took place  with 
> the full support of the White community (as claimed in an  earlier post). 
> They may have had the support of a substantial portion  of the local White 
> community, but to go beyond that is unacceptable.  And given the 
> activities of organizations like the KKK, some/many may  have gone along 
> or at least not objected because they feared for  their own safety. While, 
> as has been pointed out lynchings did take  place in the North, the vast 
> majority took place in the South. And  they were not evenly distributed 
> across the South. To assume that all/ most Whites felt the non-judicial 
> murder of Blacks was appropriate is  racist.
>
> James Brothers, RPA
> [log in to unmask]