But there's reason to think at least some of the people who were lynched (whether by the Klan or, more regularly, just random mobs) were criminals who absolutely had their horrific deaths coming
If you have mob justice and lynching, inevitably some people whom you lynch turn out to be guilty. There's a reason that is not acceptable.
Leo Frank (the guy the ADL was founded to defend, who together with the best lawyers money could buy desperately tried to blame his rape & murder of a white girl on a black guy, but couldn't get even the 1910s Deep South to buy his story).
I've never understood this argument. I have no idea if Leo Frank was guilty or not, but it's not as if people in the deep south were just assuming that every crime was committed by a black guy.
if the popular narrative around the Klan and the lynch mobs is wrong on that count, that they weren't just going around killing random black people for fun
Depends on who 'they' are. Basically, they tended to lynch people whom they presumed guilty, based on good evidence or faulty. Also, in the Reconstruction era, people who dared to vote Republican - black or white.
If you have mob justice and lynching, inevitably some people whom you lynch turn out to be guilty. There's a reason that is not acceptable.
Under normal circumstances, yes. In the event of a total breakdown of society or the capture of the state's organs of justice and law & order by factions which care not a whit for either except to use it as a bludgeon against their enemies however, I find it very difficult to not at least slightly sympathize with those who take law & order into their own hands. Better whatever bloody little slices of justice vigilantism can mete out than none at all, IMO.
I've never understood this argument. I have no idea if Leo Frank was guilty or not, but it's not as if people in the deep south were just assuming that every crime was committed by a black guy.
Can't find the article which laid the case against Frank out right now, all I remember is that it was on a website long tarred as 'antisemitic' and a nest of conspiracy theories by the mainstream (despite, as far as I can tell, hardly being Stormfronty). Unz, Urz or something like that - I recall it also had an Assange associate on board, which was what drew my interest to it in the first place way back in the day.
But I do remember one of its arguments as to why the Frank case was so exceptional was that 'raped and murdered white girls' was the #1 accusation for lynching, and that it obviously carried the most waving-red-flags-in-front-of-a-bull racial implications for white Southern society. There's no way the Deep South of the 1910s would have allowed a black guy they thought, even for a second, really did rape and murder a 13-year-old white girl go free, which would be tantamount to letting him pose a further threat to other little white girls as far as they'd be concerned.
Couple that with other arguments on how Frank was a wealthy & well-connected (particularly to the media and other Jewish business tycoons) businessman with no known enemies in Georgia who was capable of affording, or even being practically gifted, top-end lawyers while the aforementioned black guy was literally a dirt-poor janitor, as well as how the trial & appeals process were quite exhaustive and dragged on for years (as opposed to being the extremely quick & unfair affairs as you might expect of an actual 'we just really want this guy dead/free because he's not white/white' case), and well. You can see why the ADL's interpretation of the case & lynching, which have been the popular view for a century, makes less and less sense the more you examine it.
Depends on who 'they' are. Basically, they tended to lynch people whom they presumed guilty, based on good evidence or faulty. Also, in the Reconstruction era, people who dared to vote Republican - black or white.
We don't need to go overboard.
Yeah, fair enough. Sometimes I forget the need to take a break from this enraging shit & go do something else to wind myself down.
If you have mob justice and lynching, inevitably some people whom you lynch turn out to be guilty. There's a reason that is not acceptable.
I've never understood this argument. I have no idea if Leo Frank was guilty or not, but it's not as if people in the deep south were just assuming that every crime was committed by a black guy.
Depends on who 'they' are. Basically, they tended to lynch people whom they presumed guilty, based on good evidence or faulty. Also, in the Reconstruction era, people who dared to vote Republican - black or white.
We don't need to go overboard.
Under normal circumstances, yes. In the event of a total breakdown of society or the capture of the state's organs of justice and law & order by factions which care not a whit for either except to use it as a bludgeon against their enemies however, I find it very difficult to not at least slightly sympathize with those who take law & order into their own hands. Better whatever bloody little slices of justice vigilantism can mete out than none at all, IMO.
Can't find the article which laid the case against Frank out right now, all I remember is that it was on a website long tarred as 'antisemitic' and a nest of conspiracy theories by the mainstream (despite, as far as I can tell, hardly being Stormfronty). Unz, Urz or something like that - I recall it also had an Assange associate on board, which was what drew my interest to it in the first place way back in the day.
But I do remember one of its arguments as to why the Frank case was so exceptional was that 'raped and murdered white girls' was the #1 accusation for lynching, and that it obviously carried the most waving-red-flags-in-front-of-a-bull racial implications for white Southern society. There's no way the Deep South of the 1910s would have allowed a black guy they thought, even for a second, really did rape and murder a 13-year-old white girl go free, which would be tantamount to letting him pose a further threat to other little white girls as far as they'd be concerned.
Couple that with other arguments on how Frank was a wealthy & well-connected (particularly to the media and other Jewish business tycoons) businessman with no known enemies in Georgia who was capable of affording, or even being practically gifted, top-end lawyers while the aforementioned black guy was literally a dirt-poor janitor, as well as how the trial & appeals process were quite exhaustive and dragged on for years (as opposed to being the extremely quick & unfair affairs as you might expect of an actual 'we just really want this guy dead/free because he's not white/white' case), and well. You can see why the ADL's interpretation of the case & lynching, which have been the popular view for a century, makes less and less sense the more you examine it.
Yeah, fair enough. Sometimes I forget the need to take a break from this enraging shit & go do something else to wind myself down.