Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hanging was a regular form of execution way back in the day, so it could happen to anyone who committed a serious crime.
Lynching is a very specific "execution" in that it's committed by citizens rather than ordered by a court. I think the OP is asking about racially motivated lynchings. A quick Google search shows that Mexicans were also the target of lynchings in parts of the US, and there was an incident with Italian-Americans as well. Plus, there was the case of Leo Frank, who I believe is the only Jewish-American to have suffered that fate. Blacks were the more apparent minority in the US back then, so it follows logic that they were lynched in higher numbers than other minorities.
Also, I'm not sure how this devolved into a Democrat vs. Republican argument. As I've noted multiple times, it's never a Democrat/Republican thing. It's always a conservative/progressive thing: conservative = traditionalist + aversion to change; progressive = open to change. The political parties with conservative vs progressive ideologies has changed over time. By the very definition of the word "conservative", the Democrats were the conservative party back in the days before the civil rights movement because they were content keeping the laws as they were regarding blacks and their citizenship. Today, the Republican's stance on social issues (e.g. rejection of same-sex marriage) makes them the conservative party.
When you use examples of how each party acted a century ago to prove points about who they are today, you show a profound lack of understanding as to how our political parties operate.
Yet more historical revisionism by liberal freaks.
"During [James Eastland of Mississippi] last Senate term, he served as President pro tempore of the Senate since he was the longest-serving Democrat in the Senate."
Shelby was not a member of Congress until 1978, 14 years after the bigoted Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He only became a Republican in 1994 after the GOP victory that kicked his sorry butt into the minority. More than 300 Democrats, including northern Democrats, would jump ship between December 1994 and December 1995 after the Republican Party became the majority party in Congress.
So all your lies cannot change the fact that the Democratic Party is the national party of bigots.
I'm waiting for you to show me a list of civil rights legislation sponsored by Republican Congressmen and signed into law by Republican Presidents. Until you can do that, your argument is pretty worthless.
I can teach a parrot to say bigot. It doesn't make one so.
Does passage of civil rights legislation make the passing party a party of humanitarian interests? Or just a party who recognized an opportunity for self promotion?
I view the Democrats as opportunists. The Republican party's lack of interest is not an expression of their bigotry as much as it is their lack of willingness to participate in legislation designed only to promote bragging rights and votes for their party. "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." --Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957
Since it can be agreed upon that far more Black people were lynched in the South than the North, and that those lynchings occurred mostly before 1968, I think it can be safely assumed that more Black people were lynched by Democrats than Republicans.
From this thread you would swear the only lynchings happened in the South. In the West, lynching was a good way to deter cattle rustling and horse theft. Plus, if you lynched them you got your rope back, but if you shot them it cost you ammunition, which was hard to replace. If you caught them with the stolen animals, there was no reason to hold a trial. In the case of murder there was most often a trial. There might be some justification for murder, but there was never any justification for rustling.
From this thread you would swear the only lynchings happened in the South. In the West, lynching was a good way to deter cattle rustling and horse theft. Plus, if you lynched them you got your rope back, but if you shot them it cost you ammunition, which was hard to replace. If you caught them with the stolen animals, there was no reason to hold a trial. In the case of murder there was most often a trial. There might be some justification for murder, but there was never any justification for rustling.
Nice reminder.
For myself, I love the stories - sordid though they are - of lynchings in the West. Saw the story of Tom Horn a few days ago on The History Channel. If Horn suspecting you of rustling, and someone paid him, he would just shoot you dead. From a distance, and in the back, but dead, dead, dead.
Does passage of civil rights legislation make the passing party a party of humanitarian interests? Or just a party who recognized an opportunity for self promotion?
I view the Democrats as opportunists. The Republican party's lack of interest is not an expression of their bigotry as much as it is their lack of willingness to participate in legislation designed only to promote bragging rights and votes for their party. "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." --Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957
Since it can be agreed upon that far more Black people were lynched in the South than the North, and that those lynchings occurred mostly before 1968, I think it can be safely assumed that more Black people were lynched by Democrats than Republicans.
Lyndon said a whole lot of things. I found youtube video where he talks about black people using the N word.
Does that detract from his record on civil rights? Not to me it doesn't. Lyndon lived in a particular time and a particular place. I knew one older guy who ran a business and frequently used about every racial epithet he could. He was also one of the most fair and decent men there ever was in his dealings with people of all races, creeds, and religions. I attributed his vocabulary to simply the period in which he grew up.
Ideally, I suppose people would be perfect in all respects including their conversation. I'm more concerned though with substance that with whether somebody ever called somebody the N word.
I have a little rule about Lyndon. I tend not to accept criticism of his civil rights record from someone unless they can show me that they did 1% as much for the cause of civil rights as he did. Its pretty hard when you think of not only the laws he got passed, but other substantive acts. He appointed Thurgood Marshall Solicitor General and than a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Programs like Head Start probably did more for black children than those of any other group. Of course, I already mentioned he got the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 through Congress and signed them into law. He was also the moving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1958 when he was majority leader of the U.S. Senate. These laws were "transformational acts". Particularly, the Voting Rights Act. Once black people were empowered, the system in the south and elsewhere had to treat them better.
I think your comment about "democrats" and lynching is probably accurate. The problem is most of the most people never had the belief system that I would impute to a modern day democrat.
Sometimes lynchings were fun family outings. I have read about two that were done on holidays, (Easter and Christmas day) people got dressed up and sometimes brought picnic lunches. As barbaric as this may sound this was also a time when young people (teens) went to funerals to meet up because so many people died young. One person told me that by spring time you had been to over ten funerals of your young friends. Death was very common and hanging some one was not considered barbaric.
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,387,163 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by technev
I don't know much about American history, but were lynchings common in the 50s or earlier? If so, were all nonwhites (like Arabs, Indians etc.) targeted or only the black folks?
In my state (Minnesota)? I wrote a paper on the 1920 Duluth lynchings, and from my research there are only about a half a dozen (depending on your sources) in my state's history, and only that one white-on-black lynching that occurred in Duluth.
Which is why I will never, ever in no uncertain terms ever feel a shred of guilt with America's history in this arena as a white man.
My loyalty anyway is first and foremost to the state my ancestors helped create as one of the best in America (Minnesota), without any history whatsoever of slavery and a very limited racially intolerant one as well.
Just like I said. You have to go back to the Civil War to find an achievement. How about in the last century?
Every attempt to bring civil rights legislation to the floor by Republicans was killed by bigoted Democrats. It would not be until 1957 that Republican sponsored civil rights legislation would finally pass Congress. The bill established a civil rights section of the Justice Department, along with a Commission on Civil Rights to investigate discriminatory conditions. In 1960 Republicans in Congress provided for court-appointed referees to help blacks register to vote. However, both of these Republican bills were strongly watered down to overcome southern resistance by bigoted Democrats.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
