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.
Carolyn Bryant Donham was the young women who, in 1955, accused Emmett Till, a 14 year old, of making improper advances. The accusation was enough for her husband and his brother to brutally murder young Emmett Till.
The husband and his brother were taken to trial and found not guilty by an all white jury. They later admitted to the murder.
Donham was accused of lying to the authorities and of changing her recollection of the events, but was never charged with anything.
Her actions are deplorable, she could have just fessed up to her husband and his stepbrother that she was lying. It is beyond comprehension what they did to that child, how can you do that to another human being.
Her actions are deplorable, she could have just fessed up to her husband and his stepbrother that she was lying. It is beyond comprehension what they did to that child, how can you do that to another human being.
I have no reason to believe she was lying. Are you okay with a young man grabbing you (if you are a woman) or (if you are a man) your wife/daughter/sister and proposing a sexual encounter?
I have no reason to believe she was lying. Are you okay with a young man grabbing you (if you are a woman) or (if you are a man) your wife/daughter/sister and proposing a sexual encounter?
Sounds strangely like you are saying that men who grab women by the genitals should be lynched.
Sounds strangely like you are saying that men who grab women by the genitals should be lynched.
Your twisting the posters words to make them look bad. This is why we can't have nice debates.
Poster simply said they have no reason why it's assumed she was lying. That doesn't mean they think the poor boy should've been killed.
I have no idea either way and we probably will never know what triggered it now. If I had to guess how this all started I'd say Emmett probably did smile/look at her/say something. What he said who knows? He might have did nothing but given a happy smile to show friendliness. White people back then have been known to find reasons to hurt blacks just because. Or, maybe he did say something to her in a flirting way or cocky way. Does that mean he deserves what he got? Of course not. But try explaining that to racist white people in that time period.
It's been mentioned that her husband was abusive towards her so she might have very well been terrified if she didn't go along with it. Similar to the scene in the movie "Mississippi Burning" where the hair stylist got beat up by her husband. Now, IMO is she still guilty and should've been punished for lying considering the outcome? Absolutely! But people act like cowards in fear all the time.
I have no reason to believe she was lying. Are you okay with a young man grabbing you (if you are a woman) or (if you are a man) your wife/daughter/sister and proposing a sexual encounter?
There was no proof of Emmitt Till doing anything other than making a pass at her. There was no actual proof of him grabbing a woman's private parts. I have every reason to believe she lied about her encounter. This was the South in the 1950s.
Here is what happened. Dunham was offended that any Black male would make a pass at her. She was offended by any Black male having any kind of interaction with her than wasn't subservient or deferring towards her. There was no proof of him actually grabbing her private parts. If he did that, why didn't she just get the police? Southern police officers would have happy to arrest Emmitt Till and put him up under the jail if that had actually happened. Police in Mississippi would have made time to deal with a Black male who committed any physical violence against a White female.
Because of what we know, I expect people to know better. She got away with being an accomplice to murder. She even admitted on her bed, in old age, that she lied in court.
Sounds strangely like you are saying that men who grab women by the genitals should be lynched.
Actually, what I'm hearing is this. The message I get is "Emmitt Till was guilty as sin and Carolyn Bryant Dunham should be vindicated". To me that is just garbage. It's historical fact that Emmitt Till was murdered in cold blood. It's historical fact that there was no proof of Till actually committing any kind of sexual violence. The most anyone could come up with is him making a pass at a married woman.
This is how I see it. Trying to vindicate Carolyn Bryant Dunham is only done for one reason: Disdain towards Blacks. I can't think of any other reason, given what the historical facts are.
Well, considering that she lied in court, it can be concluded that Emmitt Till didn't go any further than whistling at her, or making a pass. There is no proof of him grabbing her private parts. Even Carolyn Bryant Dunham herself admitted that she lied.
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.
Your twisting the posters words to make them look bad. This is why we can't have nice debates. 