According to some folks over at the American Spectator, Shirley Sherrod's relative was not lynched. He was just beaten to death by a mob of white men.
Apparently for some members of the Reagan Administration, a racially motivated killing by a group of white males does not equal a lynching in the south during the 1950s.
In fact he seems to defend those who killed Sherrod's relative.
What difference is there between a savage murder by fist and blackjack -- and by dangling rope? Obviously, in the practical sense, none. But in the heyday -- a very long time -- of the Klan, there were frequent (and failed) attempts to pass federal anti-lynching laws. None to pass federal "anti-black jack" or "anti-fisticuffs" laws. Lynching had a peculiar, one is tempted to say grotesque, solitary status as part of the romantic image of the Klan, of the crazed racist. The image stirred by the image of the noosed rope in the hands of a racist lynch mob was, to say the least, frighteningly chilling.
Part of the romantic image of the Klan? Really?
He admits the following.
After Shirley Sherrod's firing I wrote a column congratulating Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack for removing her -- based on a viewing of the now infamous edited Breitbart clip. I was wrong. I should have waited to see the entire video or read the transcript before writing a word. So my apologies to Ms. Sherrod.
His judgement wasn't very good to begin with, so why the fuck should we beleive anything he writes again. Oh obviously since the Supreme Court case of the trial, which we all know HAD to be 100% accurate, considering the history of Plessy vs. Ferguson. Or maybe for a Reaganite, Roe vs. Wade.
The very first paragraph of the Supreme Court decision states:
1. Upon review of a judgment affirming the conviction, for violation of § 20 of the Criminal Code and conspiracy thereunto, of local law enforcement officers who arrested a negro citizen for a state offense and wrongfully beat him to death, the judgment is reversed with directions for a new trial.
In other words, the Supreme Court of the United States, with the basic facts of the case agreed to by all nine Justices in Screws vs. the U.S. Government, says not one word about Bobby Hall being lynched. Why? Because it never happened.
I mean, with the basic facts of the Roe vs Wade case the Supreme Court never referred to Abortion as murder. So it must not be under this logic, am I right Mr.
Lord?
This kind of racist writing should not be tolerated by anyone at any magazine. Jeffrey Lord should resign or be fired. And we need to make this happen. To refuse to call something which is clearly murder, and clearly a lynching not a lynching nor even murder is racism.
Jeffrey Lords statements clearly seem to say that he believes that in 50's it was ok to kill innocent black men.
