>>108871246Look it takes a fair amount of independent study. But the skinny of it is this. It's ridiculous to water down lynchings to "something racist whites did because they didn't like blacks" that isn't to say it never happened but that was almost never the reason, again, a lynching is execution by mob justice. No trial, no jury just little more than a rumor and enough angry men are all that's necessary, it's even easier if the target is not well liked. The demographics of lynchings are hard to pin down, due to being illegal and all, however due to segregation most races kept their "justice" in house, except for areas where mingling is unavoidable (read cities), most lynchings were in the territories as law was not as capable, but as the law was more well established they eventually dwindled, in the later years before police presence made mob justice almost impractical, you would find lynchings could be attributed to mistrust of the courts or flares of public anger. Again, the races tried to keep things in house, however the divide came about from police, courts and judges being practically all white, therefore white mobs became less common except for particularly malicious crimes with emotions running hot, or if the perp were black and of low standing (whether or not the accusations were true are another matter but practically irrelevant, however the black quarters of the city were often reluctant to bring "white man's justice" into their town So lynchings were fairly frequent, that is before dying out due to increased publicity and law enforcement capabilities. Lynching in all cases is wrong for many reasons, but until fairly recently many people thought it was the only way. If you'd like to read up on it feel free, but it's going to take effort, history like many things is tainted by bias, and often times you'll find credible theories you won't like or contradict what you thought you knew.
