Shirley Sherrod's Lynching Story is False!!

This story continues to develop day in and day out and it just makes me wonder even more about how this whole story broke to begin with. The timing and the circumstances surrounding the whole dog and pony show are highly suspect.

Now this!! Thanks to some good old fashioned research and investigating.

Shirley Sherrod's story in her now famous speech about the lynching of a relative is not true. The veracity and credibility of the onetime Agriculture Department bureaucrat at the center of the explosive controversy between the NAACP and conservative media activist Andrew Breitbart is now directly under challenge. By nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court. All of them dead....

I have now done exactly what I should have done originally. So there's no mistake about "selective editing" of videos or speech transcripts, here is a link to the website of the NAACP, where they have made a point of posting the full video of Shirley Sherrod's speech. I have seen the entire speech as supplied by the NAACP. The now-famous speech runs just over 40 minutes. If you don't have the time, here is a link to the printed transcript of her speech supplied by a site called American Rhetoric Online Speech Bank. The transcript is taken in full from the video version of her speech, which American rhetoric also supplies. I have read the transcript as well.

In her speech, Ms. Sherrod says this:

I should tell you a little about Baker County. In case you don't know where it is, it's located less than 20 miles southwest of Albany. Now, there were two sheriffs from Baker County that -- whose names you probably never heard but I know in the case of one, the thing he did many, many years ago still affect us today. And that sheriff was Claude Screws. Claude Screws lynched a black man. And this was at the beginning of the 40s. And the strange thing back then was an all-white federal jury convicted him not of murder but of depriving Bobby Hall -- and I should say that Bobby Hall was a relative -- depriving him of his civil rights.

Plain as day, Ms. Sherrod says that Bobby Hall, a Sherrod relative, was lynched. As she puts it, describing the actions of the 1940s-era Sheriff Claude Screws: "Claude Screws lynched a black man."

This is not true. It did not happen. How do we know this?

Now the facts and of the course the truth regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of Bobby Hall and his relationship to Sherrod...

The case, Screws vs. the U.S. Government, as she accurately says in the next two paragraphs, made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Which, with the agreement of all nine Justices of the day -- which is to say May 7, 1945 -- stated the facts of the killing of Bobby Hall this way:

The arrest was made late at night at Hall's home on a warrant charging Hall with theft of a tire. Hall, a young negro about thirty years of age, was handcuffed and taken by car to the courthouse. As Hall alighted from the car at the courthouse square, the three petitioners began beating him with their fists and with a solid-bar blackjack about eight inches long and weighing two pounds. They claimed Hall had reached for a gun and had used insulting language as he alighted from the car. But after Hall, still handcuffed, had been knocked to the ground, they continued to beat him from fifteen to thirty minutes until he was unconscious. Hall was then dragged feet first through the courthouse yard into the jail and thrown upon the floor, dying. An ambulance was called, and Hall was removed to a hospital, where he died within the hour and without regaining consciousness. There was evidence that Screws held a grudge against Hall, and had threatened to "get" him.

Bobby Hall was not lynched. He was brutally beaten and died in a hospital from his wounds. A sad story indeed!!

Was Sherrod simply not aware of the facts or was she simply embellishing for the sake of her attentive audience? Only she holds the key to those questions and will she actually own up to the truth.

The conviction of Bobby Halls killers was overturned by a 5 to 4 margin but Sherrod failed to mention in her speech that the deciding 5th vote to overturn the conviction was cast by Justice Hugo Black a lifetime member of the KKK.

More on Hugo Black:

Who was Hugo Black?

One of the finer books written on this subject recently was Bruce Bartlett's Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past.

Mr. Black joined the Ku Klux Klan on September 13, 1923. Bartlett, citing a Black biographer, writes this of the future Justice's Klan activities: Black was "marching in (Klan) parades, speaking at Klan meetings throughout Alabama, and wearing the Klan regalia, including hood and mask. Historian J. Mills Thornton says Black's involvement with the Klan was 'extensive and ardent.'"

Hugo Black was, of course, a lawyer. His law partner? That would be a man named Crampton Harris. Mr. Harris was the Klan "Cyclops" of the Birmingham Klavern. Does this weird term ring a recent bell? It should. "Exalted Cyclops" was the Klan post held in a later time in West Virginia -- by another prominent future Democratic Senator named Robert Byrd.

Enough said... Sherrod should read this story to understand the facts about Hall's death and about the DC history that is steeped in racism and that surrounds her everyday.

The story continues and is quite interesting. All I can say after reading it is "I'll be damned..."

spectator.org...

reply to post by jibeho


Thanks for posting this thread, as others continue to blame the conservative news network as if it was some kind of a conspiracy...you sir continue to search for more context and facts.

Interesting read and this Sherrod is now a lightning rod for this administration and their allies. This administration politicized race from the get go by labeling those who criticize as racists. Yet their circles consist of some of the most vile and despicable racists/reverse racists that continue to come out of the closet.

Uhm

Please tell me you are not serious.

How was this man not lynched?

Ohhhhhhh I think I get it. You must think that to be lynched, you must be hanged.

Theres no doubt this person was lynched.

Bobby Hall was not lynched. He was brutally beaten and died in a hospital from his wounds. A sad story indeed!!

Thats lynching dude. The typical reason black people were hung was as a message to other black people. Seeing someone hanging from a tree usually has a more symbolic mental image than just lying dead on the ground.

Lynching is killing someone without due process of law. Beating, burning, shooting, hanging.

Dead

Lynched

This article, and your post are tasteless at best. This woman has been through enough, now this?

You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

reply to post by ThaLoccster


Absolutely correct!

Star for you!

Form Wikipedia:

Lynching is extrajudicial punishment carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake and shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people, however large or small.

EDIT TO ADD:

The term lynching probably derived from the name Charles Lynch (1736-96), a justice of the peace who administered rough justice in Virginia.

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by ThaLoccster



I don't think you read the article.

It's also possible that she knew the truth and chose to embellish it, changing a brutal and fatal beating to a lynching. Anyone who has lived in the American South (as my family once did) and is familiar with American history knows well the dread behind stories of lynch mobs and the Klan. 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. Did Ms. Sherrod deliberately concoct this story in search of a piece of that ugly romance to add "glamour" to a family story that is gut-wrenchingly horrendous already?

Furthermore, simply ask anyone what image comes to mind when one mentions a "lynching". The common image will certainly involve a man hanging from a rope.

I'll let her speak for herself instead of interpreting what Wikipedia has to say about lynchings.

Originally posted by jibeho
I'll let her speak for herself instead of interpreting what Wikipedia has to say about lynchings.

What about Merriam Webster's? Is that good enough for you? Or is the simplistic (ignorant) definition what you choose to follow as your guideline?

Main Entry: lynch
Pronunciation: \ˈlinch\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: lynch law
Date: 1836

: to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction

www.merriam-webster.com...

reply to post by ThaLoccster


In regards to the OP....my sentiments ECHOED!!!!

You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

The insane "right-wing" and its followers in this country are nothing but vitriolic crybabies....it was nearing this level of "white noise" back during the Clinton administration.

But, compared to nowadays, there is a ramped-up and disgusting, UTTER disregard for civility anymore because "THEY" just simply cannot stand that A) They lost the election and; B) They lost to 'that man'....


(and I used the phrase "white noise" in quotes in the way you think, yes...in case you were wondering...)
~~~~

World Cup Mania may be over, but hopefully this is still topical enough:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0d8195c70474.jpg[/atsimg]







[edit on 26 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Aggie Man


Thank you and thanks to Webster. That definition just gives credibility to the article and to what I said about the common image of a lynching.

Up until the point when the meaning of a lynching was brought up, I always associated it with a hanging. I'm sure the majority of Americans would as well.

That is the common image and definition. That can't be changed and that is why Webster defines it as such.

reply to post by jibeho


It doesn't matter what image comes to mind.

I'm from the south, and honestly for me it doesn't equal hanging.

For many others when they think of lynching they might think of hanging.

I think of it as a person being killed by a group of people.

Like I said in my original post, hanging was symbolic because it left a more longing mental impression.

Some people might say "car" and think of a camaro, that doesn't mean a dodge dart isn't a car.

This thread has seriously made me want to slap someone.

Deny ignorance...embrace it...does anyone know the difference anymore?

I'm saying that more and more frequently lately, I guess I should make it my signature and save my breath.

And you won't let her speak for herself, hell you've already condemned her as a liar before understanding the definition of lynch.

#ing classic.

reply to post by jibeho


Fine I'll play that game.

When you think of "racism" what image comes to mind?

For almost anyone alive, it will be a black man hanged by a white man. Or no negros allowed here signs, or Martin Luther King.

That is PROOF that only whites can be racists.

This thread got real idiotic, real fast. And thats saying alot, considering how it started....

Wow. This is a disease, isn't it? Ignorance at its finest. This is stretched so far beyond the bounds of logic and common sense that it's downright frightening.

Seems to me a lot of people with no moral center and no ability to think for themselves need to stop following their masters and start doing a lot of soul searching here. And taking a deep breath. And thinking.

Do us all a favor please and at the very freaking LEAST say it MAY be so. (And oh by the way, this will also help you when you are kindly or maybe even no so kindly shown the error of your ways.)



[edit on 7/26/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

Thank you and thanks to Webster. That definition just gives credibility to the article and to what I said about the common image of a lynching.

"Common image" and true definition are two different things. The "(as by hanging)" in Webster's definition is only an example.

Here is the Legal definition of "Lynching":

A lynching is a killing by a mob of people

definitions.uslegal.com...

You see, Sherrod did not lie, nor did she embellish. It's your "street" definition that is skewed, not the other way around.

Not good enough? Here's another:

Violent punishment or execution, without due process, for real or alleged crimes

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by ThaLoccster


So let's just turn this game into a classic battle of semantics. Sorry, that does not work.

You grew up in the South so you must understand the the legal definition of a lynch. I understand that. However, I grew up in on a farm in a small Ohio town and to me and to Webster a lynching is a hanging. Historical images of lynchings involve a human being hanging from a rope. EVEN on the WIKI page that has been so proudly paraded around this thread. There are 3 IMAGES on that page depicting 2 men and 1 woman hanging from a rope. What does that tell you?? Don't read the wiki text, just look at the pictures.

I am not defending the crazed lynch mentality of old or the actions of the 3 officers who beat Hall to death. Nowadays that is called Police Brutality and the use of excess force and it is also called murder.

reply to post by jibeho


Actually, whether know it or not that is exactly what you are doing.

I think it goes towards what I've said earlier, that hanging is the most widely known form of lynching. But in no way does it mean a beating is not a lynching.

I'm not arguing the fact that hanging is probably the most wide known form of lynching, but its not unique to that act.

Your misunderstanding, or predispostion to a term doesn't change what the term actually means.

I'm sorry that in Ohio you didn't know that there are other forms of lynching than hanging, but that lack of knowledge doesn't imply that others with the knowledge are liars, wrong, or whatever else you'd like to claim.

EDIT:

And websters isn't confused about the definiton. They say "as by hanging", showing an example, not the only way.

[edit on 7/26/2010 by ThaLoccster]

All I have to say is if that is a lynching, then people are STILL getting lynched.
Blacks, whites, hispanic.
So, is there a distinction or not?

reply to post by Aggie Man

You see, Sherrod did not lie, nor did she embellish. It's your "street" definition that is skewed, not the other way around.

My street definition?? If that makes you feel better. Why does Webster define it as a hanging. Is that just a street definition. Why the constant image of a human hanging from a rope whenever you read about a lynching??

Lynching

more lynching


More images

Need I go on....??? The average american and apparently the average book author on the subject of lynchings all seem to associate it with a hanging based on the images that are constantly presented and ETCHED into our minds. How can you run from that fact??

Deny ignorance indeed. Take your own advice...

[edit on 26-7-2010 by jibeho]

Wow folks eat up the bs. Perception is what this is about. Lucidity I just read a thread by you complaining about people wanting Obama dead yet here you deny the choice of words is made to evoke a certain image. Three people make a mob? The killing was a vendetta by a crooked leo and croonies. She was trying to evoke certain images in the mind of a naacp audience that would draw the conclusions she wanted them to.

reply to post by jibeho


Why do you continue to insist that webster supports your definition of lynching. If that dictionary had meant to define lynching as death by hanging it would say "...death by hanging...", not "...death (as by hanging)...".

reply to post by jibeho


So the whole point of this thread is that you say she lied because of your own ignorant interpretation of the word "lynch?" Is that really what this is all about here?

Is it that hard to just admit you now know what the word really means and the whole point of this thread was faulty?

Originally posted by hangedman13
Wow folks eat up the bs. Perception is what this is about. Lucidity I just read a thread by you complaining about people wanting Obama dead yet here you deny the choice of words is made to evoke a certain image. Three people make a mob? The killing was a vendetta by a crooked leo and croonies. She was trying to evoke certain images in the mind of a naacp audience that would draw the conclusions she wanted them to.

How do you know what kind of image she was trying to invoke?

How do you know that audience was unaware of the actual meaning of the word? I would guess if anyone is familiar with the real word "lynch" it would be an adult NAACP audience.