>>5185859 (pb)
I'll take a crack:
Lynching is defined as killing (especially hanging) someone for a real or alleged offense without a legal trial (due process).
Apparently, unsuccessful efforts were made to pass anti-lynching laws in Congress in the early 1900s and again in the 1930s.
What I can't seem to understand is how laws would even need to be passed for this to be illegal. The apparent implication, perhaps, is that there is some legality to lynching. I can't see how, but maybe someone else knows.
FYI, lynching was not just limited to blacks. Whites were sometimes lynched too…
… and there's the famous case of Leo Frank–a Jew, who raped and killed a 13 yr. old girl named Mary Phagan, was convicted and sentenced to hang, the bribed another judge on appeal (and tried to blame an innocent black man) and had the conviction overturned. The people of Atlanta took justice into their own hands and lynched him. This is the case which spawned the ADL into existence (claiming anti-semitism). Franks wife (a Jew) refused to be buried next to her husband, because she knew he was guilty (disproving anti-semitism canard).
Not sure if anyone was charged with a crime for lyching Leo Frank. Which means probably not. Which means lynching seems to have some legality to it.
this site has more info if any anons are interested:
https://theamericanmercury.org/2013/04/100-reasons-proving-leo-frank-is-guilty/
(no idea as to character or credibility of site. seems to have very heavy focus on Jews (particularly this case), so evaluate accordingly, if interested.)