Sen. Allen, Lose the Noose

WARNING: Some graphic depictions

Lee Walker was begging in the streets of Memphis when he saw two women arrive in a buggy. He approached them and asked for alms and was refused. As the buggy started moving, he tussled with one of the women and tried to grab her valuables. He failed, was thrown to the ground, got up and fled. Five days later, around 12 o'clock at night, on Saturday July 22nd 1892, he was caught. The news of his capture soon spread and at around 10.00 AM Sunday morning, a crowd mobbed the jailhouse and took hold of Walker. He was dragged to the corner of Front St and the alley between Sycamore and Mill where he was mutilated till his skin was almost shredded. The Memphis Commercial reported the proceedings that followed thus: "A hastily improvised noose was slipped over the Negro's head and several young men mounted a pile of lumber near the pole and threw the rope over one of the iron stepping pins. The Negro was lifted up until his feet were three feet above the ground, the rope was made taut... A big fellow who helped lead the mob pulled the Negro's legs until his neck cracked."

The corpse was then set on fire. The report continued:

The rope that was used to hang the Negro, and also that which was used to lead him from the jail, were eagerly sought by relic-hunters. They almost fought for a chance to cut off a piece of rope, and in an incredibly short time both ropes had disappeared...in sections of from an inch to six inches long.  Others of the relic-hunters remained until the ashes cooled to obtain such ghastly relics as the teeth, nails and bits of charred skin...

That, Sen. George Allen, is a very brief snapshot from the long and dubious history of the noose that you displayed in your law office with much machismo and bravado. I must ask you this out of curiosity: Did you ever seek a piece of a noose used in one of the original lynchings? Did you scour and scavenge for a "trophy" noose, one that had seen "real action", before you settled on the one that you displayed?

Samuel Wilkes a.k.a. Sam Hose, 19, left his birth place of Macon, GA in search of better prospects and arrived at the farming town of Palmetto near Atlanta. For the next two years, he worked for Alfred Cranford. Then he got word that his mother was sick. He decided to return home and asked Cranford to pay him. A dispute arose. Cranford drew his gun to shoot Wilkes, who threw an ax at Cranford and fled. Cranford was killed.

Three days later, the Constitution announced under the headline "Negro will probably be burned" that

"Several modes of death have been suggested for him, but it seems to be the universal opinion that he will be burned at the stake and probably tortured before burned."

Eleven days after the murder of Cranford, on Saturday, April 23rd, 1899, Sam Hose was caught. The Constitution reported on the events that followed:

Sam Hose, the Negro murderer of Alfred Cranford and the assailant of Cranford's wife, was burned at the stake one mile and a quarter from this place this afternoon at 2:30 o'clock. Fully 2,000 people surrounded the small sapling to which he was fastened...

First he was made to remove his clothing...Before the fire was lighted his left ear was severed from his body. Then his right ear was cut away... Other portions of his body were mutilated by the knives of those who gathered about him... Oil was poured over the wood... and this was ignited... in a few minutes only a few bones and a small part of the body was all that was left ...

A photo, purported to be of Sam Hose's lynching in Newman, GA.

The Constitution's report continued: One of the most sickening sights of the day was the eagerness with which the people grabbed after souvenirs, and they almost fought over the ashes of the dead criminal. Large pieces of his flesh were carried away, and persons were seen walking through the streets carrying bones in their hands...

After the burning of Sam Hose and the souvenir taking, something even more ghastly and atrocious happened. A rumor got started that the popular black preacher Elijah Strickland had paid Wilkes to murder Cranford. No one knows how. Louis P. Le Vin, an indepedent investigator from Chicago who investigated the lynchings of Wilkes and Strickland several months later would report, "I did not talk with one white man who believed that Strickland had anything to do with Wilkes. I could not find any person who heard Wilkes mention Strickland's name." Strickland worked for Major W. W. Thomas, an ex-State senator. At about 8.30 PM on the following day, Sunday, a mob of about 15 took Strickland from his home, leaving his wife and 5 children wailing. Major Thomas soon heard the commotion and raced to rescue Strickland. The April 24th edition of Atlanta Constitution reports that the Major pleaded with the mob thus:

"Gentlemen, this Negro is innocent ... I want you to promise me that you will turn him over ... to the bailiff of this town ... in order that he may be given a hearing on his case. I do not ask that you liberate him. Hold him and if the courts adjudge him guilty, hang him."

The mob initially consented to hand over Strickland to the authorities in Newman but soon reverted. The Atlanta Constitution reports:

Three times the noose was placed around his neck and the Negro was drawn up off the ground; three times he was let down with warnings that death was in store for him should he fail to confess his complicity in the Cranford murder, and three times Strickland proclaimed his innocence, until, weary of useless torturing, the mob pulled on the rope and tied the end around the slender trunk of the persimmon tree....

Before death was allowed to end the sufferings of the Negro, his ears were cut off and the small finger of his left hand was severed at the second joint. One of these trophies was in Palmetto today...

...his lifeless body was left hanging...swinging to the limb of a persimmon tree...On the chest of the Negro was a scrap of blood-stained paper, attached with an ordinary pin...It read as follows: "Beware all darkies. You will be treated the same way."

The lynching of Lint Shaw at Royston, GA, 1936.

Sen. Allen, even to a novice student of history, the symbolism of the souvenir that you kept in your office is simply unmistakable:

That noose represents every noose ever used to tie, to drag, to torture, to hang, to break the neck of every one of the thousands of blacks lynched by savage mobs all over the country.

That noose represents every piece of noose that was ever taken as a souvenir from a lynching.

That noose represents the horrendous and barbaric pain and suffering inflicted on blacks by savage mobs.

That noose represents how cheap a dark skin on a person's body rendered the person's life.

Anyone who displays a noose in his office reveals, very transparently, a sick nostalgia for the shameful period in the history of our nation. That is simply inexcusable behavior. And yet, when an opportunity presented itself for you to show your remorse for this despicable behavior, you chose not to repent but to behave in an even more disgraceful manner.

When Sen. Landrieu drew up a resolution offering the Senate's apology for not legislating anti-lynching laws, you signed up as a co-sponsor and you maneuvered behind the scenes to prevent a roll-call vote. It is disgusting that in this 21st century some US senators would not co-sponsor the resolution. But it is even more appalling that the man who displayed a noose in his office would scuttle the senate's effort to truly apologize for its decades of silent acquiescence at the slaughtering of innocent US citizens.

We know that by co-sponsoring the resolution and scuttling a roll-call vote, you created a fake impression of apologizing while at the same time keeping your CofCC buddies happy. Yes, we know you sent the CofCC and its racist supporters a clear message: You are still with them. Do you deny you are still with them? I don't think you can because you have not renounced the CofCC three times, have you Senator? Is that not what it takes to break away from the CofCC? Have you "denied" them vociferously and publicly even once yet?

Tell me, senator, why do you so steadfastly cling to those cruel times and why do you cling on to these barbarians? Why do you refuse to step into the civilized world? Is it merely for the racist vote? Or is it for some other, deep rooted, dark reason?

What perverted "meaning" did the noose have for you when you looked at it every morning as you went to work?

Did it help to reinforce your prejudice about how cheap the life of a black person is?

Is that why you kept that noose in your office, Senator?

Did you feel an urge to be part of the lynch mobs?

Is that why you sought out the idealogical descendents of those barbaric crowds to be photographed with?

Did you ever have any black clients walk into your office and see that noose? Were you exhilarated to see the expression of revulsion and fear on their face?

Is that why you kept that noose in your office, Senator?

Did it remind you every day that colored people must be kept in "their place" and that you were going to do exactly that, no matter what?

Is that why, first as a representative in 1984 and again as the governor of Virginia in 1990s, you opposed a state holiday honoring the memory of Martin Luther King Jr, a man who tirelessly fought for civil rights and for humane treatment of all colored persons, for restoring their dignity? Allow me to present a few facts about that man. You should know them at least now.

Dr. King visiting the Gandhi memorial and cremation site, 1959.

In 1944, a 15-year old Martin Luther King entered Moorehouse college. There he learnt about Mahatma Gandhi, his techniques of nonviolent protest against oppression, and his freedom movement in India, from the Principal of the college, Dr. Benjamin Mays. He went on to graduate from the college, earn his doctorate, become the pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, assume executive membership of the NAACP, and lead the largest organized nonviolent civil rights movement in the history of the United States. In 1959, he made a pilgrimage to Gandhi's memorial.

On his return, he said in a sermon: "The world doesn't like people like Mahatma Gandhi. That's strange, isn't it? They don't like people like Christ, nor do they like people like Lincoln.  They killed Gandhi...The man who shot Gandhi only shot him into the hearts of humanity. For the same reason that Abraham Lincoln was shot ... Gandhi was shot - that is, the attempt to heal the wounds of a divided nation. When Abraham Lincoln was shot, Secretary Stanton stood by and said, `Now he belongs to the ages.' The same thing is true of Mahatma Gandhi now: He belongs to the ages."

On April 4th, 1968, a racist shot Martin Luther King into the hearts of humanity. For the same reason that Gandhi and Lincoln were shot - that is, the attempt to heal the wounds of a divided nation. He now belongs to the ages. Like Christ, Gandhi and Lincoln.

And in 1984 you voted against honoring this man.

And later as governor of VA you once more opposed honoring this man.

And now you point out the great-grandson of Gandhi's secretary to an all-white crowd and label him an asiatic monkey.

Senator, why do you oppose honoring apostles of peace and insult the people they set free?

Why do you align yourself with racist groups that are the idealogical descendants of the lynch mobs, display lynching "memorablia" in your office, scuttle the senate's effort to truly apologize for not passing anti-lynching laws and label an Indian-American an asiatic monkey?

Do you revel in the gory and gruesome deeds of the lynch mobs? Do you feel an urge to associate with racists? To use racist slurs? To condone and acquiesce the inhumane treatment of colored people?

Are you a racist, Sen. Allen?

Do you feel the same animosity and animal hatred the lynch mobs felt towards colored people and other minorities?

Are you a racist, Sen. Allen?

If you are not a racist, why aren't you denouncing the CofCC and all its parent and sibling racist organizations not three times, but thirty times?

If you are not a racist, why aren't you unambiguously renouncing them and their hate-filled message?

If you are not a racist, why aren't you supporting legislations honoring the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.?

If you are not a racist, why aren't you strongly supportive of a roll-call vote for the senate resolution?

If you are not a racist, why aren't you apologizing to Indian-Americans without winking at the white folks in the audience first?

If you are not a racist, why do you keep saying Virginians don't care if their senator makes racist remarks?

Comments