Thank you bring this case up and wading through the disturbing history, and the history where the paper disappeared in an attempt to erase it.

There’s two kind of lynchings I’ve determined, after having just finished reading through an account one hundred years of lynching and all the newspaper accounts, as well the “picture book” introduced by John Lewis, and many other online accounts. My opinion is that it should be renamed Government Execution (GE). The other maybe something simple like White Murder of Blacks (a WMB — because it is a weapon of mass destruction and terror).
The GE is a legally done execution through the due process of law under the government. It may be right or wrong how that constitutional due process was done, how quickly a judge or a judge and jury decided, but it was done and they were sent the official criminal to the gallows with the noose, the physical sign of the lynch.
Then there is the WMB, where there is no US government constitutional due process, the judge, jury and executioner are a group of white men, something’s having a quick trial after the allegation outside, most times just and allegation, which everyone becomes aware of. Only their white male “government” is involved. One key purpose of these organized WMB is to demonstrate who is in control: Not the US government. The US government gives liberty and justice to all, which is a diverse group of people, really any human. In fact, John Adams was the lawyer for one of the four defendants down on the docks in Boston, where, in 1770, the diverse group of ruffians started a fight with the white redcoats representing the ruling autocrat, the white supremacist King who literally owned the Colonies and the company that controlled Boston. I know this because King George was furious, marched into Parliament and said, What is happening with this nasty uprising in “My Colony”, “My” Massachusetts Bay company. He was angry and clearly said MY. Because it was his.
The point is John Adams, who understood very clearly that natural rights are for everyone, and not white supremacists, spread the myth deliberately about Crispus Attucks and his motley racially mixed lower class diverse group instigating the rebellion. He told John Hancock who readily agreed. The point here is that there is a strain in American history where “liberty and justice for all” embedded in the principles of “inalienable rights” meant exactly that. They were highly aware of the open abolitionist movement starting with first booklet written near Philadelphia in 1688 advocating to free the slaves under those principles, and all the talk and discussion that spread up north around that philosophical ideal that developed over those decades of natural inalienable rights, talked about in the pubs, at the docks and town squares. This was the primary social contact used to directly oppose the social contract of autocracy of the King as seen in Leviathan by Hobbs. These two fundamental differences were clear back then.
But that stark contrast of philosophy, between the foundational ideals of democracy versus autocracy, faded. The Pro-Slavers were never going live under a set of ideals that would free their property and “steal their heritage” and they didn’t. The continued to live under British law in the South, until 1865. Their state constitutions reflect that law and those beliefs and they bent the historical narrative to their will, continually attacking the founding myth until now they claim it was a white boy in February who started the revolution one month before Crispus and co. instigated a fight flamed by injustice, going against John Adams narrative who was actually there. They’ve done their best to erase or significantly alter the American narrative and the fact they did not abolish slavery like the Northern states did by 1804 that today people mindless repeat “America abolished slavery in 1865”, a fact that is not historically true of accurate. Nor is it true Lincoln abolished slavery, because he was a lawyer and knew he didn’t have the power to. He issued an E.O., an executive order, as commander in chief, which had the fancy name “Emancipation Proclamation” but was basically an EO. People today simply do not stop and think: Only Congress could have ended slavery, because only Congress can write laws, make laws, and pass laws. This garbage narrative about Lincoln ending slavery is how history has been bent against the structure underlying it. We Americans have a three branch system of government apparently that everyone forgets or doesn’t realize when they read the stupid sentence “Lincoln ended slavery,” a structural impossibility.
The Americans in the north live under due process of GE. THe Southerns never have, and live under their own legal process of WMB, Lynch’s law. It’s there law. Their legal right to kill “rebellious” black enslaved people may have officially ended in 1865 but they have accepted it and have never stopped fighting that war. If you’ve grown up in American any time from 1910 onward, especially if you are black and have to read history texts books in school, they were forced to learn this bent, compromised American narrative full of falseness, twisted truths, where northern (and western liberal whites) have continually placated the real narratives under the relentless white confederate supremacist “truth” of a “Christian Nation” and a “white men founding this nation” garbage.
Those confederates have never, and I mean never in our history, accepted the due process rights of black American citizens under the Constitution crafted under the ideal of natural inalienable rights. You can have your beliefs in your America that is written in principles, but they are determined to keep theirs, where they know the principles but won’t write them down. They only accept white man’s justice, which is continually dangling at the end of rope, with a black body hanging for days on end to make that very point.