[Governor Dinwiddie]

Lynching does not imply innocence. When one goes back and reads the details of these cases, there are usually numerous witnesses to the crimes for which the person was lynched.

The crime in lynching was primarily that the guilty party was deprived of his Constitutional rights to due process. I'm sure there were instances when a innocent person may have been lynched. But for the majority of cases there is usually a body of strong evidence that the lynched party was guilty.
 

[Bringbackthedraft]

But for the majority of cases there is usually a body of strong evidence that the lynched party was guilty................................ Would that apply to, say, Saint Kittles?

[T-Bone Texan]

"...Lynching does not imply innocence...."

Thank you for your enlightened post.

The thing that strikes me in researching the antebellum South is that lynching occurs almost solely when the local populace lacks faith in the criminal justice system of their community.

Lynching was seen as doing justice to circumvent the corruption of the court system.

But this is merely my observation. Others please chime in.