Michael Gerson

First, a little background on the man.  Michael John Gerson (born May 15, 1964) is an op-ed columnist for The Washington Post, a Policy Fellow with One Campaign, a visiting fellow with the Center for Public Justice, and a former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.  He served as President George W. Bush‘s chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, as a senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006, and was a member of the White House Iraq Group.


He helped write the inaugural address for the second inauguration of George W. Bush, which called for neo-conservative intervention and nation-building around the world to effect the spread of democracy to third world countries.  In 2018, Gerson and commentator Amy Holmes co-hosted In Principle, a politically conservative-oriented television talk show that ran for eight episodes on PBS.


Gerson was raised in an Evangelical Christian family in St. Louis, Missouri.  He attending Westminster Christian Academy for high school.  His paternal grandfather was Jewish.  He attended Georgetown University for a year and then transferred to Wheaton College in Illinois, graduating in 1986.  Before joining the Bush Administration, he was a senior policy advisor with The Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy research institution.  He also worked at various times as an aide to Indiana Senator Dan Coats and a speechwriter for the Presidential campaign of Bob Dole before briefly leaving the political world to cover it as a journalist for U.S. News & World Report.   Gerson also worked at one point as a ghostwriter for Charles Colson.  In early 1999, Karl Rove recruited Gerson for the Bush campaign.  Gerson was named by Time as one of “The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals In America.”   The February 7, 2005 issue listed Gerson as the ninth most influential.   After leaving the White House, Gerson wrote for Newsweek magazine for a time.  On May 16, 2007, Gerson began his tenure as a twice-weekly columnist for The Washington Post.   His columns appear on Wednesdays and Fridays.  Gerson, a neo-conservative, has repeatedly criticized other conservatives in his column and conservatives have returned the favor.  One of Gerson’s first columns was entitled “Letting Fear Rule”, in which he compared skeptics of President Bush’s immigration reform bill to nativist bigots of the 1880s.  In October 2017, Gerson referred to President Trump’s “fundamental unfitness for high office” and asked whether he is “psychologically and morally equipped to be president?   And could his unfitness cause permanent damage to the country?”   He cited “the leaked cries for help coming from within the administration.  They reveal a president raging against enemies, obsessed by slights, deeply uninformed and incurious, unable to focus, and subject to destructive whims.”   



I have always and will always question the devout loyalty of  many Christians to an immoral man (my opinion) such as Donald Trump.  Gerson echos my concerns in (excerpts from) an article he wrote in 2018 :


The Last Temptation 

How evangelicals, once culturally competent, became an anxious minority seeking political protection from the least traditionally religious president – in temperament, behavior, and evident belief – in living memory.

April 2018       [ TheAtlantic.com ]


One of the most extraordinary things about our current politics—really, one of the most extraordinary developments of recent political history—is the loyal adherence of religious conservatives to Donald Trump.  The president won four-fifths of the votes of white evangelical Christians.  This was a higher level of support than either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, an outspoken evangelical himself, ever received.  Trump’s background and beliefs could hardly be more incompatible with traditional Christian models of life and leadership.  Trump’s past political stances (he once supported the right to partial-birth abortion), his character (he has bragged about sexually assaulting women), and even his language (he introduced the words pussy and shithole into presidential discourse) would more naturally lead religious conservatives toward exorcism than alliance.  This is a man who has cruelly publicized his infidelities, made disturbing sexual comments about his elder daughter, and boasted about the size of his penis on the debate stage.  His lawyer reportedly arranged a $130,000 payment to a porn star to dissuade her from disclosing an alleged affair.  Yet religious conservatives who once blanched at PG-13 public standards now yawn at such NC-17 maneuvers.  We are a long way from The Book of Virtues.


Trump supporters tend to dismiss moral scruples about his behavior as squeamishness over the president’s “style.”   But the problem is the distinctly non-Christian substance of his valuesTrump’s unapologetic materialism—his equation of financial and social success with human achievement and worth—is a negation of Christian teaching.  His tribalism and hatred for “the other” stand in direct opposition to Jesus’s radical ethic of neighbor love.  Trump’s strength-worship and contempt for “losers” smack more of Nietzsche than of Christ.  Blessed are the proud.  Blessed are the ruthless.  Blessed are the shameless.  Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after fame.


And yet, a credible case can be made that evangelical votes were a decisive factor in Trump’s improbable victory.  Trump himself certainly acts as if he believes they were.  Many individuals, causes, and groups that Trump pledged to champion have been swiftly sidelined or sacrificed during Trump’s brief presidency.  The administration’s outreach to white evangelicals, however, has been utterly consistent.


Trump-allied religious leaders have found an open door at the White House—what Richard Land, the president of the Southern Evangelical Seminary, calls “unprecedented access.”   In return, they have rallied behind the administration in its times of need.  “Clearly, this Russian story is nonsense,” explains the mega-church pastor Paula White-Cain, who is not generally known as a legal or cybersecurity expert.  Pastor David Jeremiah has compared Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump to Joseph and Mary: “It’s just like God to use a young Jewish couple to help Christians.”   According to Jerry Falwell Jr., evangelicals have “found their dream president,” which says something about the current quality of evangelical dreams.


Loyalty to Trump has involved progressively more difficult, self-abasing demands. And there appears to be no limit to what some evangelical leaders will endure.  Figures such as Falwell and Franklin Graham followed Trump’s lead in supporting Judge Roy Moore in the December Senate election in Alabama.  These are religious leaders who have spent their entire adult lives bemoaning cultural and moral decay.  Yet they publicly backed a candidate who was repeatedly accused of sexual misconduct, including with a 14-year-old girl.


In January, following reports that Trump had referred to Haiti and African nations as “shithole countries,” Pastor Robert Jeffress came quickly to his defense.  “Apart from the vocabulary attributed to him,” Jeffress wrote, “President Trump is right on target in his sentiment.”   After reports emerged that Trump’s lawyer paid hush money to the porn star Stormy Daniels to cover up their alleged sexual encounter, Graham vouched for Trump’s “concern for Christian values.”   Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, argued that Trump should be given a “mulligan” for his past infidelity.  One can only imagine the explosion of outrage if President Barack Obama had been credibly accused of similar offenses.


The moral convictions of many evangelical leaders have become a function of their partisan identification. This is not mere gullibility; it is utter corruption.  Blinded by political tribalism and hatred for their political opponents, these leaders can’t see how they are undermining the causes to which they once dedicated their lives.  Little remains of a distinctly Christian public witness.  As the prominent evangelical pastor Tim Keller—who is not a Trump loyalist—recently wrote in The New Yorker, “ ‘Evangelical’ used to denote people who claimed the high moral ground; now, in popular usage, the word is nearly synonymous with ‘hypocrite.’ ”   So it is little wonder that last year the Princeton Evangelical Fellowship, an 87-year-old ministry, dropped the “E word” from its name, becoming the Princeton Christian Fellowship: Too many students had identified the term with conservative political ideology.  Indeed, a number of serious evangelicals are distancing themselves from the word for similar reasons.


I find this desire understandable but not compelling.  Some words, like strategic castles, are worth defending, and evangelical is among them.  While the term is notoriously difficult to define, it certainly encompasses a “born-again” religious experience, a commitment to the authority of the Bible, and an emphasis on the redemptive power of Jesus Christ.


I was raised in an evangelical home, went to an evangelical church and high school, and began following Christ as a teen. After attending Georgetown University for a year, I transferred to Wheaton College in Illinois—sometimes called “the Harvard of evangelical Protestantism”—where I studied theology.  I worked at an evangelical nonprofit, Prison Fellowship, before becoming a staffer for Senator Dan Coats of Indiana (a fellow Wheaton alum).  On Capitol Hill, I found many evangelical partners in trying to define a “compassionate conservatism.”   And as a policy adviser and the chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush, I saw how evangelical leaders such as Rick and Kay Warren could be principled, tireless advocates in the global fight against aids.  Those experiences make me hesitant to abandon the word evangelical.  They also make seeing the defilement of that word all the more painful. The corruption of a political party is regrettable.  The corruption of a religious tradition by politics is tragic, shaming those who participate in it.


How did something so important and admirable become so disgraced? For many people, including myself, this question involves both intellectual analysis and personal angst.  The answer extends back some 150 years, and involves cultural and political shifts that long pre-date Donald Trump. It is the story of how an influential and culturally confident religious movement became a marginalized and anxious minority seeking political protection under the wing of a man such as Trump, the least traditionally Christian figure—in temperament, behavior, and evident belief—to assume the presidency in living memory.   Understanding that evolution requires understanding the values that once animated American evangelicalism. It is a movement that was damaged in the fall from a great height.


Modern evangelicalism has an important intellectual piece missing.  It lacks a model or ideal of political engagement—an organizing theory of social action.  Over the same century from Blanchard to Falwell, Catholics developed a coherent, comprehensive tradition of social and political reflection.  Catholic social thought includes a commitment to solidarity, whereby justice in a society is measured by the treatment of its weakest and most vulnerable members.  And it incorporates the principle of subsidiarity—the idea that human needs are best met by small and local institutions (though higher-order institutions have a moral responsibility to intervene when local ones fail).   In practice, this acts as an “if, then” requirement for Catholics, splendidly complicating their politics: If you want to call yourself pro-life on abortion, then you have to oppose the dehumanization of migrants.  If you criticize the devaluation of life by euthanasia, then you must criticize the devaluation of life by racism.  If you want to be regarded as pro-family, then you have to support access to health care.  And vice versa.  The doctrinal whole requires a broad, consistent view of justice, which—when it is faithfully applied—cuts across the categories and clichés of American politics.  Of course, American Catholics routinely ignore Catholic social thought.  But at least they have it.  Evangelicals lack a similar tradition of their own to disregard.


Donald Trump could almost have been echoing the apocalyptic warnings of Metaxas and Graham when he declared, “Our country’s going to hell.”   Or: “We haven’t seen anything like this, the carnage all over the world.”   Evangelicals would prove highly vulnerable to [this] message of resentful, declinist populism.  Given Trump’s general level of religious knowledge, he likely had no idea that he was adapting premillennialism to populism.   But when the candidate talked of an America in decline and headed toward destruction, which could be returned to greatness only by recovering the certainties of the past, he was strumming resonant chords of evangelical conviction.  Trump consistently depicts evangelicals as they depict themselves: a mistreated minority, in need of a defender who plays by worldly rules.  Christianity is “under siege,” Trump told a Liberty University audience. “Relish the opportunity to be an outsider,” he added at a later date: “Embrace the label.”   Protecting Christianity, Trump essentially argues, is a job for a bully.


It is true that insofar as Christian hospitals or colleges have their religious liberty threatened by hostile litigation or government agencies, they have every right to defend their institutional identities—to advocate for a principled pluralism.  But this is different from evangelicals regarding themselves, hysterically and with self-pity, as an oppressed minority that requires a strongman to rescue it.  This is how Trump has invited evangelicals to view themselves.  He has treated evangelicalism as an interest group in need of protection and preferences.


A prominent company of evangelical leaders—including Dobson, Falwell, Graham, Jeffress, Metaxas, Perkins, and Ralph Reed—has embraced this self-conception.  Their justification is often bluntly utilitarian: All of Trump’s flaws are worth his conservative judicial appointments and more-favorable treatment of Christians by the government.  But they have gone much further than grudging, prudential calculation.  They have basked in access to power and provided character references in the midst of scandal.  Graham castigated the critics of Trump’s response to the violence during a white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia (“Shame on the politicians who are trying to push blame on @POTUS”).   Dobson has pronounced Trump a “baby Christian”—a political use of grace that borders on blasphemy.   “Complaining about the temperament of the @POTUS or saying his behavior is not presidential is no longer relevant,” Falwell tweeted.   “[Donald Trump] has single-handedly changed the definition of what behavior is ‘presidential’ from phony, failed & rehearsed to authentic, successful & down to earth.”  


It is remarkable to hear religious leaders defend profanity, ridicule, and cruelty as hallmarks of authenticity and dismiss decency as a dead language.  Whatever Trump’s policy legacy ends up being, his presidency has been a disaster in the realm of norms.  It has coarsened our culture, given permission for bullying, complicated the moral formation of children, undermined standards of public integrity, and encouraged cynicism about the political enterprise.  Falwell, Graham, and others are providing religious cover for moral squalor—winking at trashy behavior and encouraging the unraveling of social restraints.  Instead of defending their convictions, they are providing preemptive absolution for their political favorites.  And this, even by purely political standards, undermines the causes they embrace. Turning a blind eye to the exploitation of women certainly doesn’t help in making pro-life arguments.  It materially undermines the movement, which must ultimately change not only the composition of the courts but the views of the public.  Having given politics pride of place, these evangelical leaders have ceased to be moral leaders in any meaningful sense.


“Every strong Trump supporter has decided that racism is not a moral disqualification in the president of the United States.”


But setting matters of decency aside, evangelicals are risking their faith’s reputation on matters of race.  Trump has, after all, attributed Kenyan citizenship to Obama, stereotyped Mexican migrants as murderers and rapists, claimed unfair treatment in federal court based on a judge’s Mexican heritage, attempted an unconstitutional Muslim ban, equivocated on the Charlottesville protests, claimed (according to The New York Times) that Nigerians would never “go back to their huts” after seeing America, and dismissed Haitian and African immigrants as undesirable compared with Norwegians.  For some of Trump’s political allies, racist language and arguments are part of his appeal.  For evangelical leaders, they should be sources of anguish.  Given America’s history of slavery and segregation, racial prejudice is a special category of moral wrong.  Fighting racism galvanized the religious conscience of 19th-century evangelicals and 20th-century African American civil-rights activists.  Perpetuating racism indicted many white Christians in the South and elsewhere as hypocrites.  Americans who are wrong on this issue do not understand the nature of their country.  Christians who are wrong on this issue do not understand the most-basic requirements of their faith.  


Here is the uncomfortable reality: I do not believe that most evangelicals are racist.  But every strong Trump supporter has decided that racism is not a moral disqualification in the president of the United States.  And that is something more than a political compromise.  It is a revelation of moral priorities.


If utilitarian calculations are to be applied, they need to be fully applied.  For a package of political benefits, these evangelical leaders have associated the Christian faith with racism and nativism.  They have associated the Christian faith with misogyny and the mocking of the disabled.  They have associated the Christian faith with lawlessness, corruption, and routine deception.  They have associated the Christian faith with moral confusion about the surpassing evils of white supremacy and neo-Nazism.  The world is full of tragic choices and compromises.  But for this man?  For this cause?  Some evangelical leaders, it is worth affirming, are providing alternative models of social engagement.  Consider Tim Keller, who is perhaps the most influential advocate of a more politically and demographically diverse evangelicalism.  Or Russell Moore, the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, who demonstrates how moral conservatism can be both principled and inclusive.  Or Gary Haugen, the founder of the International Justice Mission, who is one of the world’s leading activists against modern slavery.  Or Bishop Claude Alexander of the Park Church in North Carolina, who has been a strong voice for reconciliation and mercy.  Or Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, who shows the deep compatibility of authentic faith and authentic science.  Or the influential Bible teacher Beth Moore, who has warned of the damage done “when we sell our souls to buy our wins.”   Or the writer Peter Wehner, who has ceased to describe himself as an evangelical even as he exemplifies the very best of the word.


Evangelicalism is hardly a monolithic movement.  All of the above leaders would attest that a significant generational shift is occurring: Younger evangelicals are less prone to political divisiveness and bitterness and more concerned with social justice. (In a poll last summer, nearly half of white evangelicals born since 1964 expressed support for gay marriage.)   Evangelicals remain essential to political coalitions advocating prison reform and supporting American global-health initiatives, particularly on aids and malaria.  They do good work in the world through relief organizations such as World Vision and Samaritan’s Purse (an admirable relief organization of which Franklin Graham is the president and CEO).  They perform countless acts of love and compassion that make local communities more just and generous.  All of this is arguably a strong foundation for evangelical recovery.  But it would be a mistake to regard the problem as limited to a few irresponsible leaders.  Those leaders represent a clear majority of the movement, which remains the most loyal element of the Trump coalition.  Evangelicals are broadly eager to act as Trump’s shield and sword.  They are his army of enablers.


It is the strangest story: how so many evangelicals lost their interest in decency, and how a religious tradition called by grace became defined by resentment.  This is bad for America, because religion, properly viewed and applied, is essential to the country’s public life.  The old “one-bloodism” of Christian anthropology—the belief in the intrinsic and equal value of all human lives—has driven centuries of compassionate service and social reform.  Religion can be the carrier of conscience.  It can motivate sacrifice for the common good.  It can reinforce the nobility of the political enterprise.  It can combat dehumanization and elevate the goals and ideals of public life.


Democracy is not merely a set of procedures.  It has a moral structure.  The values we celebrate or stigmatize eventually influence the character of our people and polity.  Democracy does not insist on perfect virtue from its leaders.  But there is a set of values that lends authority to power: empathy, honesty, integrity, and self-restraint.  And the legitimation of cruelty, prejudice, falsehood, and corruption is the kind of thing, one would think, that religious people were born to oppose, not bless.  This disfigurement of evangelical faith squanders the reputation of something valuable: not just the vision of human dignity that captured Blanchard, but also Finney’s electric waves of grace.  At its best, faith is the overflow of gratitude, the attempt to live as if we are loved, the fragile hope for something better on the other side of pain and death.  And this feather of grace weighs more in the balance than any political gain.  It is difficult to see something you so deeply value discredited so comprehensively.  Evangelical faith has shaped my life, as it has the lives of millions.  Evangelical history has provided me with models of conscience.  Evangelical institutions have given me gifts of learning and purpose.  Evangelical friends have shared my joys and sorrows.  And now the very word is brought into needless disrepute.  This is the result when Christians become one interest group among many, scrambling for benefits at the expense of others rather than seeking the welfare of the whole.  Christianity is love of neighbor, or it has lost its way.  And this sets an urgent task for evangelicals: to rescue their faith from its worst leaders.







Gerson, also has a message for people who are excusing President Trump’s racism:


Ignoring Trump’s Racism Betrays Our Country’s Victims        

August 1, 2020     [ TheWashingtonPost.com ]


“I had fully intended to ignore President Trump’s latest round of racially charged taunts against an African American elected official, and an African American activist, and an African American journalist and a whole city with a lot of African Americans in it.   I had every intention of walking past Trump’s latest outrages and writing about the self-destructive squabbling of the Democratic presidential field, which has chosen to shame former vice president Joe Biden for the sin of being an electable, moderate liberal.


But I made the mistake of pulling James Cone’s ‘The Cross and the Lynching Tree’ off my shelf — a book designed to shatter convenient complacency.  Cone recounts the case of a white mob in Valdosta, Ga., in 1918 that lynched an innocent man named Hayes Turner.  Turner’s enraged wife, Mary, promised justice for the killers.  The sheriff responded by arresting her and then turning her over to the mob, which included women and children.  According to one source, Mary was ‘stripped, hung upside down by the ankles, soaked with gasoline, and roasted to death.  In the midst of this torment, a white man opened her swollen belly with a hunting knife and her infant fell to the ground and was stomped to death.’  [ see below for full story on this lynching ]


God help us.  It is hard to write the words.  This evil — the evil of white supremacy, resulting in dehumanization, inhumanity and murder — is the worst stain, the greatest crime, of U.S. history.  It is the thing that nearly broke the nation.  It is the thing that proved generations of Christians to be vicious hypocrites.  It is the thing that turned normal people into moral monsters, capable of burning a grieving widow to death and killing her child.


When the president of the United States plays with that fire or takes that beast out for a walk, it is not just another political event, not just a normal day in campaign 2020.  It is a cause for shame.  It is the violation of martyrs’ graves.  It is obscene graffiti on the Lincoln Memorial.  It is, in the eyes of history, the betrayal — the re-betrayal — of Haynes and Mary Turner and their child.  And all of this is being done by an ignorant and arrogant narcissist reviving racist tropes for political gain, indifferent to the wreckage he is leaving, the wounds he is ripping open.


Like, I suspect, many others, I am finding it hard to look at resurgent racism as just one in a series of presidential offenses or another in a series of Republican errors.  Racism is not just another wrong.  The Antietam battlefield is not just another plot of ground.  The Edmund Pettus Bridge is not just another bridge.  The balcony outside Room 306 at the Lorraine Motel is not just another balcony.  As U.S. history hallows some causes, it magnifies some crimes.


What does all this mean politically?  It means that Trump’s divisiveness is getting worse, not better.  He makes racist comments, appeals to racist sentiments and inflames racist passions.  The rationalization that he is not, deep down in his heart, really a racist is meaningless.  Trump’s continued offenses mean that a large portion of his political base is energized by racist tropes and the language of white grievance.  And it means — whatever their intent — that those who play down, or excuse, or try to walk past these offenses are enablers.


Some political choices are not just stupid or crude.  They represent the return of our country’s cruelest, most dangerous passion.  Such racism indicts Trump.  Treating racism as a typical or minor matter indicts us.”

                                                — Michael Gerson




Hayes and Mary Turner Lynchings


The lynching of Hazel “Hayes” Turner followed in response to the murder of Hampton Smith.  Smith was 25 years old, married white planter who owned the Old Joyce Place, a large plantation near Morven, Georgia, in Brooks County.  He was known among black workers for being an abusive boss, making it difficult for him to recruit farm labor.  Smith resolved the labor shortage (as did many planters) through using convict labor; he would pay the fees that black men were assessed for infractions and lease their labor for a period of time, paying the local jurisdiction the fees.  He was responsible for food and board of such workers.  Among the workers whom Smith gained this way was Sidney Johnson, after paying the police his $30 fine (a high payment for a farm worker), assessed after his conviction for “playing dice.”    Authorities exercised little oversight related to convict leasing, and the black men were often abused in what journalist Douglas Blackmon has called “slavery by another name”.


Johnson endured several beatings at the hands of Smith, including a severe one after refusing to work while sick.  Smith also had a violent history with other black workers.  He had beaten Mary Turner, and after this incident her husband, Hayes Turner, threatened Smith.  Turner was convicted by an all-white jury and sentenced to a chain gang.


Sidney Johnson shot Smith and his wife through a window in their house, killing Smith and wounding his wife.  He fled the scene, hiding successfully in Valdosta, Georgia for several days.  A large manhunt was conducted by a white mob, mostly in Brooks County.  When he appealed to another black man for food, that man notified the police.  Chief Calvin Dampier took officers armed with high-powered rifles to the house (among them were his brother), where they engaged in a shootout with Johnson, known to be armed with a shotgun and pistol.  After the shooting stopped, the police finally entered the house, finding Johnson dead.  He had wounded the two Dampier brothers and Dixon Smith.  A mob had gathered and, deprived of the chance to lynch Johnson, mutilated his body, and dragged it behind a car in a procession down Patterson Street and out to Morven.  There they hanged the body from a tree (near the scene of Smith’s lynching) and burned it.


Among the men picked up in the hunt for Smith’s killer was Hazel “Hayes” Turner (August 15, 1892 – May 18, 1918), an African American man, known to have had conflict with Smith, and who was lynched after being unjustly accused of the murder of Hampton Smith in Lowndes County, Georgia.   His lynching was reported by The Spokesman-Review on May 20, 1918.  Hayes Turner was arrested on the morning of Saturday, May 18, and placed in the jail in Valdosta, the county seat of Lowndes County.   Later in the day, County Sheriff Wade and a clerk of court took him out, ostensibly to move him to Quitman, the county seat of Brooks County.   Along the way, Turner was taken by (or more likely turned over to) a mob and lynched near the Okapilco Creek in Brooks County, about 3 1/2 miles from town.   His body was left hanging from the tree over the weekend and not cut down until Monday.


When his wife, Mary Turner, denounced the murder, and she was lynched the following day, along with their newborn baby.   According to investigator Walter F. White of the NAACP, Mary Turner was tied and hung upside down by the ankles, her clothes soaked with gasoline, and burned from her body.   Her belly was slit open with a knife like those used “in splitting hogs.”  Her “unborn babe” fell to the ground and gave “two feeble cries.”    Its head was crushed by a member of the mob with his heel, and the crowd shot hundreds of bullets into Turner’s body.   After the incident, the Associated Press wrote that Mary Turner had made “unwise remarks” about the murder of her husband, and that “the people, in their indignant mood, took exception to her remarks, as well as her attitude”.     Mary Turner was cut down and buried with her child near the tree, with a whiskey bottle marking the grave.  The Atlanta Constitution published an article with the subheadline: “Fury of the People Is Unrestrained.”    These lynchings were followed by the murders of 11 more black men by a white mob in Brooks and neighboring Lowndes counties during a manhunt and lynching rampage.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *