Brutal lynching and public reactions in Salisbury, Maryland, in 1935
Mitchell describes in great detail the lynching of an African American man in Salisbury, Maryland around 1935. In his retelling of the event, Mitchell says that several observers tried to stop the lynching but that the mob behind it was unstoppable. At the time Mitchell was a professor at Johns Hopkins University and through his community connections he was asked by the Federal Council of Churches to write up a report of the lynching. Mitchell worked feverishly to have the perpetrators prosecuted, but found that community members and churches—and eventually the Federation itself—were unsupportive of his actions. Indeed, Mitchell contends that one of his only public sources of support came from the writings of H.L. Mencken, whom he had began to associate with during those years. His comments here are telling of the deep-seated and visceral nature of racial violence in that area at that time.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with Broadus Mitchell, August 14 and 15, 1977. Interview B-0024. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- JOHN BROADUS MITCHELL:
-
One of the most shocking developments, of course, was the lynching of
Negroes. My father was always indignant at the lynchings, and I remember
very well when I was with him at Blue Ridge, North Carolina, which is a
YMCA training center where meetings were held and classes, too, in the
summer. When there was a lynching in Georgia and the newspapers were
full of it and the magazines and so on, Father
talked about it, distressed by the whole episode. I remember his showing
me a picture in some magazine, maybe Newsweek or
Life, something like that, of the little sheriff in
this county holding a piece of the rope with which the man had been
hanged. And this sheriff was a little under-sized meek little man, the
last person
[laughter]
that you'd expect would take an active part in protecting a
prisoner. And Father said that that to him represented the lapse of law
in the South, and he deplored it and constantly scolded when lynchings
occurred. It wasn't very long after that that they began to diminish.
The Federal Council of Churches had a practice in the thirties, it must
have been, of issuing a little fact bulletin on each lynching that
occurred. They would invite somebody in the locality who presumably was
accurate to report to them exactly what happened, in a circumstantial
way. And then the little bulletin recited all the particulars, not with
sermonizing or editorial comment or anything of that sort, but simply
letting the dreadful detail speak for itself. My father approved
strongly of what I tried to do in the case of two lynchings that
happened in rapid succession on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. I can't
give you the date, but I suppose it must have been around 1935. The
first was at a little place called Snow Hill, and I don't recall the
particulars except that a black man was taken out and lynched. The
Eastern Shore of Maryland is separated not only geographically from the
western part of the state by Chesapeake Bay, but it's separated
culturally. It's kind of an enclave over there, and they have an
inferiority complex which takes the form of
overdefensiveness. Shortly after this lynching at Snow Hill occurred
another one at Salisbury, which is a bigger place. This black boy, who
was about eighteen years old, I think, worked at a lumber yard in
Salisbury. And he went in, as I remember, to speak to his employer with
some grievance - what, I don't know - and a quarrel
developed, and he shot his employer, who didn't collapse immediately but
chased this black boy through the lumber yard and tried to catch him and
so on. Or maybe that was when he got shot; I've forgotten. Some of the
people in the office came to the rescue of the employer, and they shot
this man in the face and he was taken to the local hospital. There he
was held under guard. Some guard, not much. The chief of police of
Salisbury was summoned when a mob collected and moved toward the
hospital to seize this boy and do him mischief. The head nurse stood in
the hallway and tried to resist the entrance of the mob, and the chief
of police
[laughter]
stood behind her and offered no real resistance. So the mob
surged into the ward, and they threw this boy out of a first-story
window and dragged him the short distance to the town. On the way they
had to pass over a fairly narrow bridge, not wider than this living
room, and there a courageous veteran of the First World War parked his
car across the bridge so as to try to block the passage. And he stood on
the roof of the car and tried to harangue the crowd and turn them back.
But they surged all around him and over the car, and they took this boy
to the fire station where they got a rope, and then to the court house
yard, where they put a rope around his neck and threw it over the limb
of a tree. At that point another citizen of
Salisbury did a courageous thing. He was somebody employed in the
courthouse who was brave enough to go and try to take the rope off this
boy's neck. But, of course, it was impossible for him to accomplish
this, and the man was hanged. They cut him down and dragged him by the
rope tied to the back of a truck to a gas station, where the body was
drenched with gasoline, and then they dragged it over to the negro
section of Salisbury, where they dragged it around the little streets
there and set the body on fire. And then they distributed in the crowd
short lengths of the rope for souvenirs, and they cut off his fingers
and distributed them. The Federal Council of Churches, Ernest Johnson
was in charge of it and asked me if I would go over to Salisbury and
make a factual report on this lynching. So I did. I got there in the
evening and spent the next day - I wish I'd spent
longer - in talking with people who figured in one way or
another in the lynching. Of course, I didn't find anybody who confessed
to having been in the mob, but I talked to two of the ministers of the
town - it's a town of many churches - and to a
principal banker, to the chief of police, to the sheriff, to the head
nurse, to both of these men who had tried to prevent the lynching, and
maybe some others that I have forgotten. And I thought I had an accurate
account of it. So I reported to the Federal Council of Churches. My
report was published also - I don't know how that
happened - in the Baltimore Sun newspaper.
The Federal Council of Churches, I believe, sent them a copy. There was
immediate outcry from numbers of church people in Salisbury because I
had
[laughter]
observed in my report that while this was a town
full of churches, and some of them quite elaborate, where there were
church houses where there were religious workers and so on, that as far
as I could tell, no clergyman in Salisbury on the Sunday following the
lynching on Friday had mentioned it. And I said in effect that the most
spectacular sin that had been committed in Salisbury went without
notice. Well, this bit them. I did say that one minister told me that
while he didn't include it in his sermon, he mentioned it in his
pastoral prayer, that he told God about it but he got to his
parishioners only indirectly. The other clergyman, who was the head of
one of the largest churches, had said to me in almost so many words that
he was ashamed that he had not immediately condemned this dreadful
murder, but the implication was that there were doubtless
[laughter]
members of his congregation who, if they did not sympathize
strongly with the mob, may have been in it even. Well, that caused some
sensation. I went to see the Attorney General of Maryland to urge that
they press prosecution of members of the mob, particularly after a list
was published in an Eastern Shore paper of persons who were in the mob
and who didn't deny it in any way. Well, here was confession of guilt. I
couldn't see the Attorney General; I saw his assistant. But he
explained - and afterwards I think I got some word from the
Attorney General himself - to the effect that this was
something that lay within a local jurisdiction over there, and it wasn't
their responsibility and so on. Black communists in Baltimore who were
few but active at that time, and who had a house
somewhere in the black section of the city which was their headquarters,
and they were joined by a young member of the faculty of Johns Hopkins
University, Albert Blumberg and some other white men. And they organized
a party to visit the Governor in his office and appeal to him for
action. They asked if I would go along with them, and I did. And when we
reached the Governor's office we found him pretty much barricaded, and
he sent out word that he would see only a few of the delegation, but
Albert Blumberg and myself and some of these black boys went in and
found him surrounded by large men who were evidently his bodyguards. It
was put on me to state our case, and when he was not responsive I said I
thought he ought to be impeached, that his first obligation was to
protect the citizens of the state and that he hadn't done it, and there
had been two of these lynchings. He hadn't done anything in the Snow
Hill one or this either. We never did get any action from it. H. L.
Mencken, who was always condemning abuses (you know, Mencken was
regarded as a sort of a sardonic critic, and much that he wrote was
intended to be extreme and to excite people to oppose him), on an
occasion of this sort was serious and impressive in his condemnation of
what had happened. It was an excoriation that he gave these lynchings,
and the neglect of the authorities to do anything about it. So my little
report had appeared, and he asked me to come down to see him at ten
o'clock at night. He always worked, I was told, until ten o'clock, and
then he knocked off and frequently would go and have beer with friends.
He had a circle, you know; I went once or twice.
And I enjoyed very much talking with him that evening. He was entirely
sympathetic with what I had tried to do. The Federal Council of Churches
wired me after the reaction to my report flared up and said that it had
been released by their office prematurely or without sufficient
consideration and that they proposed to issue a statement to the effect
that this was just my view and that they had asked for it, but that they
didn't sponsor it in any way or take responsibility for it. So I wired
them back saying, what you propose to do now leaves me standing alone,
which I am perfectly willing to do; by all means, issue your statement
right away. Well, that brought down the Secretary of the Federal Council
of Churches to see me right away. The next morning was a Sunday morning.
I remember I got him at the station. And he asked me whether I was a
churchman, and I said no. I said, "I don't see what that's got
to do with it." But it was because some of these people had
said that a heathen had come in among them and was scolding them and so
on. So they didn't issue the statement, but they did delay issuing the
bulletin. However, finally, I think, after some weeks, it did come out,
is my recollection. Many people on the Eastern Shore who could be
regarded as spokesmen, I think, for the Eastern Shore assumed an
attitude of pride at what they had done, they were defending themselves,
and they got out stickers that went on the bumpers of their cars saying,
"I'm an Eastern Shoreman and proud of it." They turned
back trucks bringing provisions and so on from the Western Shore to the
Eastern Shore, making it very clear that they felt that the Western
Shore was intruding on their mores, on what they
had done.