Essay Contribution by Edin Beslagic
May 16, 2006

Lessons Forgotten : 1931 Salisbury Lynching : Original Research

On December 4th, 1931, Daniel Elliott sat in his office talking on his aging candlestick telephone. Elliot, a 67 year old Caucasian resident of Salisbury, Maryland, ran a crate and basket manufacturing business. It was a Friday and business affairs were starting to wind down in favor of an enjoyable weekend. On the other side of the telephone was a produce broker, Thomas Chatham. Suddenly, Mr. Chatham heard a loud sound in his receiver and then it went quiet. Alarmed, he called the police. Mr. Elliott’s secretary, one door away, later stated that she heard no conversation but only two shots fired. Elliott’s son, James, ran inside the office and saw three things: his father slumped over in a chair, an unconscious African-American lying on the floor, and a revolver on the ground. Worried for his father, he placed him in an automobile to be rushed to Peninsula General Hospital but the effort came too late: Mr. Elliott was shot in the head at close range. As he was doing this, the other man awoke and started walking away towards the lumber yard. James grabbed the gun that was located on the office floor and shot the man in the leg, incapacitating him. That man would also be taken to Peninsula General. The local newspaper, The Salisbury Times, reported that the police publicly identified the assailant as “Mack Williams,” and erroneously reported that he died shortly after two O’clock P.M. from a “self-inflicted wound to the head.” In actuality, Matthew Williams was violently lynched by a mob of at least three hundred people while public officials watched in silence. At the end of that fateful Friday there were two murders. It is important to answer the question of why neither death ever saw a day in court.¹

Matthew Williams was a 35 year old African-American laborer. Over the last seven or eight years he had been intermittently working for Daniel Elliott. Jobs were scarce in 1931 due to the economic strain at the onset of the Great Depression but African-Americans were certainly able to find jobs in Salisbury. According to James Elliott, Mr. Williams was turned back from the lumberyard due to unavailability of a job on the day of his father’s murder. An African American witness who was working there that day, upon seeing Williams return reported that “He looked kind of strange.” Matthew Williams walked into Daniel Elliott’s office and moments later two shots were heard. Newspapers, corroborated by witness accounts, alleged that he murdered Daniel and afterwards attempted to commit suicide but failed as the shot only grazed his head and rendered him unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, he attempted to walk away from the scene but was shot in the leg by Daniel’s son James. The police ultimately recovered three revolver casings and bullets from the scene and reconstructed their trajectories making them consistent with the reported story. Williams was taken to the Peninsula General Hospital and treated for two separate gunshot wounds. The police initially reported that he died from a self-inflicted wound to the head; however, Matthew Williams did not die from a self-inflicted wound to the head. ²

That evening, around 8 P.M., a mob assembled outside the Peninsula General. Most eyewitnesses of the lynching remember seeing that Williams was treated for light wounds, dressed in a gown, and that he was hospitalized on the ground floor. Even though Matthew Williams was in custody and guarded by the police Chief N. H. Holland and a deputy sheriff Don Parks, the ring leaders of the lynch mob entered the hospital and demanded to be given the prisoner. While distracting the public safety officials, the men threw Matthew out of the first floor window. On the other side of the window the expecting mob attached him to a vehicle and dragged him to the courthouse lawn while he was still alive. An anonymous witness reported that “His buttocks did not have a God’s bit of skin left on them.” Some people tried to stop this lynching by attempting to address the crowd. A rope was thrown over the highest limb of a tree by the mob and Matthew Williams was hanged. He was hoisted multiple times and dropped down on the ground. Another witness reported that his fingers and toes were cut off by the crowd as souvenirs. By this point it is unclear if he was alive or unconscious but that is irrelevant because his body was soon attached to an automobile again and dragged through the predominantly African-American neighborhoods, stopping by a gas station. Multiple buckets of gasoline were poured over his body and he was set afire. Some, out of hundreds of witnesses present at the courthouse say that his burned body was dragged through town again after that and paraded as an example to all African Americans to obey the law. The Baltimore Sun reported that Matthew Williams’ body was ultimately found hanging about a mile from the initial scene of death.³

The next day many newspapers reported the murder of Daniel Elliot and the subsequent lynching. Strangely enough, the further a newspaper was located from Salisbury, the more accurate and detailed its depiction of the event was. For example, on December 5 the Salisbury Times incorrectly reported that Matthew Williams died from a self-inflicted wound whereas The Baltimore Sun reported not only the lynching details but how the lynching mob formed and was orchestrated. The next day they indirectly alleged that the editors of the Salisbury Times were partly culpable of inciting the mob and were involved in a cover-up of the lynching. It is reported that the mob was well-organized and its ring leaders were planning to amass until 10 P.M. and then conduct the lynching. A rumor was started indicating that Matthew Williams died while in the hospital, and that caused the mob to start dispersing. Then, a bulletin sign was flashed in the window of the local Salisbury Times office stating “Negro still alive,” thus the mob started to regenerate its numbers and possibly hasten its course of action. The Chief of police later stated that he could not identify any of the ring leaders he encountered in the hospital. It is also alleged that the hospital administrator, Helen Wise, willingly surrendered her patient to the mob, stating “If you must take him, take him quietly.” If these allegations were true, it would explain that the murder of Matthew Williams was never investigated because of a conspiracy between the local newspapers, police officials and perpetrators of the crime.⁴

Salisbury was relatively quiet on December 7th. The Baltimore Sun reported that “tensions have waned overnight on shore.” However, its criticism of Salisbury citizens, public figures and officials continued to visibly escalate. They accurately reported that none of preachers in Salisbury ever even mentioned the lynching in their sermons while city of Baltimore pastors publicly condemned it. Furthermore, they hinted that the lynching was racist in nature as there was only one white man who was ever lynched in state of Maryland, back in 1895. On the other hand, The Salisbury Times opposed that view claiming that the lynch mob was entirely composed of people who came from out of town, thus shifting blame away from the local residents. They further stated that there was “no tense racial feeling” in town, despite the fact that virtually none of the 1500 African American citizens of Salisbury were seen on the streets on December 6th. Eyewitnesses of the lynching confirmed the fears of African Americans after the lynching, one of them recalling that “There was not a colored person to be seen on the street in this town. They were jumping overboard and swimming across the Wicomico River, as cold as it was, in order to get home.” Even though the Salisbury Times initially failed to mention that the murder suspect was brutally lynched by citizens of Salisbury while in apparent police custody, they reported that a coroner’s jury will investigate death of Elliott’s assailant – practically convicting the deceased Matthew Williams in print. If a conspiracy had been afoot, it would explain that the Salisbury Times would point fingers away from the town in order to shift focus from itself as a responsible party in the lynching and its immediate aftermath. ⁵

That same day, the Baltimore Sun released an angry editorial written by H. L. Mencken, in which he labeled the lynching savage and revolting. In writing about the Eastern Shore his words were very insulting and direct. He equated all citizens of Salisbury as responsible in the lynching; furthermore, he stated that since World War I the lower shore mentality has been degraded and that citizens of Salisbury were “poor white trash.” According to him, clowns inhabited the pulpit of the Salisbury churches and the editorial chairs of The Salisbury Times. While his comments were mostly emotional, he had some very pragmatic points. One of his most coherent points was that The Salisbury Times news report only formally condemned the lynching and spent rest of the article complaining about Baltimore, and alleging that the government of Maryland is overstepping their legal bounds and interfering with local affairs. He felt that it was a moral responsibility of editors to publicly voice criticism of the lynching. Lack of a federal anti-lynching bill was a hot topic back in 1930s just as it is today. If The Salisbury Times was actually trying to cloud the issue at hand, Mencken was able to spot that from reading their published newspapers. After the Baltimore Sun article was printed, editors of the Salisbury Times responded by reprinting it in their papers on December 8th, 1933. The people of Salisbury were furious at the angry editorial and in their aftermath vandalized delivery trucks of Baltimore Sun newspapers, in one case overturning it in the Wicomico River.⁶

Over the next few weeks, the Salisbury Times continued with their emotional coverage of the Baltimore Sun editorials. Their stories reported local businessmen severing connections to the City of Baltimore, immediately canceling a claimed $140,000 of business, suggesting that Baltimore would suffer for its meddling. They even went so far as to relay a request for the editors of Baltimore Sun to be subpoenaed in connection to the Matthew Williams’ investigation case, which made no logical sense as the Mencken editorial was written and published after his death. It almost appears as if the editors of the Salisbury Times wanted to shift blame for the lynching on the newspaper that actually reported it. They also emphasized the point that the Williams lynching investigation should be handled by Salisbury alone, rejecting public scrutiny and the state government involvement; however, a public declaration by the Governor directly contradicted the Salisbury Times in their claims that the state government was meddling with local affairs. ⁷

The state government got involved in the lynching investigation early on. Governor Ritchie was out of state on the day of the lynching but was notified of it. He announced that he would board a train immediately and return to Baltimore to deal with the situation. The very next day, on December 6th, he ordered the attorney general, Preston Lane, to assist Wicomico county authorities in apprehension and “vigorous prosecution” of participating members of the mob. He further asserted that Mr. Lane is to take active part in investigation but would respect Wicomico county authorities in their normal operation. Ultimately the state government spent a total of $2,927.96 on the Matthew Williams investigation, which was a considerable amount in 1931. Their investigative effort was considerable but was met with resistance by citizens of Salisbury; for that reason, no trial was ever held in the case of the public murder of Matthew Williams. The attorney general’s office was simply unable to formulate a strong legal case. ⁸

Many years later, Salisbury residents would have mixed memories of the government response; some of them managed to compress their timeline so much that multiple events overlapped. For example, most recalled that the National Guard was dispatched in order to control the unruly crowds in Salisbury and collect witnesses for a prosecution. They remembered that multiple vehicles had been pushed into the Wicomico River and that the National Guard arrested people whom they identified from newspaper photographs. Some arrests were actually made but nothing was ultimately accomplished by this effort. According to one witness, a small band of farmers marched to the National Guard Armory and engaged them in a small skirmish in hopes of preventing them from making further arrests. They were assisted by local firefighters who used their water hose against the National Guard to prevent them from enforcing law. The skirmish was ended by the National Guard using tear gas against the mob. All traffic stopped moving on Main Street. Some witnesses state that the National Guard did not actually try to fight the citizens of Salisbury because they felt they should not fight against their own people. ⁹

Multiple Salisbury residents remembered that the town stood in solidarity. Witnesses and newspapers described their disgust for The Baltimore Sun. They felt the criticism of the Eastern Shore by their editors was too harsh. The local population of Salisbury boycotted the newspaper for many years. The day after H. L. Mencken’s editorial was published several small Baltimore Sun delivery trucks were burned. Communists were blamed for interfering with local affairs. A local business association was reported to be meeting to decide how to respond to City of Baltimore, possibly severing business connections with them. There was a public outcry to subpoena editors of the Baltimore Sun for unrelated legal cases. A clear reflection of outrage was voiced by many citizens of Salisbury over interference in handling their own judicial matters. According to them, there was never a trial because justice was served by the lynch mob. ¹⁰

Communists were accused of being both the cause of the lynching and cause of polarization between Baltimore and the eastern shore. A mere decade prior to the lynching a violent revolution occurred in Russia, followed by a bloody Bolshevik rule. Slaughter of Russian people by its government was widely reported in the world and thus the image of communism was tainted; this is why the word “communist” was used as a mud-slinging term. To further complicate the issue, Communism was rising in America in form of labor unions and was gaining ground in light of the Great Depression. This contradictory image of communism as an enemy of capitalism and as a savior of the poor only added to the confusion. Two months prior to the lynching, a violent murder was committed nearby by an African American named Euel Lee. His defense was taken over by a lawyer associated with a communist organization, the International Labor Defense League. This set the stage for communism to be referenced in the upcoming lynching. It is reported that a day prior to the murder of Daniel Elliot, Matthew Williams attended a communist meeting along with other African Americans, where they were all told that blacks were being economically exploited by their white employers and were told how to break out of that cycle. Whether or not that was true, it helped fuel an anti-communist sentiment and it produced yet another scapegoat for causes of the lynching. Supporters of the Salisbury lynching blamed communism for forcing the hand of lynch mob participants, who were convinced that justice would not be served because of communist lawyers who could navigate the legal system in favor of clearly guilty defendants. According to them, communists were the reason why the lynch mob had to spring into action and prevent an unnecessarily lengthy murder trial of Daniel Elliott from ever being held.¹¹

Several months prior to the Salisbury lynching, in a neighboring town, an African-American man named Euel Lee was charged with murdering a white family of four. While jailed, he was threatened with a lynching. The authorities responded by protecting him immediately. This bought Mr. Lee time to request a change of venue. With help of a few organizations, the I.D.L. and NAACP, the change of venue was ultimately granted, giving Lee a chance for a fair trial. Lee was ultimately convicted of the murders and sentenced to death. While the wheels of justice turned against his interests, they turned properly. Lee made history in the state of Maryland by being one of the first African Americans to successfully secure appeals and two trials. In 1933 his sentence was carried out by the authorities and he was put to death by hanging. Some supporters of the Salisbury lynching viewed Lee as an example of injustice: they wanted his trial to take place on the eastern shore and they wanted it conducted swiftly. They used him as an example to justify the lynching of Matthew Williams, as they were convinced that he was guilty of murdering Daniel Elliott. According to them, if Euel Lee had not gotten extradited, Matthew Williams would not have been lynched and would have had his brief day in court. In their theory, Daniel Elliott’s murder was not tried because of Euel Lee. ¹²

The witnesses of the lynching had very different ideas of why it had occurred. One person, Mr. Welch, thought that Matthew Williams was simply a wrong man at the wrong time that stumbled upon the dead Daniel Elliott -- and was detained and arrested. He speculated that a prior Euel Lee murder trial extradition, which occurred months before the Salisbury lynching, gave the mob a reason to believe that justice would not be served. He thought that Matthew Williams was innocent but the mob wanted the suspected murderer punished on the spot. Another person stated that “There had been a murder before this one and the suspect got away free,” insinuating that the mob was formed to ensure justice and that justice was unable to operate properly on its own accord. Another witness thought that James, Daniel’s son, had actually killed his father to pay off his gambling debts, blamed it on the African-American laborer but got away with using the lynch mob to cover his crime. This theory is somewhat plausible because there were no eyewitnesses to the murder, there were three shots fired, and James was holding the revolver. If Matthew Williams had ever managed to be tried for a murder, a competent lawyer could have effectively defended him by simply stating the suspicious nature of James Elliott’s involvement and lack of evidentiary support. On the other hand, an African-American worker of Mr. Elliott thought that James could not have done such a thing. Another person blamed an ongoing legal battle, the Euel Lee case, for the lynching and thought it was an insult to justice and the Eastern Shore. He said that a smart lawyer of Lee’s kept delaying the trial and the consequent sentencing; he conjectured that “evil conspirators” paid the high priced lawyer to prolong the trial. A security guard, Mr. Hooks, labeled the event as “Negro Uprisings” and told a heroic tale of Daniel Elliott wrestling the gun from the hands of Matthew Williams after being shot and fighting back, preventing Williams from escaping, just before drawing his last breath. A banker, Mr. Taylor, reported that Mr. Elliott was so well-liked by the community that they “decided to settle the matter themselves.” ¹³

Around October of 1933, nearly two years after the Salisbury lynching, an African-American by the name of George Armwood was arrested for assaulting an elderly white woman in Somerset County. After evading authorities for a few hours, he was captured and was taken to Salisbury jail. He spent a total of three minutes there. The state police captain Johnson immediately recognized the gravity of the situation and contacted the governor’s office for instructions. Not waiting for a response, he quickly had the police take the suspect to Elkton where they contacted the Baltimore City jail and requested that George Armwood be admitted at that location, which was believed to be more secure. Local officials of Princess Anne were adamant about having the prisoner transported back to their jurisdiction. After State Attorney John B. Robins conferred with Judge Robert S. Duer and was assured of the prisoner’s safety, the state police numbering twenty-five men escorted George Armwood to a Princess Anne jail. On October 18th, 1933 a mob started forming around the jailhouse. The formation was so slow that the Baltimore Sun had enough time to dispatch a reporter on the scene. The authorities did nothing to disperse the crowd until around 8:30 pm, when Judge Duer addressed the crowd assuring them that the justice would be swift. He left the scene fifteen minutes later, and by 9 pm the mob battered the jail door with an improvised ram, extracted the prisoner and lynched him. Three days after the lynching, no arrests in the lynching case were made. Judge Duer was criticized for not naming lynch mob participants, even though he recognized them by names. Captain Johnson’s early efforts to protect the prisoner were useless. Religious leaders of Princess Anne were not quick to condemn the lynching. In fact, the four church ministers replied to reporters that all of them decided not to preach about the lynching to their congregation. ¹⁴

In the Salisbury lynching case there were no trials held. The first murder case of Daniel Elliott was not tried because the police, corroborated by witness accounts and evidence, concluded that the man was shot and killed by Matthew Williams. With the only suspect being dead, the case was closed and a need for a trial was not present. Justice, somehow, seemed served by the simple math of vigilante justice: a murder was settled with another murder. In the case of the Matthew Williams’ lynching, a grand jury failed to indict any of the arrested suspects. The Salisbury lynching should have served as an example to law enforcement officials on how to handle future cases. It is unfortunate that another man would suffer a similar fate due to overconfidence of officials and their failure to learn from the past. George Armwood should not have died at the hands of a lynch mob after the Salisbury lynching. It is also ironic that Euel Lee was executed by authorities on the 27th that month, just days after Armwood’s lynching. ¹⁵

Well over 1,200 African-Americans were lynched by white mobs between 1882 and 1930; the trend of American lynching in the “Deep South” was slowly coming to a near-end by the end of this period. Modern studies theorize that the cause of a lynching in any one locality is triggered by an economic threat to whites, but the collected data is focused around cotton-producing economies and this did not apply to Salisbury conditions. The Salisbury lynching is classified as a “Mass Mob” lynching because there was a large scale public participation coupled with use of ritual (cutting off fingers, parading the body through town, burning it beyond recognition). A witness of the Salisbury lynching reported that she was shocked at “the amount of women and children in the crowd that night.” Historically, “participants in posse lynchings were rarely prosecuted” while a “Mass Mob” lynching was thought by local citizens to be morally legal. An eyewitness later stated that “At the actual hanging no one wore masks, and no one would testify concerning who was there,” confirming an existence of an understanding between the participants.

The victims were usually executed in name of retribution, in public view and corpses mutilated to disassociate the victim from being a person. According to further theory, ritualized lynchings occur at regular intervals. This theory can be partly confirmed by the lynching of George Armwood, two years after the Salisbury lynching. The purpose of this violent ritual is to enforce dominance over a body of people by use of terror; in this case, to subdue the African-American citizens. Witness accounts confirm the fear of African-Americans in Salisbury after the lynching: a worker of the Elliotts stated that “After I found that he was dead, I didn’t go back in the office anymore.” An eyewitness of the lynching stated “There was not a colored person to be seen on the street in this town...” Another person stated that after the body was mutilated, it was dragged around town and displayed again so that “all the colored people could see him.” A security guard remembered that the body was displayed for the same reason. ¹⁶

No trial was ever held for the murder of Daniel Elliott because the only suspect was murdered on the same day. It is not precisely certain why Matthew Williams was murdered, but most evidence points to the mob participants thinking that they were acting in the interest of justice and because of a fading legacy of lynching as an institution of rural law enforcement and racial oppression. The lynching was, in fact, a legacy because it was conducted by a white population in a ritualistic and consistent manner mostly reserved for African Americans. No trial was ever held for the lynching of Matthew Williams because the prosecutors were unable to compile a strong case against the mob participants. They were unable to do so because of resistance of both Salisbury residents and officials and lack of forthcoming witnesses. A multitude of reasons was invoked in justifying the lynching of Matthew Williams but they all violate the principles of the constitution of the United States of America. ¹⁷

Endnotes:

[1] Anonymous, interview by Melva A. Brittingham, 18 June 1973, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; The Salisbury Times, 5 December 1931.

[2] Earl Roberts, interview by Margaret Haygood, 25 June 1973, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; The Salisbury Times, 5 December 1931.

[3] Anonymous, interview by Melva A. Brittingham, 18 June 1973, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; Lemuel Brown, interview by Jane Brown, 28 June 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; Mrs. S. N. Pilchard, interview by Linda W. Pilchard, 25 June 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; Ralph Mason, interview by Margaret Haygood, 21 June 1973, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; The Salisbury Times, 6 December 1931. ; The Baltimore Sun, 5 December 1931. ; The Baltimore Sun, 6 December 1931.

[4] The Baltimore Sun, 5 December 1931. ; The Salisbury Times, 5 December 1931. ; The Baltimore Sun, 6 December 1931. ; The Baltimore Sun, 7 December 1931.

[5] The Salisbury Times, 6 December 1931. ; The Baltimore Sun, 6 December 1931. ; The Baltimore Sun, 7 December 1931. ; Anonymous, interview by Melva A. Brittingham, 18 June 1973, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md.

[6] The Salisbury Times, 5 December 1931. ; The Salisbury Times, 6 December 1931. ; The Salisbury Times, 8 December 1931. ; The Salisbury Times, 9 December 1931. ; The Washington Post, 1 May 2006. ; Gordon W. Brittingham, interview by Julia Taylor, June 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; Robert Moats Miller, “The Protestant Churches and Lynching, 1919-1939.” The Journal of Negro History (1957): 118-131.

[7] The Salisbury Times, December 21 1931. ; The Salisbury Times, 15 December 1931.; The Salisbury Times, 22 December 1931.

[8] The Baltimore Sun, 5 December 1931. ; The Baltimore Sun, 6 December 1931. ; Archives of Maryland Online, General Assembly Session Laws, 1933 Session. Volume 421, page 1284.

[9] Mr. and Mrs. S.N. Pilchard III, interview by Linda W. Pilchard, 25 June 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md.; Susan Webster, interview by Donna Lynne Tate, 25 October 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; Gordon W. Brittingham, interview by Julia Taylor, June 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md.

[10] Gordon W. Brittingham, interview by Julia Taylor, June 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; The Salisbury Times, 15 December 1931. ; The Salisbury Times, 17 December 1931. ; The Salisbury Times, 22 December 1931.

[11] Polly Stewart, “Regional Consciousness as a Shaper of Local History: Example from the Eastern Shore.,” Sense of Place: American Regional Cultures, 1990.

[12] Free State Liberties, Winter/Spring Ed 1991. ; Baltimore Sun, 27 October 1933.

[13] Mr. and Mrs. S.N. Pilchard III, interview by Linda W. Pilchard, 25 June 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; Aileen Welch, interview by Deborah Welch, 23 September 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; Ralph Mason, interview by Margaret Haygood, 21 June 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; Earl Roberts, interview by Margaret Haygood, 25 June 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; Gordon W. Brittingham, interview by Julia Taylor, June 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; Mr. Hooks, interview by Kelly Larmore, 31 August 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; Richard L. Taylor., interview by Julia Taylor, 11 June 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md.

[14] The Baltimore Sun, 21 October 1933. ; The Baltimore Sun, 18 October 1933; The Baltimore Sun, 22 October 1933

[15] The Baltimore Sun, 21 October 1933.

[16] Mabel Wright, interview by Cathy Wright, 28 June 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; Earl Roberts, interview by Margaret Haygood, 25 June 1973, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; Gordon W. Brittingham, interview by Julia Taylor, June 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; Anonymous, interview by Melva A. Brittingham, 18 June 1973, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md. ; Mr. Hooks, interview by Kelly Larmore, 31 August 1972, transcript, Eastern Shore Lynching Collection, Edward H. Nabb Center for Delmarva History and Culture, Salisbury, Md.; Katherine Stovel, “Local Sequencing Patterns: The Structure of Lynching in the Deep South, 1882-1930.” Social Forces (2001): 844-880.

[17] The Baltimore Sun, 21 October 1933.