By Megan Sayles
AFRO Staff Writer
msayles@afro.com
The Maryland Lynching Truth and Reconiciliation Commission (MLTRC) held its final public hearing on April 4 and 5 at the Reginald F. Lewis Museum of African American History and Culture. The gathering served as an opportunity for experts, advocates and witnesses to testify on the legacy of racial terror lynchings in the state and recommendations for addressing the lasting harm they engendered.
Their testimonies will be used to provide proposals for recognition and reparations in the MLTRC’s final report to Maryland Governor Wes Moore, which will be submitted by the end of the year.
“This will be an unforgettable opportunity to provide the Maryland state legislature with input on how to make amends, how to repair and how to atone for the legacy of the murder of at least 38 Black men in this state between 1854 and 1933,” said David Fakunle, chair of the MLTRC and representative of the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum. “We want to acknowledge them. We want to recognize not just those who lost their lives unnecessarily in the state of Maryland through racial terror lynching, but the over 4,400 people who were lynched across the United States of America. Many will never get an opportunity to be honored as they’re being honored in this space right now.”
The MLTRC was established in 2019 and is first the statewide commission dedicated to investigating and addressing racial terror lynchings. Throughout its two-day hearing, several panels with backgrounds in law enforcement, criminal justice reform, media, mental health and racial justice provided their testimony.
Building public trust through police accountability
Historically, racial terror lynchings functioned as a form of state-sponsored violence in which government institutions and law enforcement were complicit in the brutal killings of African Americans. Their legacy has impacted how Black communities view the justice system today, particularly when it comes to public trust in police.
According to a 2024 study from Gallup, an analytics and advisory firm, just half of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in police. For people of color, this number falls to 44 percent.
Jonathan Smith, chief of the civil rights division for the Maryland Office of the Attorney General, called for more public participation in shaping the way law enforcement operates.
“Police departments have little oversight. The most critical decisions about policing tactics, policies and priorities remain beyond democratic control. A chief of police makes the critical decision on how a police department does its work,” said Smith. “Given the profound impact of policing on communities, the inability of persons who are subject to policing to influence key policies and practices leads to harms and mistrusts of our system.”
He suggested shifting some responsibilities from police to other trained professionals, like mental health specialists and social workers.
“We must respond to the question of, ‘When do we need a person with a gun, arrest powers and authority to use force, and when is there another solution that creates public safety without the harmful consequences of our criminal legal system?” said Smith. “We must democratize policing.”
James Wyda, federal public defender for the district of Maryland, argued that adding more police officers is not the solution. He touched on the Baltimore Police Department’s (BPD) history of misconduct and corruption, including the death of Freddie Gray and the Gun Trace Task Force.
Wyda advocated for more transparency in police recordkeeping and emphasized the need for accountability through oversight by the state prosector, attorney general and community stakeholders.
“The community needs to see a change in how we police,” said Wyda. “The BPD must become a significant and meaningful presence on the streets of our communities that are at risk, creating opportunities for police officers to demonstrate respect for the community they serve through a consistent problem-solving presence.”
Media’s portrayal of lynching
Newspapers, the leading form of media at the time, played a pivotal role in public perception of racial terror lynchings. Some sensationalized accusations against Black people to help justify violence against them. Others sought to denounce racial violence and humanize victims of lynchings.
“Newspapers could be instigators, egging on the angry White citizenry, offering rewards for the capture of the ‘miserable Black criminals’ and even announcing the times of lynchings,” said E.R. Shipp, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. “Sometimes newspapers were voices of reason based on morality and ethics, what was good for a state’s image or what was good for commerce.”
The Black Press acted as a consistent force against lynching, investigating the murders, gathering firsthand accounts and publishing the truth. Frances “Toni” Draper, publisher for the AFRO, compared White-owned newspapers coverage of lynchings to that of the AFRO.
“White newspapers, like The Baltimore Sun, often described lynchings as unfortunate breaksdowns of public order, offering little context and less outrage,” said Draper. “The Baltimore Afro-American told the truth without flinching. We did not sanitize the horror. We documented it, and we did so with clarity and prophetic urgency.”
Draper argued that the practice of lynching did not end, it simply evolved to other forms of state-sanctioned harm. This includes racial wage gaps, generational poverty, education inequalities and police brutality.
She recommended instituting scholarships for descendants of lynching victims, preservation efforts for the sites of lynchings and greater education in Maryland’s schools about the state’s history of racial violence. She also called for ongoing state funding to maintain the archives of the Black Press.
“The legacy of lynching in Maryland lives on, not just in our soil, but in our souls and our systems,” said Draper. “Justice demands more than remembrance. It demands a response.”
The case for reparations
Reparations remain a highly debated issue. Critics contend that the people of today should not be held responsible for crimes of the past. Supporters argue that reparations are a necessary step to achieve justice and healing.
As Marcus Anthony Hunter, author of “Radical Reparations: Healing the Soul of a Nation,” pointed out, much of the disagreement surrounds money.
“Whenever debates about reparations come up, it is undoubtedly not about the fact of systemic subhuman bondage or lynching. Instead, it invariably becomes a debate about money— questions about who should be paid, why they should be paid and how much they should be paid,” said Hunter.
He explained that reparations involve more than just financial compensation. He used the acronym “PILESSS” to summarize his call for political, intellectual, legal, economic, social, spatial and spiritual reparations. This includes political representation; the recognition and acknowledgement of inventions created by formerly enslaved people and their descendants; and economic opportunities for those displaced by slavery.
“Lynching is a radical violation of our shared humanity, and radical violations require radical repair,” said Hunter. “Therefore, we need radical reparations— a dynamically implemented and imagined set of repairs and renovations that robustly address the sins of the past to unlock a path to a freer, safer and more just society.”