Library of Congress Promoting Jewish Supremacist Narratives and Anti-Gentilism

by Curator on July 4, 2019

July 7th 2019 Update: LOC staff responded and agreed to remove the anti-Gentile Blood Libel from their Library of Congress Website.

We were able to get this 106-year-old racist Jewish Supremacist, bigoted anti-Black, anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-Southern, anti-Gentile Blood Libel Trope removed from the Library of Congress Website:

The 1915 Leo Frank case is today widely regarded as a flashpoint of anti-Semitism in the U.S.

+ = + = +

July 4th 2019

Dear Library of Congress Staff,

On your Library of Congress website page about the Leo Frank criminal affair: “Trial and Lynching of Leo Frank: Topics in Chronicling America” which is presently located at: https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-leo-frank (if the link changes in the future, people can use the search feature at LOC to scan for Leo Frank related subjects and materials). You claim, QUOTE: “The 1915 Leo Frank case is today widely regarded as a flashpoint of anti-Semitism in the U.S.”

There can be no doubt the lynching of Leo Frank was extrajudicial and therefore obviously illegal. However he was not lynched because of his religious affiliation, but because he pounded in the face of a little girl, Mary Phagan, until it was swollen purple, before sadistically raping and strangling her to death on April 26, 1913.

Unconstitutional, Gross Conflict of Interest, and Ethics Violation

Georgia Governor John Slaton, who commuted the convicted sex-killer’s August 26, 1913, death sentence, to life in prison, on June 21, 1915, was part-owner of the law firm, “Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips”, which actually represented Leo Frank at his 1913 trial. It was obviously an outlandish violation of ethics and monstrous conflict of interest, it was also very unconstitutional for a Governor to commute the criminal punishment of his own law client.

The said statement is making a very ugly racist and antigentile accusation against non-Jews, essentially saying the Leo Frank case was a flashpoint of their anti-Semitism. You are making biased sweeping statements about the Frank-Phagan true-crime which represent a one-sided narrative and not the whole picture, which should include the Fulton County prosecution’s version of why the defendant Leo Frank was in fact guilty.

Everyone has “Anti-Semitism” Fatigue Now: People Are Sick and Tired of IT.

“Anti-Semitism”: This anti-Gentile canard and trope is a vicious blood libel against European-Americans, African-Americans, Christians, and Southerners of all backgrounds to say Frank’s case and hanging was about religious prejudice.

Invoking Religious Prejudice

These accusations about Leo Frank’s case being a flashpoint of anti-Semitism are coming predominantly from racist (anti-black and anti-white) and anti-Gentile sources, which contradict the legal deliberations by the GA and USA Supreme Courts who ruled in their majority decisions, stating: There were no technical legal violations, his trial was fair, and the defendant received due process of law. The people saying this case was anti-Semitic are predominantly from Jewish individual activists and organized groups like ADL.

Using the Weight of History to Manipulate the Storyline

If enough people say the Frank-Phagan case was anti-Gentile, will you publish it was a flashpoint of anti-Gentilism? Do your editorial decisions come from what the U.S. legal system says or whichever activist team, whether Jewish or Gentile, can organize the loudest voice on the subject?

Georgia Supreme Court Sustains the Judge and Jury’s Verdict in the Trial of Leo Frank

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the evidence at Leo Frank’s trial was more than sufficient for a conviction. Likely because on August 18, 1913, Leo Frank orally spoke to the jury — while he was on the witness seat — that he unconsciously went to the bathroom in the metal room to use the toilet (the scene of the crime), as an explanation why Monteen Stover found his office empty, during the exact same time he formerly claimed to be alone with Mary Phagan (State Exhibit B). Leo Frank basically placed himself directly in the crime scene, when the murder occurred on April 26, 1913.

When Convicted rapist-pedophile sex-stranglers are killed during their prison term does it grandfather in innocence for their crimes of the violent nature?

Just because Leo Frank was kidnapped and lynched while he was in prison does not make such criminal activity anti-Semitic. Leo Frank was not lynched because he was Jewish, he was lynched because he sexually assaulted, strangled-to-death and mutilated a little 13-year-old girl, not because he was considered a White Hebrew.

LOC, you are fanning the flames of ethnic conflict, culture war, anti-Gentilism and racism, by claiming the case was a “flashpoint of anti-Semitism.” Please give both sides of the case an equal hearing, not just the Jewish activist version. “Both sides” means: prosecution and defense, both deserve an equal hearing in the case. Your library is playing partisan politics taking the side of Leo Frank against every level of the United States Legal System. Please reconsider the lack of impartiality of your government library, because it is giving the impression you are unfairly playing partisan politics.

Sincerely, Students of the Leo Frank Case.

* * *

Appendix:

QUOTE

Trial and Lynching of Leo Frank: Topics in Chronicling America

The 1915 Leo Frank case is today widely regarded as a flashpoint of anti-Semitism in the U.S. This guide provides resources on the topic of the “trial and lynching of Leo Frank” found in the Chronicling America digital collection of historic newspapers.

Convicted of the April 1913 murder of 13-year-old factory worker Mary Phagan in Atlanta, Georgia, Jewish-American businessman Leo Frank appeals his conviction for the next two years. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejects Frank’s final appeal in April 1915. On August 17, 1915 a mob of men abduct and lynch Leo Frank near Marietta, Georgia. Leo Frank’s case energized the press, resulting in nationwide coverage of the trial and Frank’s eventual death, and the Frank case is today widely regarded as a flashpoint of anti-Semitism in the United States.

The information in this guide focuses on primary source materials found in the digitized historic newspapers from the digital collection Chronicling America.

The timeline below highlights important dates related to this topic and a section of this guide provides some suggested search strategies for further research in the collection.

Reference Links:

Trial and Lynching of Leo Frank: Topics in Chronicling America
https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-leo-frank

Chroniclinig America:
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/

Library of Congress Selectively Biased Articles on the Leo Frank Case (notice they do not include any of the local reports from the Atlanta Georgia press, retrieved July 2019)
https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-leo-frank/selected-articles

You’ll notice LOC curators selected articles which were mostly biased in Leo Frank’s favor or portraying him as a victim of injustice. They selected none of the Atlanta newspapers which actually published the testimony from the Coroner’s Inquest in May of 1913, and trial transcript three months hence in August.

“Frank Guilty of Murder”
New-York Tribune (New York, NY), August 26, 1913, Image 1, col. 2.

“Must Die for Crime”
The Mahoning Dispatch (Canfield, OH), February 20, 1914, Image 4, col. 1.

“Striving to Save Leo Frank’s Life”
New-York Tribune (New York, NY), April 17, 1914, Image 2, col. 6.

“Frank Fights for Life”
Evening Public Ledger (Philadelphia, PA), October 26, 1914, Night Extra, Page 7, Image 7, col. 2.

“New Trial Denied to Leo M. Frank”
New-York Tribune (New York, NY), November 15, 1914, Page 12, Image 12, col. 3.

“Leo Frank Loses Again”
Evening Public Ledger (Philadelphia, PA), November 23, 1914, Night Extra, Image 3, col. 6.

“Is Leo Frank Guilty?”
The Leavenworth Echo (Leavenworth, WA), January 8, 1915, Image 2, col. 3.

“Leo A. Frank Innocent, Says Detective Burns”
Evening Public Ledger (Philadelphia, PA), January 8, 1915, Night Extra, Page 7, Image 7, col. 3.

“Leo Frank’s Appeal Bond Is Approved”
The De Soto County News (Arcadia, FL), January 14, 1915, Second Section, Image 14, col. 4.

“Leo Frank Must Die”
University Missourian (Columbia, MO), April 19, 1915, Image 1, col. 5.

“Frank’s Plea is Denied by Prison Commission”
The Mahoning Dispatch (Canfield, OH), June 11, 1915, Image 6, col. 4.

“How Hearst Treated the Leo Frank Case”
The Day Book (Chicago, IL), July 17, 1915, Image 1, col 1.

“Leo M. Frank Dies; Georgia Lynchers Hang Him to Tree”
University Missourian (Columbia, MO), August 17, 1915, Image 1, col. 6.

“Leo Frank Lynched by Mob After Swift Ride to Home of Murdered Mary Phagan”
Evening Public Ledger (Philadelphia, PA), August 17, 1915, Night Extra, Image 1, col. 1.

“All Civilized States Should Pity Georgia and Pray for Her”
Evening Public Ledger (Philadelphia, PA), August 17, 1915, Night Extra, Page 2, Image 2, col. 3.

“Leo Frank Hanged by Georgia Mob”
The Graham Guardian (Safford, AZ), August 20, 1915, Image 1, col. 7.

Previous post:

Next post: