Liberalizing lynching: building a new racialized state

This study explores the relationship between the American liberal regime and the illiberal act of lynching. It explores the federal government's pattern of non-intervention regarding the lynchings of African Americans from the late 19th century to the 1960s. Although popular belief holds that the federal government was unable to address racial violence in the South, Kato argues that its actions and decisions show that federal inaction was not primarily a consequence of institutional or legal incapacities, but rather a decision supported and maintained by all three branches of the federal government.

This study explores the relationship between the American liberal regime and the illiberal act of lynching. It explores the federal government's pattern of non-intervention regarding the lynchings of African Americans from the late 19th century to the 1960s. Although popular belief holds that the federal government was unable to address racial violence in the South, Kato argues that its actions and decisions show that federal inaction was not primarily a consequence of institutional or legal incapacities, but rather a decision supported and maintained by all three branches of the federal government

Liberalizing Lynching: Building a New Racialized State seeks to explain the seemingly paradoxical relationship between the American liberal regime and the illiberal act of lynching. Daniel Kato argues that the federal government had the power to intervene in lynching cases, yet chose not to act. The book presents the new theory of consitutional anarchy to further develop the ways in which the federal government relinquished its responsibility to act in cases of lynching and racial violence while nonetheless maintaining authority.