SOME CONCLUSIONS
The question naturally arises, what is the peculiarity about American
society which fosters and tolerates lynching? Why is lynching a
peculiarly American institution? It has been suggested that the
explanation lies along racial lines. Some have said that the
Scotch-Irish are responsible for the introduction into this country of
the practice of illegally punishing public offenders. Others say that it
is race prejudice, a result of the coming together of many races in one
country, and particularly that it is the racial antagonism between the
white race and the negro race, which explains the matter. Looking at the
history of the practice in the United States from colonial times down to
the present day, one can scarcely regard such an explanation as either
adequate or conclusive. The real explanation lies along a somewhat
different line, and it can be pointed out best by drawing some contrasts
between the administration of the law in the United States and its
administration in the older countries of Europe.
The American people are not any more disposed toward lawlessness—they
are not less law-abiding—than European peoples; it is rather that they
maintain a wholly different attitude toward the law. Social and
political conditions are different, and the law, instead of being
something in itself to reverence and respect, is little more than a
device for securing freedom. The value of laws as rules of conduct is
not minimized but there is no sense of sanctity pertaining to them. To
outwit, avoid, defy, or forget the laws is not a serious offense so long
as an appeal can be made to the individual sense of justice in support
of such courses of action.
In Europe, where the statutes have grown up from tradition and ancient
custom, the law is regarded as a more sacred institution; in a very real
sense it is the product of a superior authority. Law in its
institutional sense is as much a predetermined factor in daily affairs
as is one of the laws of nature. Social and political conditions are
fixed. Politics do not enter into the enforcement of law. Civilization
is distributed in a more nearly equal measure and the law is enforced
with equal vigor over the whole country.[341] The judicial and
administrative officers are persons socially and politically distinct
from the masses, and their individuality is so completely subordinated
to their representative capacity that the law thus comes to have a
majesty and dignity which can be given it in no other way.
In the United States, on the contrary, the body of the law lacks the
support of long tradition and ancient practice. The early immigrants
brought with them the European conception of law, but in the midst of
new conditions, with no strong government to enforce it with an
impartial and an iron hand, along with the growth of the democratic
spirit, a new _esprit des lois_, as Montesquieu would call it, has been
developed. Where the people, either directly or through their
representatives, make the laws and then elect the officers who are to
enforce them, it is inevitable that the legal machinery will prove
powerless to control popular excitements. Politics also enter very
largely into the whole question. In remote districts, too, the people
seldom have occasion to meet any other officers of the law than their
own neighbors and friends whom they have elected to minor civil offices.
It is for this reason that the execution of the law varies so greatly in
different parts of the United States, being either vigorous or lax, in
accordance with the moral sentiment of the community.
In a monarchy or a highly centralized form of government, the law is
made for the people and enforced against them by officials who are in no
sense responsible to them.
In a democracy with a republican form of government, like the United
States, such is not the case. The people consider themselves a law unto
themselves. They make the laws; therefore they can unmake them. Since
they say what a judge can do, they entertain the idea that they may do
this thing themselves. To execute a criminal deserving of death is to
act merely in their sovereign capacity, temporarily dispensing with
their agents, the legal administrators of the law. While not always
expressed in language so unmistakable in meaning, yet this is the spirit
exhibited, the vague and perhaps unconscious attitude toward the law,
which seems particularly to pervade the United States.
The tendency toward public disorder has existed in this country from its
earliest settlement, and as the line of the frontier has slowly moved
westward there has always been a region on the border where the forces
of law were unorganized. There has thus been a constant opportunity for
a plea of necessity in certain cases for resorting to the popular
execution of justice. In recent years the customary explanations of
lynchings attribute them to mob rule, emotional insanity of the crowd,
race prejudice, contempt for the “niggers,” intense community feeling,
vivid hatred of crime, _lex talionis_ and the like. It is often asserted
that lynchings occur because the courts are slow, uncertain, and unduly
sympathetic with the rights of the accused, because corrupt jurymen,
shrewd lawyers, the technicalities of the law or the undue sympathies of
the pardoning powers frequently prolong and save a guilty person’s life.
While it is true on psychological grounds that punishment to be
effective must be prompt and certain, and while such explanations have
validity in particular cases, the fundamental explanation lies deeper.
It is to be found in the peculiar and distinctively American attitude
toward those institutions connoted by the term “the law.”[342] There is
a readiness on the part of the people in the United States to take the
law into their own hands which is not found in other countries, and the
consequent immunity from punishment which is generally accorded to
lynchers renders an American mob exceedingly open to the suggestion of
lynching.
It is on such grounds that the existence of lynching as a peculiarly
American institution is to be explained. Such are the conditions and
such has been the conception of the law which has fostered a public
sentiment in the United States excusing and apologizing for lynchings.
The writer of a book published in London in 1837 was not far wrong when
he wrote: “The Lynch law, is not, properly speaking, an opposition to
the established laws of the country, or, is at least, not contemplated
as such by its adherents; but rather as a supplement to them,—a species
of _common_ law, which is as old as the country.”[343]
To the same effect is this “Scotch View of Lynch law” which was
occasioned by the lynching of the Italians at New Orleans in 1891. After
reviewing the facts and circumstances connected with that lynching, the
following comments were made: “This is crude and it is primitive. It is
to be deplored and condemned. But it is not without a foundation of
reason and justice. The people have committed the administration of
justice to a certain machinery; so long as that machinery works without
flagrant injustice, it will be left to do the work; but when it utterly
breaks down, or goes in the teeth of what is right according to the
rough-and-ready ideas of the Americans, the people will resume the
function of dealing out punishment direct. The ultimate sanction is
brought in. That is the American method. The Briton, when he thinks the
ordinary tribunals have failed, writes to the _Times_, or gets up a
monster petition to the Home Secretary, or asks a question of the Houses
of Parliament.”[344]
In certain sections of the United States this readiness on the part of
the people to take the law into their own hands receives constant
support and encouragement from the racial antipathy which exists between
the whites and the negroes. It cannot be said that the lynching of
negroes is due to “race prejudice” alone, but it is true that the
antagonistic feeling between the two races aggravates the tendency to
lynch, when offenses are committed against white persons by negroes.
Other racial contrasts in the population have likewise promoted the
adoption of extra-legal methods of punishment. From colonial times down
to the present day the contemptuous attitude of the whites toward the
Indians has undoubtedly been a potent factor in the not infrequent
failure to observe due process of law in the treatment of Indians. In
the summary treatment of Italians, Mexicans, Chinese, and other aliens,
differences in racial characteristics have also played an important
part. In very many cases of lynching a racial antipathy has acted as the
most prominent contributory cause, and it is this fact that has induced
many writers to find in “race prejudice” the ultimate explanation of
lynching as an American institution.
The lynching of negroes is now so distinctively an American practice
largely because of the racial contrast in the population which is
peculiar to this country. Nowhere else in the temperate zone does a
colored race of tropical origin come into contact in such numbers with a
highly civilized race of European stock. The “native question” of
tropical regions has here been transplanted, as it were, to the
temperate zone.[345] Furthermore, the difficulties arising from ethnic
contact within the tropics have been intensified rather than lessened by
this change of environment. There are the same fundamental differences
in racial characteristics and in racial heredity, but these become
accentuated and seem even more adverse in a climate where the struggle
for existence is of necessity much more vigorous and exacting. In
addition, there has developed between the white race and the colored
race in the United States an intolerant, inconsiderate spirit directly
promoted by an unwise and short-sighted political policy. A great many
years will doubtless be required for the effacement of the unfortunate
results of past errors, involving as it does a very general
understanding and recognition of the ethnic and “societal” factors which
enter vitally into the “race question.” Only in so far as this comes
about, however, will it be possible to establish a new order of society
with an appropriate legal system in the place of that which formerly
existed on the basis of the institution of slavery.
The assumption made by many writers that more negroes are lynched for
the crime of rape against white women than for any other crime is
without foundation in fact. Statistics show that not more than
thirty-four per cent of the negroes summarily put to death during the
last twenty-two years have been lynched for that crime, either alleged,
attempted, or actually committed. Lynching for that crime, however,
leads to lynching for other crimes and also furnishes a ground for an
appeal to public sentiment to condone the practice of lynching.
Since the negroes were made free American citizens a large class of the
younger generation has become utterly shiftless and worthless, many of
them being vicious and dangerous individuals in a community. Professor
DuBois, than whom there is probably no man better qualified to make a
careful and conservative estimate, says that at least nine per cent of
the county black population in the Black Belt are thoroughly lewd and
vicious.[346] Lynching has been resorted to by the whites not merely to
wreak vengeance, but to terrorize and restrain this lawless element in
the negro population. Among the Southern people the conviction is
general that terror is the only restraining influence that can be
brought to bear upon vicious negroes. The negroes fear nothing so much
as force, and should they once get the notion that there is a reasonable
hope of escape from punishment, the whites in many parts of the South
would be at their mercy.[347] There is no evidence, however, to show
that the punishment of negroes by mob violence tends to decrease
lawlessness among the negroes, or even tends to restrain the vicious
element from committing offenses against the whites. On the contrary,
lawlessness seems to beget lawlessness and the publicity given to
revolting crimes by lynching the perpetrators of them seems really to
incite others to commit similar crimes, or at least suggests to others
like crimes when opportunity offers.
The frightful tortures and the burnings which have taken place in the
last few years in connection with the lynching of negroes is partly to
be accounted for by the fact that lynchings are now carried on by a
lower class of whites than formerly.[348] The power of suggestion as an
incentive to crime is also evident in this barbarous conduct of lynching
mobs. The publicity given in the newspapers, particularly the
sensational ones, to the details of such tragic scenes has undoubtedly
been largely responsible for the frequency of their recurrence.[349] The
relations between the younger generations of the two races are, besides,
much less cordial and amicable than were those which existed between the
generations immediately preceding; there is less of a mutual
understanding. The relation of master and slave has been destroyed and
no new relation has yet been firmly established in its place. In the
process of adjustment to a new order of things there has been constant
friction between the two races, and when an offense has been committed
upon a white person by a negro, particularly if an assault has been made
upon the person of a white woman or child, the exasperation of the
whites has known scarcely any bounds.
While the decrease in the number of lynchings per year since the early
nineties affords some hope for the future with reference to the
suppression of lynchings, still the number of burnings and the number of
cases in which the victims are subjected to extreme torture indicate
that too much reliance cannot be placed upon any apparent decline in the
tendency to lynch. The fact also that lynchings frequently occur in
communities where such summary and illegal procedure had not previously
been permitted forebodes more lynchings in the future. The seriousness
of the situation with reference to the practice of lynching in the
United States is not yet fully realized. There is no little ground for
apprehension in the fact that it is becoming common for cries of “Lynch
him,” “Hang him,” “Get a rope and string him up,” &c., to be heard, even
on the streets of New York City, whenever a crowd gathers in response to
a feeling of popular excitement and indignation over the perpetration of
some atrocious crime.
In the course of this investigation into the history of lynching it has
become evident that there is usually more or less public approval, or
supposed favorable public sentiment, behind a lynching. Indeed, it is
not too much to say that popular justification is the _sine qua non_ of
lynching. It is this fact that distinguishes lynching, on the one hand,
from assassination and murder, and, on the other hand, from insurrection
and open warfare. A lynching may be defined as an illegal and summary
execution at the hands of a mob, or a number of persons, who have in
some degree the public opinion of the community behind them. When the
term first came into use it meant the infliction of corporal punishment,
particularly whipping. The term is now used exclusively to signify the
infliction of the death penalty in a summary fashion, usually by
hanging. But whatever the penalty imposed or the manner of its
imposition, the sentiment frequently expressed in a community where a
lynching has occurred is to the effect that the victim or victims got no
more than was deserved.
It further appears from this investigation that no one cause or crime
can be assigned for lynching. Lynchings take place for various causes.
At one time there may be a lack of ordinary tribunals of justice, at
another time there may be doubt as to the efficiency of the legal
machinery. Lynchings may take place because the offense is outside the
law but is deemed serious enough to merit severe punishment. They may
occur because of the barbarity and fiendish nature of the crime
committed. They may occur for one reason or for another; the only factor
that is always present is a disorganized state of society or a condition
of popular excitement and resentment when reliance on ordinary legal
procedure is at a minimum.
Of the legal remedies for lynching which have been proposed, few have
been enacted into laws, and where such measures have been placed upon
the statute-books they have not as yet been so effectively administered
as to inspire confidence in them as an ultimate means of suppressing the
practice. The problem of finding a remedy for lynching is really a
problem of increasing and maintaining a popular reliance on the
formulation and the administration of the law. Every measure which will
in any way promote such a reliance, either by invalidating the excuses
offered in justification of the practice or by developing a strong
public sentiment against it, deserves serious consideration, and every
such measure, unless likely to be productive of other evils possibly
greater, should be immediately adopted and put into operation.
The existence of the practice of lynching in the United States is a
national disgrace and should be so considered by every citizen no matter
in what part of the country his home may be. This, however, does not
justify citizens of the Northern section in violently attacking citizens
of the Southern section every time that a lynching occurs in that
section, or _vice versa_. Each section and indeed each community must
hold itself responsible for the prevention of lynchings. Neither
European philanthropists nor the Northern press or pulpit can do very
much toward preventing such occurrences in the South. It is a question
with which the South alone can properly deal and it is a problem which
the intelligent men of the South are best able to solve. The efforts of
the Southern Education Board and the General Education Board to educate
both the whites and the blacks and lift them to a higher plane of living
will do much toward preventing lynchings. The work done by such schools
as the Hampton Institute and the Tuskegee Normal and Industrial
Institute, and the principles advocated by such men as Booker T.
Washington, also lead in the same direction.
It has been well suggested that the Northern papers and the Southern
papers should exchange texts—the Northern press should preach against
negro crime, the Southern press should preach against lawlessness and
race prejudice. That this has been done in a few instances gives hope
for the future.
To the extent that the colored race increases its industrial efficiency
and becomes economically strong in the South will there be a decrease in
negro lawlessness and viciousness, and likewise will it merit respect
and confidence on the part of the white race. More than anything else
the colored race needs wise and able leaders at the present time. The
false notions and ideals of the Reconstruction Period have now been
largely eradicated. The race is in a position to make substantial and
material progress, if under able leadership, and such progress will tend
to eliminate the conditions which foster lynching in the South.
If the United States had a monarchical form of government the most
practicable means for the suppression of lynchings would consist merely
in the publication of an edict by the monarch for the better enforcement
of the law. Most lynching mobs could be easily dispersed were the
officers of the law resolute and determined men intent upon protecting
their prisoners and letting the law take its course; if they were
responsible only to their superior officers and not more or less
directly responsible to the people, and if they were not in sympathy
with the mob to a greater or less degree. Our system of government,
however, is in form representative and popular, and all our traditions
are against a highly centralized form of government. In the United
States it is therefore necessary to depend very largely upon public
sentiment for a strict enforcement of the law. Lynch-law will not cease
to exist in this country until there is a strong and uncompromising
public sentiment against it in every community, a public sentiment
which, with a full recognition of the ethnic and “societal” factors
involved in the “race question,” and of the necessity for a legal system
consistent with these factors instead of one based on abstract
principles concerning the rights of all men, will invariably condemn
lynchings because they are a crime against society, if for no other
reason, and will under no circumstances countenance them because they
may be the administration of deserved and well-merited punishments.
LIST OF PERIODICALS CITED
American Journal of Social Science.
American Law Review.
American Whig Review.
Annals of the American Academy of Science.
Annual Reports of the American Historical Association.
Atlantic Monthly.
Boston Chronicle.
Boston Daily Advertiser.
Boston Evening Post.
Boston Evening Transcript.
Boston Gazette.
Boston News-Letter.
British and Foreign Review.
Brooklyn Standard Union.
Chambers’ Journal.
Chattanooga Times.
Chicago Tribune.
Congressional Record.
Cyclopedic Review of Current History.
Denver Republican.
Essex Gazette.
Fortnightly Review.
Forum.
Green Bag.
Harper’s Magazine.
Harvard Law Review.
Houston Post.
Howitt’s Journal.
Independent.
International Monthly.
Johns Hopkins Historical Studies.
Journal of Proceedings of American Social Science Association.
Leisure Hour.
Leslie’s Weekly.
Liberator.
Literary Digest.
London Gazette.
London Gazetteer.
Massachusetts Spy.
Modern Philology.
Nation.
New England Gazette.
New England Magazine.
New York Commercial Advertiser.
New York Evening Post.
New York Evening Sun.
New York Evening Telegraph.
New York Gazette.
New York Times.
New York Tribune.
New York World.
Niles’ Register.
North American Review.
Notes and Queries.
Our Day.
Outlook.
Publications of the American Economic Association.
Publications of the Southern Historical Association.
Public Opinion.
Raleigh News-Observer.
Review of Reviews.
Richmond Planet.
Salem Gazette.
Saturday Review.
Southern Literary Messenger.
Spectator.
Washington Times.
Yale Review.
Citations are made also to statutes, historical records, colonial
archives, encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc. Full references are given in
the foot-notes. For authors quoted see index.
INDEX
Abolitionism, 91, 107, 121.
Abolitionists, 105, 106, 113, 120, 122.
Act of indemnity, 29, 72, 73.
Agreement to take extra-legal measures, 49, 73, 83.
Alabama, burning alive, 108, 126;
lynch-law adopted, 151, 179, 183, 188;
responsibility of sheriffs, 244;
punishment of lynchers, 255, 263.
Alaska, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.
Aliens, lynching of, 171, 181.
Anti-slavery agitation, 198.
Arizona, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.
Arkansas, burning alive, 109, 126, 191;
lynch-law adopted, 179, 183, 188.
Arnold, S. G., 66.
Atkinson, Governor, 231.
Austria-Hungary, mob violence, 4.
Aycock, Governor, 256.
Bancroft, H. H., 132, 198.
Bassett, John S., 48, 211.
Beard, J. M., 139.
Birkbeck, Morris, 77.
Blanchard, Governor, 262.
Blane, W. N., 38, 78.
Boag, Rev. John, 10.
Bohemian lynched, 172, 181.
Boies, Henry M., 164.
Brackett, J. R., 212.
Brande, 5, 8.
Brewer, Justice, on right of appeal, 260–262.
Bristed, C. A., 16.
Brown, W. G., 140.
Brown, William Wells, 202.
Brown _v._ Orangeburg Co., 246 ff.
Bryce, James, 140.
Burning alive, 108, 109, 126, 127, 191, 274, 275;
as legal punishment, 212 ff.
Cabell, Julia Mayo, 23, 33, 75.
California, vigilance committee movement, 132 ff.;
lynch-law adopted, 151, 180, 184;
punishment of lynchers, 255.
Canada, practice of lynching does not exist, 3.
Carpet-baggers, 138.
Castration, form of punishment, 211.
Cattle thieves, 163 (see horse thieves).
Causes of lynchings, classification of, 166 ff.;
conclusion in regard to, 276.
Cazneau, Jane M., 197.
Channing, W. E., 194.
China, secret societies in, 4.
Chinese lynched, 172, 181.
Civil War, social disruption at close of, 137 ff.
Club law, 38.
Colonies, punishment of rape in, 208 ff.
Colorado, lynch-law adopted, 152, 163, 180, 184;
burning alive, 191.
Colored element in population, influence on lynching, 186 ff.
Commissioners _v._ Church, 248 ff.
Connecticut, tarring and feathering, 63;
perpetrators of outrage
fined, 115;
lynching of Charles Lockwood, 180, 181, 185.
Corporal punishment (see whipping, tar and feathers, riding on rail).
County liable for damages, 246 ff.
Cowper justice, 8.
Craig, John, 10.
Criminality among negroes, 274.
Crockett, David, 196.
Damages, suits for, 114, 115, 125.
Defensor, 105.
Delaware, burning alive, 180, 185, 191, 261.
Desjardins, Arthur, 24.
Desperadism, 166.
Desperadoes, 128 ff., 150.
Dewees, F. P., 150.
Douglass, Frederick, 223.
Doyle, A. Conan, 140.
Drake family of South Carolina, tradition in, 17 ff.
Draper, Lyman C., 26, 34, 73.
Drayton, John, 61, 69.
Drewry, W. S., 92 ff., 165.
DuBois, W. E. B., 274.
Durbin, Governor, 263.
England, practice of lynching does not exist, 3, 7, 9.
Emancipation proclamation, 137.
Fallows, Samuel, 10.
Farmer, John S., 10.
Faux, W., 38, 76.
Featherston, H. C., 15, 23, 30.
Featherstonhaugh, G. W., 36.
Federal anti-lynching law proposed, 257.
Fiske, John, 212.
Flogging (see whipping).
Florida, lynch-law adopted, 119, 179, 183, 188.
Ford, Paul Leicester, 60.
Foreign element in population, effect on lynching, 186 ff.
France, practice of lynching does not exist, 3.
Franchise given to negroes, effect of, 205 ff.
Frontier conditions, lynch-law under, 1, 78 ff., 129 ff., 150, 194 ff.
Gag law, 37.
Galway story, 13 ff.
Gamblers, lynch-law adopted against, 98, 99, 108.
Garner, J. W., 138.
Garrison, W. L., 91, 96.
Georgia, lynch-law adopted, 92, 168, 179, 183, 185;
burning alive, 191;
anti-lynching laws, 231 ff., 233;
punishment of lynchers, 256.
Germany, practice of lynching does not exist, 3.
Gregg, Alexander, 20, 51 ff.
Grose, 7.
Grund, F. J., 114, 271.
Guinea Coast, secret societies of, 4.
Hakluyt, 61.
Halifax law, 8.
Hall, Judge James, 39, 81.
Hanna, C. A., 42.
Hardiman, 15.
Hawkes, Arthur, 202.
Hening, 30, 32, 73, 76, 211.
Henry, William Wirt, 32.
Hershey, O. F., 270.
Heyward, Governor, 252.
Hittell, John S., 132.
Hoffman, F. L., 153.
Hogg, Governor, 230.
Holt, George C., 155, 265.
Hone, Philip, 117.
Horse thieves, 3, 122, 128, 134, 163.
Howe, Henry, 25, 26, 33.
Idaho, lynch-law adopted, 180,184.
Illinois, lynch-law adopted, 44, 45, 78, 180, 185, 188;
compact entered into by Regulators, 83;
mob violence, 110, 115;
burning alive, 191;
punishment of lynchers, 254.
Illiteracy, study of with reference to the distribution of lynchings,
186 ff.
Immigration, effect on practice of lynching, 186 ff.
Indemnities paid by United States, 259.
Indemnification of William Preston and others, 29;
William Campbell and others, 72;
Thomas Nelson, Jr., 73.
Indiana, lynch-law adopted, 38, 77, 152, 180, 185, 188;
anti-lynching laws, 241 ff.;
Maxwell _v._ Dudley, 250.
Indians lynched, 172. Cf. 41 ff., 44. 45.
Indian Territory, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.
Informers tarred and feathered, 62 ff.
Ingle, Edward, 75.
Ingraham, J. H., 101, 227.
Iowa, lynch-law adopted, 86 ff., 180, 184.
Italians lynched, 172, 181, 228.
Jacksonian period, 106 ff.
Jameson, R. G., 61.
Jamieson, John, 8.
Japanese lynched, 172, 181.
Jeddart justice, 8.
Jelks, Governor, 263.
Johnson, Joseph, 22, 56, 61.
Johnson, William, 26.
Judge Lynch, code of his honor, 82, 83, 102, 133.
Kansas, lynch-law adopted, 134, 152, 180, 184, 245;
burning alive, 191;
anti-lynching law, 245.
Keller, Albert G., 272.
Kemble, Fanny, 201.
Kentucky, lynch-law adopted, 38, 78, 88, 151, 179, 183, 188;
damages for slaves illegally executed, 125;
burning alive, 191, 264;
anti-lynching law, 238 ff.;
punishment of lynchers, 255, 264.
Ku-Klux Klan 6, 139 ff.
Lashing (see whipping).
Latrobe, C. J., 83.
Lawless, Judge, 109, 193.
LeBon, Gustave, 275.
Lee, Henry, 26.
Legal executions compared with lynchings, 163.
Legal remedies, efficacy of, 245, 251 ff, 277.
LeRoy, James A., 202.
Lester, J. C., 139.
Levell, W. H., 274.
Linch, 16.
Linch’s Law, 39, 81.
Lincoln, Abraham, on effects of mob law, 110 ff.
Linn, W. A., 103.
Lossing, Benson J., 24.
Louisiana, lynch-law adopted, 117, 151, 179, 183, 188;
slaves sentenced to death by planters, 126;
burning alive, 191, 228.
Lovejoy, Rev. E. P., 110, 115.
Loyal League, 146.
Lydford law, 7.
Lyell, Sir Charles, 119.
Lynch, dictionary definitions of, 9 ff.;
etymology of, 16 ff.;
use of word, 116.
Lynch, Charles, 11, 23 ff.
Lynch, John, 23, 35, 75.
Lynch, James Fitzstephen, 13.
Lynch, William, 73, 75.
Lynchers, punishment of, 114 ff., 152, 254 ff., 265.
Lynch’s Creek, South Carolina, 19 ff.
Lynch Creek, North Carolina, 17.
Lynching, practice peculiar to United States, 1 ff., 267 ff.;
social conditions affecting, 2, 5, 277;
similar to regulating, 46;
definition of, 11, 135, 136, 186, 241, 276;
manner of death by, 151, 152, 191;
how justified in South, 224–226, 272, 273.
Lynchings, reports of in newspapers, 159;
distribution of by States, 182;
distribution of by counties, 189.
Lynch-law, meaning of term, 9 ff., 40, 136;
frontier type, 82 ff., 85 ff., 89, 90, 129 ff., 150, 194 ff.;
type found in well settled communities, 2, 112 ff.
Lynch’s law, earliest use of expression, 36;
original signification of term, 39, 40;
used for first time in Liberator, 97;
used for first time in Niles’ Register, 98.
Malay lynched, 152.
Marryat, F., 114, 194 ff.
Martin, Colonel William, 34.
Martin, F. X., 20, 48.
Martineau, Harriet, 104, 114.
Maryland, lynch-law adopted, 152, 179, 183, 188.
Massachusetts, lynch-law adopted, 102, 103;
tarring and feathering, 61 ff., 64, 65, 67 ff.
Matthews, Albert, 19, 21, 32, 36, 59.
Maxwell _v._ Dudley, 250.
Mayo-Smith, Richmond, 170.
McConnel, J. L., 84, 85.
McCord, D. J., 213, 219, 221.
McCrady, Edward, 20, 61, 69.
Mexicans lynched, 172, 181.
Michigan, lynch-law adopted, 152, 180, 185;
anti-lynching law, 244.
Mississippi, lynch-law adopted, 99 ff., 117, 120, 168, 179, 183, 188;
suits for damages, 115;
burning alive, 191;
punishment of lynchers, 254.
Missouri, lynch-law adopted, 98, 116, 118, 119, 120, 122, 151, 179,
183, 188;
burning alive, 108, 109, 126;
punishment of lynchers, 255.
Mob law, 37.
Mobocracy, 101.
Mobs, 20, 69, 97, 101;
definition, 241.
Mob violence, 66, 68, 91, 103 ff., 110, 115, 259;
damages for, 66.
Molly Maguires, 150.
Montana, lynch-law adopted, 151, 163, 180, 184.
Montgomery, Cora, 197.
Moore, Frank, 60, 61, 69, 70, 71.
Moore, Nina, 64.
Mormons, 103.
Murray, C. A., 36, 198.
Murrell conspiracy, 100.
Nebraska, lynch-law adopted, 152, 180, 184.
Negroes, lynching of, previous to Civil War, 124, 126 ff.;
in recent years, 151, 152, 170 ff., 181;
how justified, 223 ff.
Nevada, lynch-law adopted, 151, 180, 184.
New Hampshire, lynch-law adopted, 44.
New Jersey, tarring and feathering, 70, 180, 185.
New Mexico, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.
New York, tarring and feathering, 63, 70;
lynch-law adopted, 180, 185.
New Zealand, tarring and feathering, 61.
Noble, J., 212.
North Carolina, Regulators, 20 ff., 48;
lynch-law adopted, 91, 120, 179, 183, 188, 264;
burning alive, 191;
anti-lynching law, 232;
punishment of lynchers, 256, 257.
North Dakota, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.
Nuttall, 10.
O’Ferall, Governor, 229, 231, 262.
Ohio, lynch-law adopted, 152, 180, 185, 188, 248;
anti-lynching laws, 235 ff.;
Commissioners _v._ Church, 248 ff.
Olmsted, F. L., 128.
O’Neall, J. B., 20, 21, 53, 55.
Oregon, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.
Page, Thomas Nelson, 140, 207, 224.
Page, Thomas Walker, 23 ff.
Page, Walter H., 223.
Pell, Edward Leigh, 159, 231.
Pennsylvania, Rangers at Paxtang, 41;
tarring and feathering, 64;
lynch-law adopted, 22, 97, 98, 180, 185.
Perfectionists, 103.
Phillips, Edward, 7.
Popular tribunals, 133.
Public sentiment as remedy, 265 ff., 279.
Race prejudice, 168, 198 ff., 272.
Ramsay, David, 55.
Rangers, 41, 45, 82.
Rape, 126, 127, 166, 169, 170, 177, 207 ff., 213 ff., 273.
Ratzel, F., 4, 201.
Reconstruction period characterized, 153.
Regulate, earliest use in connection with extra-legal punishment, 48.
Regulating, 20, 38, 39, 46, 48, 51, 59, 80.
Regulators, 6, 20 ff., 33, 38, 42, 48 ff., 79 ff., 88, 121, 130, 143.
Remedies tried, 245, 251 ff.
Revolutionary War, social conditions during, 60.
Rhode Island, tarring and feathering, 63;
mob violence, 66.
Riding on rail, 92, 103, 113, 120 (see whipping, tar and feathers).
Riots, 38, 69, 91, 97.
Roads, Jr., S., 69.
Roberts, William, 3.
Royce, Josiah, 132.
Russia, lynch-law procedure, 3.
San Francisco vigilance committees, 132.
Schaper, Wm. A., 21.
Schenck, David, 36.
Schofilites, 22, 56.
Scotland, summary procedure, 7, 9.
Scotch-Irish blamed for introduction of lynch-law, 42, 43.
Sewall, Samuel, 201.
Shaler, N. S., 270.
Shepherd, Samuel, 211.
Sidis, Boris, 275.
Simms, W. G., 26.
Slick, use of word, 98, 120.
Sloane, W. M., 71.
Smith, W. H., 45.
Sons of Liberty, 59, 154.
South Carolina, Regulators, 19, 21, 51 ff.;
tarring and feathering, 69, 71;
lynch-law adopted, 151, 168, 179, 183, 188;
provision for trial of slaves, 218 ff.;
anti-lynching law, 233 ff.;
Brown _v._ Orangeburg Co., 246 ff.
South Dakota, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.
Squire Birch, 33, 81.
Stamp Act, 59.
Stearns, Charles, 139.
Stedman, C., 26.
Stone, Alfred Holt, 191.
Summers, L. P., 36.
Sumner, W. G., 60, 107.
Swiss lynched, 172, 181.
Tar and feathers, 60 ff., 92, 97, 98, 100, 101, 103, 120.
Tarleton, Banastre, 26.
Tea merchants, subjects for tar and feathers, 66.
Tennessee, lynch-law adopted, 35, 114, 115, 119, 151, 179, 183, 188;
Ku-Klux Klan, 139, 145, 148;
anti-lynching law, 237;
punishment of lynchers, 255, 256.
Texas, lynch-law adopted, 118, 121, 122, 128, 179, 183, 188;
burning alive, 191, 228;
anti-lynching law, 240, 241;
punishment of lynchers, 255.
Tillinghast, J. A., 200.
Tories, 24 ff., 60, 72.
Turner, Nat., 92 ff.
Union League, 146.
Upton, George P., 160.
Utah, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.
Vardaman, Governor, 263.
Vehmic courts, 5 ff.
Verdicts of coroner’s juries, 263.
Vicksburg gamblers, 99, 108, 194.
Vigilance organizations, 6, 122, 125, 128, 130 ff.
Virginia, lynch-law adopted, 23 ff., 32, 39, 76, 92, 119, 151, 179,
183, 188;
acts to indemnify, 29, 72, 73;
tarring and feathering, 71;
agreement of 1780, 73;
slave insurrection led by Nat Turner, 92 ff.
Washington, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.
Washington, Booker T., 278.
Wells, Ida B., 229.
West Virginia, lynch-law adopted, 102, 179, 183, 188;
joint resolution condemning lynching, 244.
Westcott, 7.
Wheeler, John H., 17 ff., 50.
Whipping, 27, 28, 32, 35, 47, 76, 77, 92, 98, 99, 102, 113, 114, 115,
116, 120, 217–218.
White Caps, 154, 168.
Willcox, Walter F., 207.
Williams, George W., 199, 203.
Williamson, Hugh, 20, 48, 50.
Wilson, D. L., 139.
Wilson, Woodrow, 107.
Wirt, William, 26, 32, 71.
Wisconsin, lynch-law adopted, 152, 180, 185.
Wister, Owen, 197.
Women, lynching of, 172, 173.
Wright, Carroll D., 268.
Wyoming, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184;
punishment of lynchers, 255.
-----
Footnote 1:
Compare statement by William Roberts in _Fortnightly Review_, January,
1892 (57: 92).
Footnote 2:
The _Times_, Washington, D. C., Dec. 14, 1902.
Footnote 3:
The _Standard Union_, Brooklyn, N. Y., Nov. 14, 1902.
Footnote 4:
The _New York Evening Telegraph_, Oct. 8, 1902.
Footnote 5:
See F. Ratzel: “History of Mankind” (trans. by A. J. Butler), I, 125,
281, 282; II, 131; III, 507.
Footnote 6:
See “Fehmic courts,” Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th edition.
Footnote 7:
Edward Phillips: “The New World of Words, or a General English
Dictionary” (1678, 4th edition).
Footnote 8:
Grose’s “Provincial Glossary” (London, 1811), p. 163.
Footnote 9:
See “Lynch Law,” International Cyclopædia (1893).
Footnote 10:
See Century Dictionary under “Law.”
Footnote 11:
John Jamieson: “Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language”
(1879).
Footnote 12:
An American edition, bound under the title, “Brande’s Encyclopædia,”
was published in 1843.
Footnote 13:
The English Dictionary, edited by Rev. John Boag and published at
Glasgow in 1848, gives for the verb lynch, “To inflict punishment
without the forms of law, as by a mob.” The definitions given for the
words “lynched” and “lynching” are also very similar to the ones given
by Webster. It is fair to presume that Boag consulted Webster and
followed his authority, although he did not mark the term as an
American word. John Craig’s Dictionary of the English Language
(London, 1849) gives “lynch, _v. a._ To punish summarily without
judicial investigation, as by a mob.—An American word.” The London
edition of Nuttall’s Dictionary (published about 1863) gives “Lynch,
_v. a._ To inflict pain, or punish without the forms of law, as by an
American mob.” The dictionaries published in Great Britain previous to
1848 do not contain the verb lynch.
Footnote 14:
The edition of 1901 has the same. The Century Dictionary is the only
recent authoritative work that states unequivocally that lynch-law was
originally the kind of law administered by Charles Lynch of Virginia.
Footnote 15:
See Hardiman’s History of Galway (Dublin, 1820), p. 70. Also,
_Spectator_ (London), April 13, 1889 (62: 511). The story can be
traced back as far as the year 1674. See Miscellany of the Irish
Archæological Society (1846), I, 44–80. (M.)
Footnote 16:
The _Green Bag_, March, 1900 (12: 150).
Footnote 17:
See “lynch law,” The American Cyclopædia (edition of 1875). See also,
Notes & Queries, 2d Series, Oct. 23, 1858 (6: 338), where reference is
made to _London Gazette_, 6–9 February, 1687–8, No. 2319.
Footnote 18:
That he succeeded in making himself thoroughly unpopular with every
one is shown in the Calendars of State Papers, Colonial Series,
America & West Indies, 1685–1688, and 1688–1692. (M.)
Footnote 19:
See “lynch law,” Encyclopædia Britannica (9th edition); also, under
“to lynch,” Bartlett’s Dictionary of Americanisms (4th edition, 1877).
C. A. Bristed, in an essay on The English Language in America
(Cambridge Essays, 1855, p. 60) says: “_Linch_, in several of the
northern-county dialects, means to beat, or maltreat. Lynch Law, then,
would be simply equivalent to _club-law_; and the change of a letter
may be easily accounted for by the fact that the name of Lynch is as
common in some parts of America as in Ireland.”
Footnote 20:
No such verb as _linch_ or _linge_ is found in Bosworth’s Dictionary
of the Anglo-Saxon Language, or in Stratmann’s Middle-English
Dictionary. Murray’s Oxford Dictionary (1903) gives the verb _linch_
as a variant of _linge_, a word “of obscure origin.”
Footnote 21:
See “lynch,” Skeat’s Etymological Dictionary.
Footnote 22:
Although Bristed ingeniously traces lynch-law back to the verb
_linch_, he remarks, in passing, that “if there ever was a phrase
deemed particularly Trans-atlantic in origin, it is that of Lynch Law
for summary and informal justice.”
Footnote 23:
See p. 10, note 1.
Footnote 24:
“Reminiscences and Memoirs of North Carolina” (1884), p. 172.
Footnote 25:
“History of North Carolina” (1851), p. 274.
Footnote 26:
See article by Albert Matthews in the _Nation_, Dec. 4, 1902 (75:
439).
Footnote 27:
Alexander Gregg: “History of the Old Cheraws” (1867), p. 120. F. X.
Martin: “History of North Carolina” (1829), II, 228, 233. Hugh
Williamson: “History of North Carolina” (1812), II, 128, 131.
Footnote 28:
J. B. O’Neall: “Annals of Newberry” (1859), p. 76. It is not stated by
O’Neall at what time these gentlemen instituted this practice in South
Carolina. From the evidence that Gregg gives, it apparently took place
in the summer of 1767. See the following chapter, p. 53.
Footnote 29:
See article by Edward McCrady, in the _Nation_, Jan. 15, 1903 (76:
52). This article as originally written was published in full in the
_Sunday News_, Charleston, S. C., Jan. 11, 1903. In a letter published
in the _Nation_, March 19, 1903 (76: 225), Mr. George S. Wills cites
an example of the use of the word lynch in connection with this creek,
which is found in a journal kept by the Rev. William H. Wills, a
Methodist minister of North Carolina, who traveled in his sulky from
Tarboro, North Carolina, to Alabama, in the early summer of 1837.
After describing a narrow escape from drowning in an attempt to cross
Lynch’s Creek while it was swollen, the Rev. Mr. Wills writes in his
journal: “Probably I shall never forget Lynches Creek; for it had well
nigh Lynch^d me.”—See “Publications of the Southern Historical
Association,” November, 1902 (6:479). This example, however, shows no
original connection between the term lynch-law and Lynch’s Creek,
South Carolina. As will appear in the following pages, by the year
1837 the word lynch had come to be widely used to indicate summary
punishment. Evidently the writer in this case merely noticed the
similarity between the name of the creek and the word which had
recently come into use, and so made this play upon words, using the
word lynch in a somewhat figurative sense.
Footnote 30:
See article by Albert Matthews in the _Nation_, Jan. 29, 1903 (76:
91). In a monograph by William A. Schaper, on “Sectionalism and
Representation in South Carolina,” the statement is made, in reference
to the Regulators of 1768, that “the settlers agreed to rely on lynch
law, which received its name at this time.”—Annual Report of the
American Historical Association (1900), I, 337. The author of this
statement that lynch-law received its name at this time was, however,
unable to cite facts to support it. (M.)
Footnote 31:
“History of the Old Cheraws” (1867), p. 128.
Footnote 32:
J. B. O’Neall: “Biographical Sketches of the Bench and Bar of South
Carolina” (1859), I, p. x.
Footnote 33:
“Traditions and Reminiscences,” pp. 44–45.
Footnote 34:
Ibid., p. 544.
Footnote 35:
Vol. 48, p. 402.
Footnote 36:
One such story will be found in the following chapter on p. 73. For an
account of the Lynch family in Virginia, see Mrs. Julia Mayo Cabell:
“Sketches and Recollections of Lynchburg” (1858), pp. 9–23. The chief
available sources of information for the facts and events pertaining
to the life of Charles Lynch are an article by Thomas Walker Page in
the _Atlantic Monthly_, December, 1901 (88: 731), and one by Howell
Colton Featherston in the _Green Bag_, March, 1900 (12: 150). Both of
these articles have been largely drawn upon in the following pages.
Footnote 37:
A writer (“Claverhouse”) in the _New York Evening Post_ for June 2,
1864, says: “In America, the term ‘Lynch law’ was first used in
Piedmont, on the western frontier of Virginia. There was no court
within the district, and all controversies were referred to the
arbitrament of prominent citizens. Among these was a man by the name
of Lynch, whose decisions were so impartial that he was known as Judge
Lynch, and the system was called ‘Lynch law,’ and adopted in our
pioneer settlements as an inexpensive and speedy method of obtaining
justice.”
Footnote 38:
Edited by Benson J. Lossing, published in 1882.
Footnote 39:
See article by Arthur Desjardins, _Revue des Deux Mondes_, May, 1891.
Footnote 40:
Charles Lynch was born in 1736, at Chestnut Hill, his father’s estate,
upon a part of which the city of Lynchburg now stands. His father was
a “redemptioner” who came to Virginia from Ireland about 1725. The
young adventurer subsequently married the daughter of the planter to
whom the captain of the ship that brought him over had sold him, took
up a large tract of land lying between the James and the Staunton
rivers, and became a tobacco planter on a large scale. At his death
the home on the James fell to his eldest son, John, and Charles took
the part of the family lands that lay nearer the frontier. The mother,
Sarah Lynch, then a widow, had joined the sect of the Quakers at the
Cedar Creek meeting on April 16, 1750, and it is in the records of
this congregation of Quakers that the following item appears: “14 of
Dec., 1754. Charles Lynch and Anne Terrill published for the first
Time their Intentions of Marriage.” The young couple established their
home on the Staunton, in what is now the southwestern part of Campbell
County.
For years Charles followed his mother’s teachings and was an active
member of the Society of Friends; for some time he was “Clerk of the
monthly meetings.” Later, however, the exigencies of the times caused
him to forego some of his scruples and accept public office. In 1767
he became “unsatisfactory” to the peace-loving Quakers and he was
“disowned for taking solemn oaths, contrary to the order and
discipline of Friends.” It was in this year, 1767, that he was elected
to the Virginia House of Burgesses, where he held a seat till the
colony became an independent State. He was prominent in the earliest
organization of Bedford County, formed from Lunenburg County in 1753
(Henry Howe: “Historical Collections of Virginia” (1845), p. 188;
Hening’s Statutes at Large, VI, 381), and was a member of the Virginia
convention of 1776, which, by sending instructions to the delegates
from Virginia in the Continental Congress, exercised a decisive
influence on the movement for independence. He had been made a justice
of the peace under a commission from Governor Dunmore in 1774, and
when the county court was reorganized, according to the ordinance of
the Convention, passed on the 3d of July, 1776, he retained the
position.
At the beginning of the Revolutionary War his Quaker principles seemed
still to influence his actions to an extent sufficient to keep him out
of active military service. His loyalty was well known, however. Mr.
Page says: “He did not enlist in the army, partly because of his
Quaker principles, but chiefly because his presence was imperatively
necessary at home. He had to rouse the spirit of his constituents to
support the action he had advocated in the convention. He had to raise
and equip troops for the army. He had, as it were, to mobilize the
forces of his country, and attend to all the duties of a commissary
department. In addition, he had to make some provision in the event of
an attack from hostile Indians.” In 1778 the court of Bedford
recommended him to the Governor for the office of Colonel of Militia
in that county. He accepted the commission and organized a regiment,
but the call to the front did not come till two years later when the
war was shifted to the south and Lord Cornwallis was sent to
co-operate with General Philips and Benedict Arnold in the invasion of
Virginia.
The records of the court of Bedford County, the minutes of various
Quaker meetings, the journals of the Virginia House of Burgesses and
of the first Constitutional Convention, taken together with family
documents and traditions, show Charles Lynch to have been a thoroughly
capable and highly respected man, a leader among the men in his
community. Before the close of the war he made a record for himself as
an officer in the army. At the battle of Guilford Court House, March
15, 1781, a battalion of riflemen under his command behaved with much
gallantry and aided in bringing considerable credit to the Virginia
militia. [Henry Howe: “Historical Collections of Virginia” (1845), p.
212. W. G. Simms: “Life of Nathanael Greene” (1859), p. 186. Henry
Lee: “Memoirs of the War” (1812), I, 341, 345. William Johnson:
“Sketches of Life and Correspondence of Nathanael Greene” (1822), II,
3. Banastre Tarleton: “History of the Campaigns of 1780 and 1781”
(1787), p. 272. C. Stedman: “History of the American War” (1794), II,
338.]
He lived for a number of years after peace had been declared with
England, and voted for the new constitution. In the family
burying-ground on his homestead plantation a tombstone bears the
simple inscription:
“In memory of Colonel Charles Lynch, a zealous and active patriot.
Died, October 29, 1796; aged 60 years.”
Many anecdotes are still in circulation among the old inhabitants of
his neighborhood illustrative of his habits and character. The chorus
of a once popular patriotic song runs as follows:
“Hurrah for Colonel Lynch,
Captain Bob and Callaway!
They never turned a Tory loose
Until he shouted ‘Liberty’!”
Another version of this refrain runs this way:
“Hurrah for Captain Bob,
Colonels Lynch and Callaway!
Who never let a Tory off
Until he cried out ‘Liberty!’”
Footnote 41:
Mr. Page makes no mention of any trouble with desperadoes. Referring
to the Tories in Bedford County, he says: “Numerous records of the
county courts, taken together with other sources of information, show
that here, as in many other western counties, there was a strong and
influential party opposed to the struggle for independence. For the
most part they were quiet, thrifty men, far different from the
ruffians and desperadoes that prejudice has since represented them to
be.” That there were cliques of depredators and that much lawlessness
prevailed in Virginia and the Carolinas at about this time is
undoubtedly true, however. William Wirt, in his “Sketches of the Life
and Character of Patrick Henry” (p. 217), cites the case of Josiah
Philips who, at the head of a band of banditti, spread terror in the
counties of Norfolk and Princess Anne, and was made an outlaw by an
act of the legislature of Virginia, by which act it became lawful for
any person to kill him whenever opportunity offered. Lyman C. Draper
presents the record of a great deal of lawlessness and depredation in
his “King’s Mountain and its Heroes.” See pp. 241, 331, 332, 336, 340
note, 343 note, 384, 448–449.
Footnote 42:
It is to be understood that these statements are based on tradition
and not on contemporary evidence.
Footnote 43:
Mr. Page remarks that the fine was not so heavy as it seems, for in
that year the prices fixed by the court were: rum and brandy per
gallon, £40, corn and oats per gallon, £2 8s., dinner at an
“ordinary,” £4 10s., &c.
Footnote 44:
Hening’s Statutes at Large, XI, 134–135.
Footnote 45:
Quoted from the article by Mr. Page. No evidence is cited in support
of the statement that the proceedings in Bedford were imitated in
other parts of the State and came to be known by the name of Lynch’s
Law.
Footnote 46:
See article by Mr. Featherston. A drawing of this tree “from a sketch
from nature” may be found in the _Green Bag_, December, 1892 (4: 561).
Footnote 47:
Mr. Featherston states that Charles Lynch was often called “Judge
Lynch” by his neighbors. He seems to have been more commonly known as
“Colonel Lynch.”
Footnote 48:
“The infliction of capital punishment was extremely rare. There were
only three instances of it, and these for most heinous offenses,
between the organization of the county (Bedford) and the Revolution.
The first case was on May 24, 1756, when the court assembled ‘to hear
and determine all Treasons, Petit Treasons, Murders, and other
Offenses committed or done by Hampton and Sambo belonging to John
Payne of Goochland, Gent.’ ‘The said Hampton and Sambo were set to the
Bar under Custody of Charles Talbot (then sheriff) to whose Custody
they were before committed on Suspicion of their being Guilty of the
felonious Prepairing and Administering Poysonous Medicines to Ann
Payne, and being Arraigned of the Premises pleaded Not Guilty and for
their Trial put themselves upon the Court. Whereupon divers Witnesses
were charged and they heared in their Defence. On Consideration
thereof it is the Opinion of the Court that the said Hampton is guilty
in the Manner and Form as in the Indictment. Therefore it is
considered that the said Hampton be hanged by the Neck till he be
dead, and that he be afterwards cut in Quarters, and his Quarters hung
up at the Cross Roads. And it is the Opinion of the Court that the
said Sambo is guilty of a Misdemeanor. Therefore it is considered that
the said Sambo be burnt in the Hand, and that he also receive
thirty-one Lashes on his bare Back at the Whipping Post. Memo: That
the said Hampton is adjudged at forty-five Pound which is ordered to
be certified to the Assembly (that his owner may be remunerated
according to law).’ That it was a convincing proof of his guilt, and
not race prejudice, that led the court to impose this savage
punishment is evident from the fact that in the same year a negro was
tried for murder, another for poisoning, and a third for arson, and
all were cleared.”—Quoted from the article by Mr. Page.
Footnote 49:
This evidence has been presented by the present writer in a
communication to the _Nation_. See issue of May 21, 1903 (76: 415).
Footnote 50:
William Wirt: “Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry”
(1818), p. 372. Mr. Matthews, in his article in the _Nation_, Dec. 4,
1902 (75: 439), remarks that it is uncertain whether the note was
written by Roane or Wirt. In William Wirt Henry’s “Life of Patrick
Henry,” Vol. II, p. 482, the “MS. Letter of Judge Roane to Mr. Wirt”
is given, but the note is not included. The note was undoubtedly
written by Wirt.
Footnote 51:
An act for dividing the county of Bedford into two distinct counties,
the new county to be known by the name of Campbell, was passed by the
General Assembly in 1782.—Hening’s Statutes at Large, X, 447; Journal
of the House of Delegates, Jan. 5, 1782, p. 73. Howe says that
Campbell County was formed from Bedford in 1784, and named in honor of
General William Campbell, a distinguished officer of the American
Revolution.—“Historical Collections of Virginia.” p. 210.
Footnote 52:
Published at Charleston, South Carolina, in 1845. See p. 212 for the
quotation. See Mrs. Julia Mayo Cabell: “Sketches and Recollections of
Lynchburg” (1858), pp. 9–10, for a similar account of the connection
of Colonel Charles Lynch with the origin of “the celebrated code
called ‘Lynch Law.’” This account is taken from the _St. Louis
Republican_, but neither the author’s name nor the date of its
publication is given.
Footnote 53:
Henry Howe: “The Great West” (Cincinnati, 1852), p. 183.
Footnote 54:
The writer is indebted to Mr. Matthews for the suggestion that Howe’s
allusion to “Squire Birch” points to Judge James Hall’s “Letters from
the West” as one such source. See Chapter III. p. 81.
Footnote 55:
There are two errors here. Lynchburg was not named for him but for his
brother, John Lynch, and the plan was started later than “some seventy
or eighty years ago.” Mr. Matthews disagrees with the writer in saying
that this account is entirely independent of what Wirt had written on
the subject. It seems to the writer, however, that these two
inaccuracies indicate that Martin was drawing wholly from his own
sources of information. He was, apparently, merely writing down what
was considered a matter of common knowledge among the older men in
that section of the country, many of whom were emigrants from
Virginia.
Footnote 56:
“Publications of the Southern Historical Association,” November, 1900,
(4: 463).
Footnote 57:
Charles Augustus Murray, in his “Travels in North America during the
years 1834, 1835, and 1836” (2 vol., N. Y., 1839), gives a traditional
account of the origin of the term “lynch-law,” such a one as might be
given around a camp-fire. He also describes the operation of lynch-law
at that time in the Mississippi Valley. See Vol II, p. 79. G. W.
Featherstonhaugh, in his “Excursion through the Slave States” (N. Y.,
1844), gives “An account of the first Judge Lynch, and the state of
Legal Practice in his Court,” pp. 89–90. He speaks of a certain Judge
Lynch in Arkansas and of “a famous Virginia ancestor of his.” He says
that “this ancestor, the first Judge Lynch, was a miller and a justice
of the peace in the back woods,” and then gives a traditional account
of his methods of inflicting punishment. See also David Schenck:
“North Carolina, 1780–81” (1889), pp. 309–310. L. P. Summers: “History
of Southwest Virginia and Washington County” (1903), p. 243.
Footnote 58:
Mr. Matthews holds a somewhat different view. See article, “The Term
Lynch Law,” _Modern Philology_, Vol. II, No. 2, October, 1904. This
article should be consulted by any one desiring to investigate this
matter further.
Footnote 59:
In the _Salem Gazette_, July 17, 1812, p. 3, the rise and domination
of mobs in a community was characterized as “Mob Law.” (M.)
Footnote 60:
Jan. 9, 1819 (15: 384). (M.)
Footnote 61:
July 24, 1819 (16: 368). (M.)
Footnote 62:
June 1, 1822 (22: 224). (M.)
Footnote 63:
“Memorable Days in America” (1823), p. 304.
Footnote 64:
Ibid., p. 318.
Footnote 65:
Vol. 26, p. 326.
Footnote 66:
“An Excursion through the United States and Canada,” pp. 233–236. (M.)
An extended extract is given in the following chapter on p. 79.
Footnote 67:
pp. 291, 292. A more extended extract is given in the following
chapter on p. 81.
Footnote 68:
C. A. Hanna: “The Scotch-Irish” (1902), p. 60.
Footnote 69:
C. A. Hanna: “The Scotch-Irish” (1902), p. 60.
Footnote 70:
New Hampshire Provincial Papers, VI, 262–266. (M.)
Footnote 71:
W. H. Smith: “The St. Clair Papers” (1882), II, 351, 374, 376,
396–397. (M.)
Footnote 72:
New Jersey Archives (1897), XIX, 225–226. (M.)
Footnote 73:
New Jersey Archives (1897), XIX, 326–327. _New York Gazette_, December
31, 1753. (M.) This is the earliest use of the word regulate in
connection with illegal punishment for corrective purposes that has
come to the writer’s notice.
Footnote 74:
See monograph on “The Regulators of North Carolina,” by Professor John
S. Bassett of Trinity College, N. C., for a full and complete account
of this organization. It was published in the Annual Report of the
American Historical Association for 1894.
Footnote 75:
F. X. Martin: “History of North Carolina” (1829), II, 218–219. H.
Williamson: “History of North Carolina” (1812), II, 130–131, 261.
Footnote 76:
H. Williamson: “History of North Carolina” (1812), II, 262–263. J. H.
Wheeler: “History of North Carolina” (1851), II, 306.
Footnote 77:
H. Williamson: “History of North Carolina” (1812), II, 270–271.
Footnote 78:
See Alexander Gregg: “History of the Old Cheraws” (1867), Ch. VII.
This chapter contains quotations from original sources on the
Regulation movement in South Carolina, and has, therefore,
considerable value.
Footnote 79:
See Gregg’s “History of The Old Cheraws,” p. 134.
Footnote 80:
See Gregg’s “History of The Old Cheraws,” p. 134.
Footnote 81:
J. B. O’Neall: “The Annals of Newberry” (1859), pp. 75–76.
Footnote 82:
See Gregg’s “History of the Old Cheraws,” p. 136. This is the earliest
use of the word Regulator in connection with the disturbances in the
Carolinas known to the present writer.
Footnote 83:
On April 18, a Circuit Court Act was passed, but afterwards failed to
become a law.
Footnote 84:
See Gregg’s “History of The Old Cheraws,” p. 138.
Footnote 85:
See Gregg’s “History of The Old Cheraws,” p. 139.
Footnote 86:
David Ramsay: “History of the Revolution in South Carolina” (1785), I,
63–64. According to this author these events took place “about the
year 1770.” O’Neall says (Annals of Newberry, p. 75): “The Regulators
and Scofelites, in 1764, met in battle array,” &c. Johnson says
(Traditions and Reminiscences, p. 92): “In 1769 great commotions arose
in the upper parts of the State, between what were called ‘Regulators’
and ‘Schofilites.’” In reality, the crisis in the strife between the
Regulators and Schofilites occurred in March, 1769. This is shown by
the following extract, dated Charlestown, (South Carolina), April 6,
which appeared in the _Boston Chronicle_ of May 11–15, 1769 (No. 92,
II, 155): “The prudent conduct of government, in ordering Joseph
Coffill, who had assumed the title of Colonel, and some extraordinary
powers, and with his party had committed divers excesses, to disperse,
has had the happy effect of once more restoring peace and good order
amongst the inhabitants of the western settlements, who, exasperated
by the tyrannical conduct of this man, has assembled in a large body
towards the close of last month, in order to compel him to shew what
powers he was invested with, and if they had found that he was not
cloathed with authority, to have brought him to justice, at all
events. Both parties were incamped within musket shot of each other,
on Saludy river, when the orders to Coffill arrived, and thus a great
deal of bloodshed was prevented. The Colonels Richardson, Thompson,
and M’Girt, gentlemen of great reputation, and highly esteemed by the
whole body of honest back settlers, we are told, exerted themselves
upon this occasion, with great spirit, discretion, and success.”
Footnote 87:
Joseph Johnson: “Traditions and Reminiscences” (1851), p. 45.
Footnote 88:
Ibid.
Footnote 89:
See Gregg’s “History of the Old Cheraws,” pp. 151–152.
Footnote 90:
This is likewise Gregg’s view of the matter.
Footnote 91:
In the year 1765 and for several succeeding years the “Sons of
Liberty” were particularly active in stirring up resistance to the
acts of the British government, which were considered oppressive. The
“Sons of Liberty,” elsewhere as well as in Boston, seem to have been
regularly organized and to have held secret meetings at which
resolutions were adopted and definite plans of action were determined
upon for either driving away or punishing certain “Stamp Masters,”
“infamous importers,” and “informers.” Warning notices were frequently
posted and published, signed by “P. P., Clerk,” “M. Y., Secretary,”
&c. Hanging and burning in effigy, flagellation, tarring and
feathering, and ducking, were the punitive measures generally
threatened and not infrequently carried into effect.—These statements
are based on a collection of notes on “Sons of Liberty” which were
loaned to the writer by Mr. Albert Matthews.
Footnote 92:
For an exposition of the condition of society, its state of
dissolution and lack of organization, during the Revolutionary period
and subsequent to that period, see W. G. Sumner: “Alexander Hamilton”
(1890). On page 13 this statement is made: “The Union was from the
start at war with the turbulent, anarchistic elements which the
Revolution had set loose.”
Footnote 93:
A correspondent of the _New England Gazette_ in 1776 asked “whether it
would be featherable for a man to be detected with one of them
(pardons from the king) in his pocket.”—Frank Moore: “Diary of the
Revolution (1875), p. 226. Paul Leicester Ford, when writing his
historical novel “Janice Meredith,” treated tarring and feathering as
an ordinary incident of Revolutionary times. See Chapters XVII,
XXXVIII.
Footnote 94:
John Drayton: “Memoirs of the American Revolution” (1821), I, 273.
Frank Moore: “Diary of the Revolution” (1875), p. 44. Joseph Johnson:
“Traditions and Reminiscences” (1851), p. 70. Edward McCrady: “South
Carolina in the Revolution 1775–1780” (1901), p. 24. The date on which
the tarring and feathering of Thomas Ditson of the town of Billerica
took place was March 9, not March 8, as given by the above writers.
For an explanation of the discrepancy in the date and for a
description of the occurrence, see _Boston Gazette_, March 13, 1775
(No. 1039, p. 3); March 20, 1775 (No. 1040, p. 3).
Footnote 95:
Joseph Johnson: “Traditions and Reminiscences” (1851), p. 71. “The
punishment of banishment, preceded by the more dreadful operation of
tarring and feathering,” was put in execution by a “judicial
Association” in the early days of a settlement on the Bay of Islands,
New Zealand. See R. G. Jameson: “New Zealand, South Australia, and New
South Wales” (London, 1842), pp. 190–191.
The _Yankee_, June 4, 1813, p. 4, cited one of the laws of the naval
code established during the reign of Richard I as the “Origin of
Tarring and Feathering.” By this law any one lawfully convicted of
stealing should have his head shorn, and boiling pitch poured upon his
head, and feathers or down strewed upon the same, whereby he might be
known until the next landing place was reached, where he was to be
left.—See Hakluyt’s “Voyages,” II, 21.
Footnote 96:
The writer is indebted to Mr. Albert Matthews for the facts which are
here presented in regard to the practice of tarring and feathering
previous to the year 1775.
Footnote 97:
_Salem Gazette_, Sept. 6–13, 1768 (No. 7, p. 27). _Boston Evening
Post_, Sept. 12, 1768 (No. 1720, p. 3). “Diaries of B. Lynde & B.
Lynde, Jr.” (1880), p. 192.
Footnote 98:
_Boston Evening Post_, Sept. 19, 1768 (No. 1721, p. 3).
Footnote 99:
_Essex Gazette_, Sept. 20–27, 1768 (No. 9, p. 37).
Footnote 100:
_Boston Evening-Post_, June 19, 1769 (No. 1760, p. 3).
Footnote 101:
_Boston Gazette_, Sept. 25, 1769 (No. 755, p. 3).
Footnote 102:
_Boston Gazette_, Oct. 16, 1769 (No. 758, p. 2).
Footnote 103:
No. 140, II, 351.
Footnote 104:
_Boston Gazette_, Jan. 1, 1770 (No. 769, p. 1); June 11, 1770 (No.
792, p. 2); July 2, 1770 (No. 795, p. 2); August 20, 1770 (No. 802, p.
1); _Boston-Gazette_ Supplement July 30, 1770 (No. 799, p. 2); Aug. 6,
1770 (No. 800, p. 2); _Boston News-Letter_, June 21, 1770 (No. 3480,
p. 3); _Essex Gazette_, June 19–26, 1770, II, p. 191; June 26–July 3,
1770, II, p. 195; Aug. 7–14, 1770, III, p. 11; _London Gazetteer_,
Nov. 17, 1770 (No. 13016, p. 2); “The Letters of James Murray,
Loyalist,” edited by Nina Moore Tiffany (1901), pp. 165, 175–178.
Footnote 105:
_Boston Gazette_, Nov. 1, 1773 (No. 969, pp. 1, 3). See also _Boston
News-Letter_, Jan. 27, 1774 (No. 3669, p. 2).
Footnote 106:
_Boston Gazette_, Nov. 15, 1773 (No. 971, p. 3).
Footnote 107:
_Boston News-Letter_, Jan. 27, 1774 (No. 3669, p. 2); Feb. 3, 1774
(No. 3670, p. 2); _Massachusetts Spy_, Jan. 27, 1774 (No. 156, p. 3).
Footnote 108:
_Boston Gazette_, Jan, 31. 1774 (No. 982, p. 3); _Massachusetts Spy_,
Feb. 3, 1774 (No. 157, p. 2).
On January 17 a handbill signed in the same way had been distributed,
giving notice that any “TEA CONSIGNEES” who should come to reside
again in Boston would be given “such a Reception as such vile Ingrates
deserve.”—_Boston Gazette_, Jan. 17, 1774 (No. 980, p. 3); _Boston
Evening Transcript_, Feb. 27, 1903, p. 14.
Footnote 109:
No. 976, p. 3.
Footnote 110:
_Boston News-Letter_, Nov. 18, 1773 (No. 3659, p. 2).
Footnote 111:
“History of Rhode Island” (1878), II, 308–309.
Footnote 112:
No. 761, p. 3.
Footnote 113:
_Boston News-Letter_, Jan. 27, 1774 (No. 3669, p. 2); _Massachusetts
Spy_, Jan. 27, 1774 (No. 156, p. 2); _Essex Gazette_, Jan. 25–Feb. 1,
1774 (No. 288, VI, p. 107); March 1–8, 1774 (No. 293, VI, p. 127);
_Boston Gazette_, Feb. 28, 1774 (No. 986, p. 2); March 14, 1774 (No.
988, p. 1). For a brief account of the whole affair see S. Roads, Jr.:
“History and Traditions of Marblehead” (1880), pp. 91–94.
Footnote 114:
For an account of the doings of mobs in Massachusetts see Frank Moore:
“Diary of the American Revolution” (1875), pp. 37–42.
Footnote 115:
John Drayton: “Memoirs of the American Revolution” (1821), I, 273–274.
Frank Moore: “Diary of the Revolution” (1875), pp. 90–91. Edward
McCrady: “South Carolina in the Revolution, 1775–1780” (1901), p. 24.
Footnote 116:
John Drayton: “Memoirs of the American Revolution” (1821), II, 17.
Footnote 117:
Frank Moore: “Diary of the Revolution” (1875), p. 138.
Footnote 118:
Ibid., p. 178.
Footnote 119:
Frank Moore: “Diary of the Revolution” (1875), p. 359.
Footnote 120:
W. M. Sloane: “The French War and the Revolution” (1893), p. 239.
Footnote 121:
“Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry” (1818), pp.
232–233.
Footnote 122:
Hening’s “Statutes at Large,” X, 195.
For an account of the measures taken which were not strictly warranted
by law, see L. C. Draper: “King’s Mountain and its Heroes” (1881), pp.
384–387.
“An act to indemnify Thomas Nelson, Junior, esquire, late governor of
this commonwealth, and to legalize certain acts of his
administration,” was passed in 1781.—Hening’s “Statutes at Large,” X,
478.
Footnote 123:
_Southern Literary Messenger_, II, 389 (May, 1836).
This reference comes to the present writer through Mr. J. P. Lamberton
of Philadelphia, Mr. Edward Ingle, the author of “Southern Sidelights”
(See pp. 191–193), and Mr. Albert Matthews.
Footnote 124:
The name of one of the younger sons of John Lynch, the founder of
Lynchburg, was William, and Mrs. Cabell says that he was a “Colonel in
the late war.” This William Lynch, however, married in early life and
made his home in the city of Lynchburg. See Mrs. Julia Mayo Cabell:
“Sketches and Recollections of Lynchburg” (1858), p. 20.
A writer in _Harper’s Magazine_ for May, 1859 (p. 794) refers to a
“Mr. Lynch” who “was for many years the senior and presiding Justice
of the County Court of Pittsylvania.” This writer also says that
Lynchburg was named for this Mr. Lynch, and that his advanced age
prevented him from taking the field during the War of Independence.
This, however, is an account from memory of a story heard when a mere
boy from an old man, and, as there are inaccuracies in several
particulars, it cannot be regarded as reliable.
Footnote 125:
Hening’s “Statutes at Large,” XI, 373.
Footnote 126:
“Memorable Days in America” (London, 1823), pp. 304, 305.
Footnote 127:
See pp. 96–98 for this extract. (M.)
Footnote 128:
W. N. Blane: “An Excursion through the United States and Canada,
1822–1823” (London, 1824), pp. 233–236.
Footnote 129:
See pp. 291–292 for this extract. The letters which compose Judge
Hall’s book were mostly printed in _The Port Folio_ between 1821 and
1825, but the letter in which he speaks of lynch-law first appeared in
the printed volume of 1828. (M.)
Footnote 130:
This expression is used in the Illinois agreement of 1820 (see below),
and that document, if genuine, furnishes the earliest instance of its
use known to the present writer.
Footnote 131:
This statement is made on the authority of McConnel (see below), but
compare C. J. Latrobe: “Ramble in America,” (N. Y., 1836, 2d ed.),
Let. VII, I, 96.
Footnote 132:
J. L. McConnel: “Western Characters or Types of Border Life in the
Western States” (1853), pp. 244–245. (M.) This extract is copied
verbatim, the names of the twelve men being omitted by McConnel. Of
the genuineness of the document McConnel says: “I am not sure that I
can vouch for its authenticity, but all who are familiar with the
history of those times, will recognise, in its peculiarities, the
characteristics of the people who then inhabited this country. The
affectation of legal form in such a document as this would be rather
amusing, were it not quite too significant; at all events, it is
entirely ‘in keeping’ with the constitution of a race who had some
regard for law and its vindication, even in their most high-handed
acts. The technical phraseology, used so strangely, is easily
traceable to the little ‘Justice’s Form Book,’ which was then almost
the only law document in the country; and though the words are rather
awkwardly combined, they no doubt gave solemnity to the act in the
eyes of its sturdy signers.”
Footnote 133:
J. L. McConnel: “Western Characters,” &c., p. 176.
Footnote 134:
_Niles’ Register_, July 19, 1834 (46: 352).
Footnote 135:
The _Liberator_, Nov. 5, 1831 (1: 180).
The publication of this paper was begun in Boston in 1831, by William
Lloyd Garrison, the enthusiastic agitator of the anti-slavery cause.
His efforts to make his lists of “Southern Atrocities” as large as
possible render his paper a valuable source of information on the
subject of lynch-law, particularly lynch-law as applied to negroes
prior to the Civil War.
Footnote 136:
_Liberator_, Oct. 29, 1831 (1: 174).
Footnote 137:
Ibid., Oct. 1, 1831 (1: 157).
Footnote 138:
Ibid., Dec. 3, 1831 (1: 194).
Footnote 139:
For the fullest and, on the whole, most trustworthy account of this
insurrection, see W. S. Drewry: “Slave Insurrections in Virginia”
(1900). This book has been very largely drawn upon for what is here
said on the subject.
See also, _Liberator_, Oct. 1, 1831 (1: 159); Dec 10, 1831 (1: 198);
Dec. 17, 1831 (1: 202); Dec. 24, 1831 (1: 206).
See also, _Niles’ Register_, Aug. 27, 1831 (40: 455); Sept. 3, 1831
(41: 4); Sept. 10, 1831 (41: 19); Sept. 17, 1831 (41: 35); Jan. 7,
1832 (41: 350).
Footnote 140:
See p. 84 in Drewry’s book.
Footnote 141:
The slavery question was the subject of prolonged debate at the next
session of the Virginia House of Delegates. See _Niles’ Register_,
Jan. 28, 1832 (41: 393).
In a speech made during the course of this debate, William H. Broadnax
said: “I have certainly heard, if incorrectly, the gentleman from
Southampton will put me right, that of the large cargo of emigrants
lately transported from that county to Liberia, all of whom
_professed_ to be _willing_ to go, were rendered so by some such
severe ministrations as these I have described. A lynch club—a
committee of vigilance—could easily exercise a kind of inquisitorial
_surveillance_ over any neighborhood, and convert any desired number,
I have no doubt, at any time, into a willingness to be removed.” See
W. L. Garrison: “Thoughts on African Colonization” (1832), p. 74. This
reference comes to the present writer through Mr. W. P. Garrison and
Mr. Albert Matthews.
Footnote 142:
See _Niles’ Register_ for the year 1834.
Footnote 143:
_Liberator_, Oct. 18, 1834 (4: 168).
The _New England Magazine_, November, 1834 (7: 409), gives some
comments on the times under the heading “The March of Anarchy.”
Footnote 144:
_Liberator_, Sept. 27, 1834 (4: 153).
Footnote 145:
Conditions were apparently much like those which existed recently in
Memphis, Tennessee, when a Committee of Public Safety was organized
and a crusade started against gambling. See _New York Times_, July 14,
1904; July 17, 1904.
Footnote 146:
See _Niles’ Register_, July 25, 1835 (48: 363); Aug. 1, 1835 (48:
381). Also _Liberator_, Aug. 8,1835 (5: 126–7).
Footnote 147:
For a brief account of the conspiracy led by Murrell, see _Niles’
Register_, Aug. 8, 1835 (48: 403–4). A complete account may be found
in the _American Whig Review_, November, 1850 (12: 494); March, 1851
(13: 213).
Footnote 148:
See _Liberator_, Aug. 8, 1835 (5: 126–7).
Footnote 149:
The “South-West,” II, p. 185–7. In Mississippi, at this time, eleven
crimes were punishable by death.
Footnote 150:
See _Liberator_, Aug. 1, 1835 (5: 123).
Footnote 151:
_Boston Advertiser_, Sept. 12, p. 2.
Footnote 152:
Similar punishments have been inflicted upon Mormons. Joseph Smith,
Jr., and Sidney Rigdon were tarred and feathered on the night of March
25, 1832.—See W. A. Linn: “The Story of the Mormons” (1902), pp.
133–137.
Footnote 153:
Issue of Aug. 22, 1835 (48: 439).
Footnote 154:
Issue of Sept. 5, 1835 (49: 1).
Footnote 155:
See also Harriet Martineau “Society in America” (1837), I, 120, 121,
122.
Footnote 156:
_Niles’ Register_, Oct. 3, 1835 (49: 65).
For a caustic satire on the “proceedings of Judge Lynch,” see “The
Enemies of the Constitution Discovered,” &c., by Defensor (N. Y.,
1835), pp 48–52.
Footnote 157:
_Liberator_, Nov. 21, 1835 (5: 188).
Footnote 158:
See _Liberator_, June 8, 1838 (8: 89), for an editorial from the
_Philadelphia Daily Focus_.
Footnote 159:
_Liberator_, April 16, 1836 (6: 63).
Footnote 160:
_Leisure Hour_, Nov. 24, 1877, p. 750.
Footnote 161:
This was Garrison’s view of the matter. See _Liberator_, Aug. 10, 1838
(8: 127).
Footnote 162:
Woodrow Wilson: “Division and Reunion” (Edition of 1898), pp. 115,
117.
Footnote 163:
W. G. Sumner: “Andrew Jackson” (1882), pp. 364–365; pp. 428–429, in
edition of 1899 in American Statesmen series.
Footnote 164:
_Liberator_, July 4, 1835 (5: 108).
Footnote 165:
See _Niles’ Register_, June 4, 1836 (50: 234).
Also _Liberator_, May 14, 1836 (6: 79), and May 21, 1836 (6: 83).
A negro slave was burned to death in a similar way in Arkansas in
November, 1836, for murdering his master and several negroes. See
extract from the _Arkansas Gazette_ in _Niles’ Register_, Dec. 31,
1836 (51: 275).
Footnote 166:
_Liberator_, June 25, 1836 (6: 102).
Footnote 167:
“Abraham Lincoln, Works,” I, pp. 9–10.
Footnote 168:
F. J. Grund: “The Americans in their moral, social, and political
relations” (London, 1837), I, 323. (M.)
Footnote 169:
“Diary in America” (1839), III, 232–233.
Footnote 170:
Harriet Martineau: “Retrospect of Western Travel” (1838), I, 236–237.
Marryat: “Diary in America” (1839), II, 201. _Liberator_, Aug. 24,
1838 (8: 135), &c.
Footnote 171:
See Chapter II.
Footnote 172:
_Liberator_, Oct. 27, 1837 (7: 174).
Footnote 173:
_Niles’ Register_, June 15, 1839 (56: 256).
Footnote 174:
_Liberator_, Sept. 14, 1838 (8: 146).
Footnote 175:
_Liberator_, March 16, 1838 (8: 44).
Footnote 176:
_Liberator_, Feb. 9, 1838 (8: 24).
Footnote 177:
This is not wholly in accord with the opinion expressed by Mr. Albert
Matthews in the _Nation_, Dec. 4, 1902 (75: 441), but in a private
letter to the writer Mr. Matthews has accepted this modification.
Footnote 178:
See _Liberator_, Dec. 19, 1835 (5: 204).
Footnote 179:
Philip Hone: “Diary 1828–1851” (1889), I, 150. (M.)
Footnote 180:
See _Niles’ Register_, Oct. 25, 1845 (69: 115).
Footnote 181:
Sir Charles Lyell, who was in Macon, Georgia, a short time after this
occurred, gives an account of it in his book, “A Second Visit to the
United States of America” (1850), II, 31–32.
Footnote 182:
_Liberator_, Oct. 19, 1855 (25: 168).
Footnote 183:
During the period 1830–1860 the word “slick” was occasionally used at
places in the Mississippi Valley, in the same sense as “lynch.” See
_Liberator_, Oct. 3, 1835 (5: 157), and compare _Niles’ Register_,
Oct. 5, 1833 (45: 87).
Footnote 184:
_Liberator_, Sept. 14, 1860 (30: 146).
Footnote 185:
See _Liberator_, Oct. 2, 1857 (27: 160).
Footnote 186:
See _Liberator_, Aug. 24, 1860 (30: 160).
Footnote 187:
See _Liberator_, Jan. 18, 1856 (26: 12).
Footnote 188:
_Liberator_, Oct. 16, 1857 (27: 167).
Footnote 189:
_Liberator_, Sept. 24, 1858 (28: 155).
Footnote 190:
_Liberator_, April 3, 1857 (27: 56).
Footnote 191:
See _Liberator_, Dec. 19, 1856 (26: 204). It is possibly to this case
that F. L. Olmsted refers in “A Journey in the Back Country” (N. Y.,
1860), pp. 442–443. He says a negro killed his master “a few months
since in Georgia or Alabama”; and “was roasted, at a slow fire, on the
spot of the murder, in the presence of many thousand slaves, driven to
the ground from all the adjoining counties.”
Footnote 192:
See H. H Bancroft: “Popular Tribunals” (1887), I, 749. In his two
volumes on “Popular Tribunals” this author presents very forcibly the
arguments and the conditions urged in justification of the acts of
these “Tribunals.” He also exhibits the methods and inner workings of
these organizations. In “Literary Industries” (1890), pp. 655–663, he
tells how he obtained his knowledge of what went on behind the scenes.
For a somewhat different view of the Vigilance Committee movement in
California, see Josiah Royce: “California” (1886), Chapters IV and V.
See also, John S. Hittell: “History of the City of San Francisco.”
Footnote 193:
Quoted from Bancroft: “Popular Tribunals” (1887), II, 666.
Footnote 194:
_New York Tribune_, June 7, 1858, p. 3.
Footnote 195:
In a message written by Governor Clarke of Mississippi in 1865, this
passage occurs: “The terrible contest through which the country has
just passed has aroused in every section the fiercest passions of the
human heart. Lawlessness seems to have culminated in the assassination
of Mr. Lincoln.”—Quoted in J. W. Garner’s “Reconstruction in
Mississippi” (1901), p. 59. The message is printed in the _New York
Times_ of June 11, 1865.
Footnote 196:
See “Report on the Condition of the South,” No. 261 of Reports of
Committees of House of Representatives for 2d Sess., 43d Cong.,
1874–75.
See, also, article on “The Southern Question” by Charles Gayarré in
_North American Review_, November and December, 1877 (125: 472).
For a comprehensive view, briefly stated, of the great social changes
begun in the South during the reconstruction period, see editorial
“The Way Out,” in _Outlook_, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).
Footnote 197:
See Reports of Committees of House of Representatives for 2d Sess.,
42d Cong., 1871–72.
Footnote 198:
The best apparently reliable source for information as to the
character and purpose of this organization is a little book entitled
“The Ku-Klux Klan,” written by J. C. Lester and D. L. Wilson, and
published at Nashville, Tennessee, in 1884. See also, article “The
Ku-Klux Klan,” signed D. L. Wilson, published in the _Century
Magazine_, July, 1884 (6: 398).
A less valuable but an interesting book is “K. K. K. Sketches,” by J.
M. Beard, published at Philadelphia in 1877.
Many writers make incidental reference to the Ku-Klux Klan; for
example, Charles Stearns: “The Black Man of the South and the Rebels”
(1872), Chap. 39; James Bryce: “The American Commonwealth,” II, 479.
An account of “The Ku-Klux Movement” is given in W. G. Brown’s “Lower
South in American History” (1902).
Some of the characteristic, possibly exaggerated, features of the
“Ku-Klux Movement” have been presented in fiction. See, for example,
A. Conan Doyle: “Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, The Five Orange Pips”
(1902), p. 104; Thomas Nelson Page: “Red Rock, a chronicle of
Reconstruction” (1898).
Footnote 199:
The committee appointed to select a name reported among others the
name “Kukloi,” from the Greek word _kuklos_, meaning a band or circle.
At mention of this some one cried out: “Call it ‘Ku Klux.’” The word
“Klan” at once suggested itself, and was added to complete the
alliteration. It has been said that the society was named in imitation
of the click heard in cocking the rifle, but this seems to be without
foundation in fact.
Footnote 200:
See, for example, _Nation_, March 23, 1871 (12: 192); _New York
Times_, Feb. 15, 1871; _New York Times_, Aug. 26, 1873; _New York
Tribune_, July 31, 1878.
Footnote 201:
For a list of the “Molly Maguire” outrages in the mining region of
Pennsylvania, and for an exposition of the origin, growth, and
character of that organization, see F. P. Dewees: “The Molly Maguires”
(1877).
Footnote 202:
No claim for completeness is made in regard to these statistics.
Particularly in the case of lynchings in the West they are doubtless
incomplete.
Footnote 203:
_Outlook_, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).
Footnote 204:
Compare the opinion expressed in the _Nation_, Sept. 7, 1876 (23: 145)
on the subject of “intimidation” at the South. In the year 1879, a
“Negro exodus from the Southern States” took place, which, on account
of its size and character, attracted considerable attention. Numerous
reasons were assigned as the cause. See F. L. Hoffman: “Race Traits
and Tendencies of the American Negro.”—Publications of the American
Economic Association, August, 1896 (11: 1); _Nation_, April 10, 1879
(28: 239, 242); Report and Testimony of the Select Committee of the U.
S. Senate to investigate the causes of the removal of the negroes from
the Southern States to the Northern States, 2d Sess., 46th Cong.
(Washington, 1880).
Footnote 205:
It is of interest to note that the Sons of Liberty of the period
1765–1775 seem to have had a regular organization and that in their
use of disguises and in their methods they were not wholly unlike the
Ku-Klux.
Footnote 206:
“Lynching and Mobs,” _American Journal of Social Science_, No. 32, p.
67 (November, 1894).
Footnote 207:
Edward Leigh Pell, writing on “Prevention of Lynch-law Epidemics,” in
the _Review of Reviews_, March, 1898 (17: 321), questions the accuracy
of the _Tribune_ figures for Alabama, Florida, and Virginia in the
year 1897. It is to be noted, however, that he refers to lynchings and
seems to have regarded number of lynchings as synonymous with number
of persons lynched.
Footnote 208:
In a recent article, entitled “The Facts about Lynching,” written by
George P. Upton, who for a number of years has been associate-editor
of the _Tribune_, a similar table may be found. [See the
_Independent_, Sept. 29, 1904 (57: 719)]. In this table, however,
there are numerous inaccuracies, and the fact that Mr. Upton does not
discriminate between number of lynchings and number of persons lynched
detracts materially from the value of all of his statistical summaries
on the subject.
Footnote 209:
Compare p. 182.
Footnote 210:
The negro had escaped from the mob and gone to a neighboring county
where he gave himself up to the authorities for protection. Later,
according to a letter received by the writer from the mayor of the
town where he sought protection, he was taken back by the sheriff and
brought before a justice for a preliminary hearing. The evidence was
considered insufficient to bind him over to the grand jury and he was
released.
Footnote 211:
Principally New York City and New Haven, Conn., papers.
Footnote 212:
To be strictly accurate the number of lynchings should be taken rather
than the number of persons lynched, but for the purpose of comparison
from year to year the latter may be considered sufficiently exact. See
p. 185.
Footnote 213:
Henry M. Boies has shown from the _Tribune_ record of murders that
there has been, within the last twenty years, “an alarming increase of
homicides, accompanied by a proportionate decrease of executions by
law and lynching.”—“Science of Penology” (1901), p. 120.
Footnote 214:
See W. S. Drewry: “Slave Insurrections in Virginia” (1900), pp. 22–25.
Footnote 215:
The liberty has been taken of coining this word to designate the cause
for lynching the class of individuals known as desperadoes. No other
word seems to express the idea so clearly. The word “brigandage” is
too narrow in meaning and too nearly obsolete; the word “outlawry” is
not sufficiently inclusive and is generally used only in its technical
sense.
Footnote 216:
“Statistics and Sociology” (1900), p. 271.
Footnote 217:
This may be taken as an indication of the trustworthiness of the
_Tribune_ record of lynchings as a basis for statistical
investigation.
Footnote 218:
See p. 164.
Footnote 219:
See the daily issues from July 23 to July 27, 1886.
Footnote 220:
These figures are taken from the Twelfth Census, where the term
“illiterates” is used to designate all persons ten years of age and
over who can neither read nor write, or who can read but cannot write.
Footnote 221:
The figures given by the Twelfth Census were used. The figures of the
Eleventh Census would be more nearly typical for the period under
consideration than those of the Twelfth Census, but a difficulty was
met with in an attempt to use them, owing to the fact that new
counties have been formed since 1890. It was found that counties in
which lynchings have occurred did not appear at all in the Eleventh
Census, and that for the sake of completeness it was necessary to use
the Twelfth Census.
Footnote 222:
Alfred Holt Stone, In a paper read before the American Economic
Association in December, 1901, attributed the amicable relations
existing between the whites and the negroes in the Yazoo-Mississippi
delta to the absence of a white laboring class, particularly of field
laborers. In his opinion one of the gravest causes of trouble between
the two races is contact on a common industrial plane.—“Publications
of the American Economic Association,” February, 1902 (3d Ser., Vol.
III, No. 1, p. 235).
Footnote 223:
See p. 109.
Footnote 224:
_Liberator_, April 19, 1839 (9: 63).
Footnote 225:
_Liberator_, April 30, 1836 (6: 72).
Footnote 226:
“Diary in America” (1839), III, 226–230.
For a description of the beginnings of legal procedure in isolated
settlements on the frontier, see “Narrative of the Life of David
Crockett,” written by himself (1843), pp. 132–135. (M.)
Footnote 227:
_British and Foreign Review_, 14: 29 (1843).
Footnote 228:
Cora Montgomery (Jane M. Cazneau): “Eagle Pass; or Life on the Border”
(1852), pp. 153, 164–167.
Compare the justification of the frontier type of lynch-law given by
Owen Wister in his recent novel, “The Virginian.” After describing the
lynching of some Wyoming cattle-thieves, and emphasizing the fact that
“many an act that man does is right or wrong according to the time and
place which form, so to speak, its context,” the author puts into the
mouth of “Judge Henry” these words: “They (the ordinary citizens) are
where the law comes from, you see. For they chose the delegates who
made the Constitution that provided for the courts. There’s your
machinery. These are the hands into which ordinary citizens have put
the law. So you see, at best, when they lynch they only take back what
they once gave.... We are in a very bad way, and we are trying to make
that way a little better until civilization can reach us. At present
we lie beyond its pale. The courts, or rather the juries, into whose
hands we have put the law, are not dealing the law. They are withered
hands, or rather they are imitation hands made for show, with no life
in them, no grip. They cannot hold a cattle-thief. And so when your
ordinary citizen sees this, and sees that he has placed justice in a
dead hand, he must take justice back into his own hands where it was
once at the beginning of all things. Call this primitive, if you will,
but so far from being a _defiance_ of the law, it is an _assertion_ of
it—the fundamental assertion of self-governing men, upon whom our
whole social fabric is based.”—pp. 435–436.
Footnote 229:
C. A. Murray: “Travels in America” (1839), II, 81.
Footnote 230:
Bancroft’s justification of popular tribunals and vigilance societies
has been referred to above. See Chapter IV, p. 133.
Footnote 231:
“History of the Negro Race in America” (1883), I, 121, 131.
Footnote 232:
See J. A. Tillinghast: “The Negro in Africa and America”—Publications
of the American Economic Association, May, 1902 (3d Ser., Vol. III,
No. 2). This monograph presents an admirable historical perspective of
the native characteristics and of the acquirements of the colored race
in America.
Footnote 233:
Fanny Kemble, writing in 1838–39, attributed the “personal
offensiveness” of negroes to dirt and habits of uncleanliness,
asserting that the negroes had no respect for their personal
appearance, and that this lack of respect was due to slavery. In her
journal, these words are found: “The stench in an Irish, Scotch,
Italian, or French hovel are quite as intolerable as any I ever found
in any of our negro houses.” In another connection, however, when
describing a certain negro named Isaac, she refers particularly to his
strong physical resemblance to a monkey, and says that she is much
comforted by the fact that this individual “_speaks_.” See “Journal of
a Residence on a Georgian Plantation” (1863), pp. 23–24, 219.
In describing “The Negro in General,” Ratzel writes: “The specific,
but hardly definable negro smell is certainly possessed by all, in
varying degrees. Falkenstein refers it to the somewhat more oily
composition of the sweat, which with uncleanly habits easily develops
rancid acids.”—“History of Mankind” (Trans. from 2d German ed. by A.
J. Butler, 1897), II, 315; see also II, 266, 301.
A practising physician in the city of New Haven, Conn., has assured
the writer that the peculiar odor is again apparent very soon after a
negro patient has been given a bath and a change of clothing.
Footnote 234:
Compare statements made in “An Apology for the Short Shrift”—_Saturday
Review_, May 28, 1898 (85: 717).
The following passage is found in “The Selling of Joseph,” by
Chief-Justice Samuel Sewall, printed in Boston, June 12, 1700, the
first printed protest against slaveholding in Massachusetts: “and
there is such a disparity in their Conditions, Colour & Hair, that
they can never embody with us, and grow up in orderly Families, to the
Peopling of the Land: but still remain in our Body Politick as a kind
of extravasat Blood.”—See “Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical
Society” for October, 1863 (Vol. 1863–64, p. 161).
Footnote 235:
William Wells Brown makes this statement in his book, “The Negro in
the Rebellion,” pp. 361–362.
Footnote 236:
Compare the manifestation of race prejudice in South Africa, in
Australia, and in the Philippines. See article “The Negro Problem in
South Africa,” by Arthur Hawkes, _Review of Reviews_, September, 1903
(28: 325), and the editorial comments on pp. 264–265 of the same
issue. See also, article “Race Prejudice in the Philippines,” by James
A. Le Roy, _Atlantic Monthly_, July, 1902 (90: 100).
Footnote 237:
George W. Williams: “History of the Negro Race in America” (1883), II,
72.
Footnote 238:
Evidence for this statement has been presented above. See Chapter IV.
Footnote 239:
_Outlook_, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).
Footnote 240:
_Outlook_, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).
Footnote 241:
_Outlook_, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).
Footnote 242:
See p. 200 of monograph “The Negro in Africa and America,” referred to
above. That this crime is of recent origin is either stated or assumed
by almost every writer who discusses the lynching of negroes. See, for
example, article by Thomas Nelson Page in _The North American Review_,
January, 1904 (178: 33).
Footnote 243:
From a study of the prison statistics furnished by the United States
census, Professor Walter F. Willcox came to the positive conclusion
that “a large and increasing amount of negro crime is manifested all
over the country.”—See an address on “Negro Criminality,” delivered
before the American Social Science Association, on Sept. 6,
1899—“Journal of Proceedings,” No. 37, p. 97.
A like opinion is expressed by many writers. See, for example,
_Forum_, October, 1898 (16: 167); _Outlook_, Oct. 31, 1903 (75: 493);
_Outlook_, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).
Footnote 244:
For a number of references on the subject of rape and its punishment,
and also on the subject of burning alive as a legal punishment for
crime, during the colonial period, the writer is indebted to Mr.
Albert Matthews.
Footnote 245:
“Acts of Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania” (1775), pp. 45–46.
On May 5, 1722, it became the law of Pennsylvania that importers of
servants who have been convicted of rape must pay a duty and enter
security for good behavior for one year.—Statutes at Large of
Pennsylvania, III, 264.
Footnote 246:
Colonial Laws of New York, I, 765–766.
Compare law of Aug. 8, 1688, in the Island of Barbadoes, which
provided that two justices and three freeholders were to “give
sentence of Death upon” negroes, for murder, rape, burning houses,
&c.—Acts of Assembly Passed in the Island of Barbadoes, From 1648, to
1718 (1721), pp. 140–141.
Footnote 247:
Laws of the State of Delaware (1797), I, 102–105.
By an act passed in January, 1797, thirty-nine lashes well laid on
were added to the punishment for an attempted rape on a white woman or
maid.—Laws of the State of Delaware (1797), II, 1321–1324.
Footnote 248:
Laws of Maryland (1799), Chapter XIV.
Footnote 249:
See John S. Bassett: “Slavery and Servitude in the Colony of North
Carolina”—Johns Hopkins Historical Studies (1896), XIV, 199. In
Virginia the punishment of castration was so frequently inflicted upon
slaves by the county courts that the Assembly deemed it necessary to
enact that “it shall not be lawful for any county or corporation
court, to order and direct castration of any slave, except such slave
shall be convicted of an attempt to ravish a white woman, in which
case they may inflict such punishment.”—See Hening: “Virginia Statutes
at Large,” VI, 3; VIII, 358; Samuel Sheperd: “Virginia Statutes at
Large” (New Series, 1835), I, 125.
Footnote 250:
“Records of the Court of Assistants of the Colony of the Massachusetts
Bay” (J. Noble, 1901), p. 74.
The following passage is taken from the _Boston Chronicle_, Sept.
26–Oct. 3, 1768 (No. 42, I, 383): “We hear that a negro fellow was
tried at the Assizes held lately at Worcester, for a rape, and found
guilty, and received sentence of death.—A white man was also tried and
found guilty of the same crime, and sentenced to sit on the gallows.”
Footnote 251:
See “Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society” (1874), 2d
Series, III, 178.
Footnote 252:
See J. R. Brackett: “The Negro in Maryland” (1889), p. 131.
Footnote 253:
_Pennsylvania Gazette_, Dec. 14, 1744 (N. J. _Archives_, XII, 244).
Footnote 254:
The basis for these statements is a collection of notes on legal
burning alive made by Mr. Albert Matthews. Compare John Fiske: “Old
Virginia and her Neighbours” (1897), II, 265.
Footnote 255: