LYNCHING DURING THE CIVIL WAR AND THE CARPET-BAG RULE
It is said that an Abolitionist Society by a bribe of $3,000 induced
the slave valet of Henry Clay to leave him and go North. The Society
thought that this large sum would be well spent in producing what would
appear to be such a noteworthy example of dissatisfaction with the
condition of slavery. Though the Negro accepted the money and left,
he soon repented and returned to his master. Thereupon Clay gave him
$3,000 (for the Negro had long since spent the bribe), telling him that
when he had returned the sum to those who had tried to corrupt him that
he would be restored to his master’s service. The money was given back
as directed and Clay then took the Negro back as his valet.
Such a case was, no doubt, exceptional. In one way or another, however,
the abolitionists produced more or less dissatisfaction among the
slaves and were almost wholly responsible for the escape to the North
of something like an average of 2,000 a year. The Negroes did not
always find conditions in the North so favorable as they had been led
to suppose. As a consequence it did not infrequently happen that a
“runaway” Negro would become dissatisfied and return of his own free
will to his master in the South.
During the Civil War those slaves who for any reason had become
dissatisfied with their condition embraced the first opportunity to
gather in the wake of the Union army,—mainly, no doubt, to shun work.
While this was true as an exception, the great mass of the slaves
remained quietly at work on the plantations. Thus, instead of creating
antagonism between the two races, the War served rather to foster and
cement a good feeling between them; indeed, throughout its darkest
days they lived harmoniously side by side. Elizabeth Collins, an
Englishwoman, who was in South Carolina the greater part of the War,
says:
“In regard to the slave population of Charleston, I may say
that they appear to be, almost without exception, happy and
contented.”[30:1]
Indeed, an examination of several Southern newspapers and some books
of travel[31:2] revealed but two possible cases of lynching of Negroes
in the South during the War: A Mr. Harris, Uchee, Alabama, was murdered
by six of his Negroes, whereupon:
“The citizens of the county about ninety in number, after
consultation, determined upon the immediate execution of the
murderers.”[31:3]
The other case was in Mississippi: Some Negroes were hung, seemingly,
for trying to get on a steamboat in order to escape from slavery.[31:4]
_The Liberator_[31:5] mentions two instances of Negroes being lynched
in New York in 1863: A negro in jail at Newburg, on suspicion of rape,
was taken out by a mob “who pounded him almost to death and then hung
him on a tree until he was finished.” Two were also lynched in the City
of New York, one of whom, it seems, was roasted alive.
In no place was there any mention of any Negroes being lynched for rape
in the South during the War. Indeed, it is often said that during the
Civil War when the white men were nearly all away from home, leaving
the white women almost at the mercy of the slaves, no Negro was guilty
of a criminal outrage against them.[32:6] It may be true. Viewed in the
light of the sporadic occurrence of the crime under the restraining
influence of slavery before the War, and of its quite frequent
occurrence sometime after, it is both remarkable and suggestive.
It may truly be regarded as evidence not only of the generally fair
treatment that, according to unprejudiced travelers, they were
receiving in slavery, as well as a tribute to their fidelity, but it
also makes it obvious that the Negro and the Southern white man might
have continued in harmony mutually advantageous after the War, had both
been free from outside influences.
Almost immediately after the War, however, the South began to “swarm”
with harebrained preachers and teachers from the North, ostensibly to
elevate the Negro; as a rule, though, they served no better purpose
than to aid in setting the Negro against his former master. For, it
seems, they cared not what became of the white man so they secured the
“salvation” of the Negro, entirely ignoring that saying of Scripture
which is to the effect that those who fail to serve first their own
house or people have denied the faith and are worse than infidels.[33:7]
Such a condition of affairs was promoted by Congress, who, at about
the close of the War established the so-called “Freedmen’s Bureau,”
and shortly after passed the Civil Rights bill, both of which tended
to cause friction between the two races. However, as compared with
that of a few years later, the trouble does not appear to have been
very serious notwithstanding exaggerated accounts which were reported
to Northern papers. In most parts of the South and at most times for
something like two years after the War, there was comparative quiet and
safety.
The crimes of the Negroes during these years were for the most part of
a trifling kind,—petty thievery and robbery. However, it is true they
committed crimes of a very serious nature, also. Notwithstanding, the
law was generally allowed to have its way. Harriett Martineau observes
in one of her books that nothing struck her more than the patience
of the slave-owners of the South with their slaves. Even during the
first years after the War a patient and even indulgent spirit was
often manifested by the leading whites toward the Negroes as to their
shortcomings and sometimes it extended to their serious crimes.
For instance, in 1866, near Rome, Georgia, a whole family consisting
of a man, wife, and two daughters, were murdered, and one of the women,
ravished. The newspaper account ends with:[34:8]
“It was difficult to restrain the people from inflicting
summary punishment upon them.”
For such a crime now, a Negro would likely be burned alive. The same
paper quotes the following from _The Raleigh Progress_:[34:9]
“Charles Wethers, the rascally Negro, who attempted to commit a
rape upon a highly respectable young lady of this county some
weeks ago, was placed in the stocks this morning for the last
time, having completed his sit still in the burning sun for two
hours during each day of this week. He was returned to jail and
will remain in the custody of the sheriff till the workhouse is
ready, in which institution he will labor at five dollars per
month until the fine, $200, and the cost of the trial have been
liquidated by muscle.”
Would it now be possible for any one to take such a tolerant, if not
even good-natured,—view of such an affair?
In order to make a comparison I have selected for study, here, two
three-year periods: First, 1866-7-8, including the year before and year
after the passing of the Reconstruction Act of 1867 for the South;
second, 1873-4-5, when the carpet-bag rule, which resulted from the
Reconstruction policy of Congress, was in full operation. Although
the number of lynchings during the first and second periods are in
striking contrast, even this but faintly indicates the great change
from the comparative tranquillity of the first (as illustrated by
newspapers)[35:10] to the confusion, chaos, and crime of the second.
In 1866, one Negro was lynched in the South for attempted rape,
another was sentenced to death for rape, and one was sentenced to the
penitentiary for a like crime. Also, near Smithfield, Ohio, Negroes
committed outrages on two girls. In Kentucky three white men were
lynched for murder, and three more were put to death by a band of
regulators. No doubt Kentucky was influenced in such matters by the
example of the West.
The following occurred in 1867: one Negro lynched in Missouri by
Germans for the murder of a German; a Negro given sixty lashes in
Delaware for assaulting two white women; three Negroes legally hanged
at Charleston, S. C., for outrage. In the North, two or more Negro
soldiers, deserters, lynched in Kansas for the rape of a white woman;
four white men lynched in Indiana for murder and robbery; thirty men
hanged in three Kansas counties by Vigilantes during the winter and
spring.
For 1868: Two Negroes who confessed to the horrible murder of a white
family in Mississippi were taken from a sheriff by a band of Negroes
and burned;[36:11] one Negro was lynched in Kentucky for rape and
another in Maryland for attempted rape; two Negroes, in jail for
murder, lynched in Mississippi after boasting that the _Loyal League_
would prevent their execution, even if convicted; a man lynched in
Tennessee after he had confessed to the murder of three men at
different times. In North Carolina over thirty Negro desperadoes,
who confessed to several murders and robberies, were captured and
put in jail. Ten Adam’s Express robbers were lynched in Indiana; two
men lynched for murder in Illinois and one for stealing horses in
Colorado.[37:12]
In 1873, however, six Negroes were lynched in the South for rape; three
were legally executed for the same crime; one, condemned to be hung,
and three awaiting trial—in all, thirteen Negroes charged with rape. In
Louisiana, three Negroes were lynched in the presence of 1,000 people
for an atrocious murder; four men were also lynched in Louisiana for
cattle-stealing, and another in the same State for arson. Also, one
white man was lynched in Tennessee by fifteen Negroes. Two Negroes were
legally hanged for murder,—one in Kentucky, the other in Virginia. In
the North: One white man was lynched in Ohio for rape; a Negro and
a white man were lynched in Nebraska for robbery, also a Negro for
murder; two men were lynched in Montana for murder and two in Kansas
for supposed murder.
During the year 1874, eleven Negroes and one white man were lynched
in the South for rape, while two Negroes were legally executed for the
crime. In two instances,—one in Arkansas, the other in Missouri,—both
Negroes and whites took part in lynching Negroes. Three Negroes were
also lynched in the South for murder and two for riot; and four Negroes
in Tennessee for threatening to kill some whites and to sack and burn
a town. In addition, ten white men were lynched, four in Arkansas
and one in Missouri for horse-stealing, the others in the States of
the Southwest for scandalous murders. In the North, two Negroes were
lynched for murder, and two Negroes in Pennsylvania and one white man
in Kansas for rape. In the North, also, seven white men, one Mexican
and one Chinaman were lynched for murder, and one white man for
horse-stealing and another for thievery.
In 1875, the last year of the second period,—nine Negroes were lynched
in the South for rape and four for attempted rape; also, one Negro
guilty of rape, and another who attempted rape, escaped,—in all,
fifteen rape cases.[38:13] One man and two Negroes were lynched for
murder. Also one Negro was legally executed for rape, eleven for
murder, and one case cause not given. In the North, one Negro was
lynched, cause not given, and one Negro guilty of rape, escaped. Three
men, also, were lynched for murder, one for arson, and one in New York
for robbery.
By comparing the two three-year periods it will be found that during
1866-8 there were seven cases of rape or attempted rape by Negroes in
the South. In three instances they were lynched and in four, the law
was allowed to take its course. While for 1873-5, twenty-six Negroes
were lynched for rape, and four for attempted rape. Six Negroes were
legally executed for rape, one was under sentence of death for the
crime, three were awaiting trial and two escaped—in all forty-two
Negroes in the South were charged with rape during the second period.
This was just six times as many as for the first period. Further, ten
times the number of Negroes were lynched for rape in the South during
1873-5 as during 1866-8, or but 43- per cent of those charged with the
crime during the first period as against 73+ per cent for the second.
That this wonderful change was due almost wholly to misgovernment
at Washington, no one can doubt. Surely, History was never obliged
to record a more colossal blunder in statesmanship than that of
Congressional Reconstruction. Nor is it likely that any civilized
people were ever before called upon to endure a system of misrule
and legalized plunder equal to that which such legislation, maybe
unwittingly, paved the way for inaugurating at the South.
The confusion, turmoil, and strife that it created is only too well
known. Not only did it result in a cleavage of the social structure,
setting one part against the other, but it also caused as much or more
financial damage to the South than the War itself. For instance, four
and one-half years of Reconstruction, it is said, cost the State of
Louisiana alone over $106,000,000; while the assessed valuation of
property in New Orleans dropped from $147,000,000 to $88,500,000 during
eight years of carpet-bag rule.
It was made easy for political-fortune hunters from the North, with
little concern for the good of either the whites or the blacks of the
South, to gain position and power through cultivating the friendship
of the ignorant, credulous, newly enfranchised Negroes. This they
assiduously did from the start. At the same time they left nothing
undone which might create and foster among the Negroes a feeling of
ill will against and distrust of the Southern whites. If their former
masters came into power, the Negroes were sometimes told, they would
be reduced to slavery. The Negroes’ love of display was appealed to
by encouraging them to form secret societies, to make public parades,
and hold celebrations which tended to create a race consciousness
and race solidarity. This, of course, was for the purpose of helping
the carpet-baggers in perpetuating their power. If one considers the
conditions, what else could be expected but riots and lynchings?
If the control of the Negroes in slavery times, with all the advantages
to such end embodied in the institution of slavery, had often been one
of anxiety to the South, how fearful must have been the conditions now
that they were not only free from such control but enfranchised and
taught by their new friends to be self-assertive, even if not sometimes
encouraged in acts of violence against the Southern white people? It
does, indeed, seem that a great part of the Negroes almost ran wild—for
they were free, but did not understand how to use their freedom. So,
lazy, worthless, robbing, murdering gangs of them went prowling through
the South. For it is as natural for the Negro to sit in idleness, or
shoot crap, to go on marauding expeditions or connive at insurrections,
as it is for the white man to establish courts, collect libraries, and
found schools.
Can History prove that the Negro, during his thousands of years of
contact with superior races, has ever yet risen to the dignity of
stable and progressive self-government? Even Liberia, with all the
help that has been given her, is gradually sinking to the level of the
surrounding barbarism. And what of San Domingo? Indeed, everywhere the
tendency of the pure Negro is to fall when the white man’s props are
removed.
To return: If there ever was a time when the best elements in a society
were justified in taking the law into their own hands, that time was
during carpet-bag rule. The wonder now is that such a people as those
of the South should have acted with even the moderation that appears.
That some of the carpet-bag governments were absolutely corrupt goes
without saying. “Get all you can in any way you can” seemed to be the
idea. Justice was for sale. In some instances, it is said, the criminal
elements knew that any one could commit crime and escape punishment
for a money consideration. A few examples may be of interest:[42:14]
A man who was accused of outrageously murdering a woman, although
caught and imprisoned, was released, it is said, without even a trial,
for $800. Moreover, a Negro who had been sentenced by a court to the
penitentiary was released and returned home on the same train as the
sheriff who took him there. Indeed, the accusation was made that a
certain carpet-bag governor, in order to help the Republican Party,
connived at the killing of a number of Negroes in such a way that the
blame might fall on the Southern whites. At one place,[43:15] a court
in passing judgment on a convicted Negro rapist merely sent him to the
penitentiary, which so enraged the people of the community that they
took him from jail and hanged him near the place of his crime.
In order that one may the better understand the reason for the
development of the lynching spirit in the South the following
quotations are given:
I. “New Iberia, La., Sept. 13, the Parish of Vermillon for
years has been infested with cattle thieves. The people have
been unable to obtain redress by process of law and last month
they organized a vigilant committee as a last resort. A large
number of thieves and their confederates were given notice to
leave within a specified time but instead of doing so armed
themselves and threatened to destroy the town of Abbeville. The
Vigilantes pressed them and they scattered. It is reported that
three of the band were hung on Friday. . . . All kinds of vague
rumors are afloat concerning the number executed.”[43:16]
II. “The right of a robbed people to revolt against
robbery. . . . In Edgefield, S. C., a few days ago the country
was startled by a resolution adopted at a meeting of the
citizens of the county, which declared that, ‘Parties black or
white who may be caught in the act of firing any house in this
county shall be dealt with in accordance with the precedents of
Lynch law, which is a part of the unwritten law of America.’
“Edgefield people present a statement of facts which while
not justifying resort to Lynch law shows a strong provocation
for it. Just before the November election, the most prominent
_white Radical_ of the county is said to have advised the
Negroes to burn the houses of the whites; and that this
advice was not lost on them seems to be proved by the fact
that thirteen citizens were burned out of their homes by
incendiaries between the 7th and 19th of December. The Radicals
have a large majority and they have used their power without
mercy.
“No security for persons or property, for the Negroes and poor
whites who act with them had a majority on every jury so that
it was impossible to convict one of their number no matter
how plain the evidence. And even if convicted was promptly
pardoned by the infamous executive, Moses. To such an extent
was this carried that Carpenter, the Republican Judge of the
circuit, announced that he would not permit the State to be put
to the expense of trying criminals who were pardoned as soon
as convicted. The citizens assert that Lynch law is the only
remedy for the evils they endure and therefore they proclaim
it. They may be wrong but they are more sinned against than
sinning.”[45:17]
III. “Augusta, Ga., Aug. 23.—Several prominent Negroes
connected with the troubles in the counties below have made
confessions. Jake Moorman, First Lieutenant of a Negro company,
testifies on oath that 19 counties were to be embraced in the
insurrection. All white men and ugly white women were to be
killed. Pretty white women were to be spared and the land and
spoils were to be divided among the Negroes.[45:18] All who
have so far confessed testify to substantially the same as Jake
Moorman.”[45:19]
However, in some States,—for instance, Virginia, Maryland, and
Delaware,—where the Southern whites had control, order was preserved
and comparative quiet prevailed, while the lynching of Negroes was
sporadic, not only during this early period, but even until the
present. Discord and collisions between the two races have been almost
unknown.
It is doubtful if any greater mistake was made in dealing with the
South after the War than in disfranchising the leading Southern whites
and granting the Negro suffrage. The Negro might have been given
the ballot gradually as he proved himself fitted for it without any
detriment. But considering the race as a whole—it may be putting it too
mild—it may be too great a compliment to the Negro,—too disparaging to
the intelligence of the average white boy,—to say that the Negroes,
with some exceptions, at that time were no more fit for the ballot than
seven-year-old boys. Nor was it any more reasonable to expect them
to act the part of men in using it, or in political affairs, than to
expect it from seven-year-old boys. They were, and to a large extent
are yet, a race in its childhood.
President Lincoln, however, seems to have understood better than any
one else of his party what was for the best interest of both races:
That the Negroes, at least, for a while, with proper guarantees and
restrictions, should be in a position of tutelage or apprenticeship
to the whites. Indeed, there is little doubt that he expected the
Southern States to make some such temporary arrangements, for in a
proclamation, December 8, 1863, in reference to the reëstablishment of
State governments by several States of the farther South, he says:
“That any provision which may be adopted by such State
government, in relation to the freed people of such State
which shall recognize and declare their permanent freedom,
provide for their education, and which may yet be consistent
as a temporary arrangement with their present condition as a
laboring, landless and homeless class, will not be objected to
by the National Executive.”
But unfortunately for both races in the South, Lincoln was assassinated.
FOOTNOTES:
[30:1] Elizabeth Collins, “Memories of the Southern States,” p. 46.
[31:2] _The Frankfort_ (Ky.) _Commonwealth_, _The Charleston_ (S.
C.) _Mercury_, _The Louisville_ (Ky.) _Democrat_ for 1863 and 1864,
_The Daily News_ (Savannah), for 1862 and one Northern paper, _The
Liberator_ (Boston) for 1863. The books of travel include Elizabeth
Collins’ “Memories of the Southern States.”
[31:3] Savannah _News_, June 9, 1862.
[31:4] _The Liberator_, Feb. 22, 1863.
[31:5] _Ibid._, June 26 and July 24, 1863.
[32:6] Grimke, “Lynching of Negroes,” p. 29.
[33:7] _I Timothy_, V, 8.
[34:8] _Richmond Times_, Oct. 24, 1866.
[34:9] _Ibid._, Sept. 11, 1866.
[35:10] Newspapers examined for first period: _Richmond Times_, 1866;
_Richmond Times_, _Baltimore American_, and the _New Orleans Times_,
1867; and the _Sun_ (Baltimore), _Leader_ (Baltimore) and Atlanta _News
Era_, 1868; second, _Missouri Republican_, _Baltimore American_, 1873;
_Richmond Enquirer_, _Baltimore American_, _St. Louis Republican_,
1874; _Baltimore American_, _St. Louis Republican_, _Richmond
Enquirer_, and _New Orleans Republican_, 1875. I do not claim that I
found every case of lynching in the South for either period, but as
the same case would often be found in two or three different papers, I
believe that I found practically all.
[36:11] This lynching of the two Negroes by Negroes is the only case I
found where Negroes alone did the lynching in cases of crime against
the whites. Several times during the seventies, however, Negroes are
found helping the whites to lynch some Negro guilty of crime. It shows,
I believe, that in some places, at least, the Negroes were yet in
accord with the Southern whites.
[37:12] So far as the North and West are concerned, I simply happened
to find such without any special search. I was searching carefully for
lynchings in the South, etc.
[38:13] In 1875, there was another interesting case in which both
Negroes and whites, about equal in number, lynched a Negro for
attempted rape of a white woman.
[42:14] _St. Louis Republican_, Sept. 14, 1875.
[43:15] _St. Louis Republican_, July 22, 1875.
[43:16] _Missouri Republican_, Sept. 14, 1873.
[45:17] Editorial, _St. Louis Republican_, Jan. 1, 1875.
[45:18] This recalls an account of the Texan Negro insurrection of 1860
as quoted by _The Liberator_ of July 21, 1860: “The old females were
to be slaughtered along with the men, and the young and handsome women
were to be parcelled out among those infamous scoundrels. They had even
gone so far as to designate their choice. . . . The Negroes have been
incited to these infernal proceedings by the abolitionists.”
[45:19] _St. Louis Republican_, Aug. 24, 1875. Accounts of riots in
Mississippi, in which several were killed, were given by the same
paper, Sept. 5, 7, 1875.