{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_67353/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_67353","id":"gutenberg_67353","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/67353","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Law & Criminology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Lynching -- United States"],"text":"LYNCH-LAW\n AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE HISTORY OF LYNCHING IN THE UNITED STATES\n\n\n BY\n\n JAMES ELBERT CUTLER, PH.D.\n\n _Instructor in Economics in Wellesley College; sometime Henry C.\n Robinson Fellow and Instructor in Political Economy in Yale University_\n\n \u2766\n\n LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.\n 91 AND 93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK\n LONDON AND BOMBAY\n\n 1905\n\n\n\n\n Copyright, 1905\n By LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.\n _All rights reserved_\n\n\n _The Plimpton Press Norwood Mass._\n\n\n\n\n FOREWORD\n\n\nFew people are able to read about lynch-executions, with atrocious forms\nof torture and cruel death, such as have occurred from time to time\nwithin ten years in this country, without a feeling of national shame.\nIt is necessary that facts should be known and that public opinion\nshould be corrected as to the ethics of that mode of dealing with crime.\nLynch-law is a very different thing where laws and civil institutions\nare in full force and activity from what it is where they are wanting.\nIt is not admissible that a self-governing democracy should plead the\nremissness of its own selected agents as an excuse for mob-violence. It\nis a disgrace to our civilization that men can be put to death by\npainful methods, which our laws have discarded as never suitable, and\nwithout the proofs of guilt which our laws call for in any case\nwhatsoever. It would be a disgrace to us if amongst us men should burn a\nrattlesnake or a mad dog. The badness of the victim is not an element in\nthe case at all. Torture and burning are forbidden, not because the\nvictim is not bad enough, but because we are too good. It is on account\nof what we owe to ourselves that these methods are shameful to us, if we\ndescend to them. It is evident, however, that public opinion is not\neducated up to this level. The reader of the present book will learn\nvery interesting facts about the causes alleged for lynching, and about\nthe public view of that crime. Many current errors will be corrected,\nand many notions which are irrelevant, although they are popularly\nbelieved to be germane and important, will be set aside.\n\n W. G. SUMNER.\n\nNEW HAVEN, CONN., February, 1905.\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE\n\n\nIn making this investigation into the history of lynching in the United\nStates, my point of view has been that of a student of society and\nsocial phenomena. The purpose of the investigation has not been\nprimarily to write the history of lynching, but to determine from the\nhistory the causes for the prevalence of the practice, to determine what\nthe social conditions are under which lynch-law operates, and to test\nthe validity of the arguments which have been advanced in justification\nof lynching.\n\nAt the present time many positive opinions are held with reference to\nlynching, and these are quite at variance one with another. Any one who\nattempts to investigate a subject under such conditions cannot hope to\nescape criticism; neither can he hope to have given the subject equal\nconsideration from every standpoint. The most that one can say is that\nhe has pursued the investigation with perfect honesty of purpose and\nwith openness of mind. To this study of the history of lynching I have\nbrought no theories to prove and no conscious prejudices to confirm. My\nfirst endeavor has been to obtain all the facts possible; my final\nendeavor has been to point out the conclusions clearly warranted by such\nfacts.\n\nThe material for a study of this nature is found in a wide range of\nsources and I gratefully record here my obligations to those who have\naided me in the task of collecting and sifting this material. For some\nvery valuable notes on the early history of lynch-law I am indebted to\nMr. Albert Matthews, of Boston, Massachusetts. Of his notes I have made\nfree use, indicating my obligation to him in each instance, either by\nthe use of the letter (M) or by special mention. Six of the chapters\nhave been read by him in the manuscript, and he has given me much\nencouragement and kindly criticism during the preparation of these pages\nfor publication.\n\nFor many valuable suggestions during the prosecution of this study I am\nindebted to members of the Faculty of the Social Sciences of Yale\nUniversity, especially to Professors Sumner, Farnam, Bourne, and Keller.\nThe editors of the _Yale Review_ have very courteously permitted me to\nuse in Chapter VIII the material which was published in a condensed form\nin the _Yale Review_ for August, 1904. To many others whom I cannot here\nmention by name I desire to express my thanks and acknowledge my\nindebtedness for information given in response to inquiries.\n\nThe number of requests which have come to hand for copies of this study,\nfrom persons living in various sections of the United States as well as\nin Europe, and the attention that has been given the subject of\nlynchings in newspapers and magazines, indicate a desire on the part of\nthe general public to learn the facts concerning lynchings. By many it\nis believed that in no other respect to-day is American civilization so\nopen to reproach as in its toleration of the practice of lynching, and\nthere is an increasing demand that this summary method of administering\njustice be suppressed and utterly abolished. That this book may\ncontribute in some measure to a better understanding of this most\nserious and difficult problem is the hope with which it is placed in the\nhands of the reader.\n\n J. E. C.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS\n\n\n CHAPTER I\n PAGE\n\n _Introduction_ 1\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n _Origin of the Term Lynch-law_ 13\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n\n _Early Lynch-law_ 41\n\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n _Lynch-law 1830\u20131860_ 90\n\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n _The Reconstruction Period_ 137\n\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n _Lynchings_ 155\n\n\n CHAPTER VII\n\n _Lynch-law and its Justification_ 193\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n\n _Remedies_ 227\n\n\n CHAPTER IX\n\n _Some Conclusions_ 267\n\n _List of Periodicals Cited_ 280\n\n _Index_ 282\n\n\n\n\n CHARTS\n\n\n FACING\n PAGE\n\n I. Number lynched compared with number legally executed,\n 1882\u20131903 162\n\n II. Number lynched according to months in different sections\n of the U. S., 1882\u20131903 163\n\n III. Percentages lynched for various causes by months,\n 1882\u20131903 170\n\n IV. Number of Whites, Negroes and Others lynched according to\n years, 1882\u20131903 171\n\n V. Number of women (Whites and Negroes) lynched according to\n years, 1882\u20131903 172\n\n Proportion lynched for various causes, 1882\u20131903, Women\n (Whites and Negroes).\n\n VI. Percentages lynched for various causes by years,\n 1882\u20131903, Whites and Others 173\n\n VII. Percentages lynched for various causes by years,\n 1882\u20131903, Negroes 174\n\n VIII. Proportion lynched for various causes, 1882\u20131903, Whites\n and Others 175\n\n IX. Proportion lynched for various causes, 1882\u20131903, Negroes 176\n\n X. Proportion lynched for various causes in Southern States,\n 1882\u20131903, Whites and Others 177\n\n XI. Proportion lynched for various causes in Southern States,\n 1882\u20131903, Negroes 178\n\n XII. Proportion lynched for various causes in Western States,\n 1882\u20131903 179\n\n XIII. Proportion lynched for various causes in Eastern States,\n 1882\u20131903 180\n\n\n\n\n LYNCH-LAW\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I\n INTRODUCTION\n\n\nIt has been said that our country\u2019s national crime is lynching. We may\nbe reluctant to admit our peculiarity in this respect and it may seem\nunpatriotic to do so, but the fact remains that lynching is a criminal\npractice which is peculiar to the United States. The practice whereby\nmobs capture individuals suspected of crime, or take them from the\nofficers of the law, and execute them without any process at law, or\nbreak open jails and hang convicted criminals, with impunity, is to be\nfound in no other country of a high degree of civilization. Riots and\nmob executions take place in other countries, but there is no such\nfrequent administration of what may be termed popular justice which can\nproperly be compared with lynch-law procedure in the United States. The\nfrequency and impunity of lynchings in the United States is justly\nregarded as a serious and disquieting symptom of American society.\n\nIn general, it may be said that the practice of summarily punishing\npublic offenders and suspected criminals is found in two distinct types\nof society: first, the frontier type where society is in a formative\nstate and the civil regulations are not sufficiently established to\ninsure the punishment of offenders; and second, the type of society\nwhich is found in older communities with well established civil\nregulations, the people of which are ordinarily law-abiding and\nconservative citizens. In this second type of society, recourse to\nlynch-law procedure may be had either in times of popular excitement and\nsocial disruption, or when there is a contrast in the population such as\nis to be seen in the South between the whites and the negroes, or\nagainst disreputable characters in the community for whose punishment\nunder the law no tangible evidence can be adduced, or against persons\nguilty of committing some heinous offense which on account of its\natrocity and fiendishness is particularly shocking to the community.\n\nIn other countries one or more of these conditions has at times existed,\nand summary methods of punishment to which lynch-law procedure in the\nUnited States bears a close resemblance have been followed. In the\ncourse of the settlement and development of this country, however, all\nof these conditions have existed almost side by side. From colonial\ntimes down to the present day there has been a section of the country\nwhere the frontier type of society was to be found. At the same time\nthere has been an older, better settled section of the country, forming\na different type of society, where, though the judiciary was well\nestablished and the apprehension and punishment of public offenders was\nwell provided for in the law, circumstances have arisen of such a nature\nthat the regular and legal administration of justice was deemed\ninadequate or defective, and was therefore disregarded. As will be made\nclear in the following pages, lynch-law has been resorted to in the\nUnited States in times of popular excitement and social disruption; it\nhas been inflicted upon negroes, Indians, Italians, Mexicans; it has\nbeen inflicted upon disreputable characters; it has been inflicted upon\npersons guilty of heinous offenses.\n\nThe practice of lynching does not prevail in Canada[1]; nor is a similar\npractice to be found in England, France, or Germany. The nearest\napproach that can be found in Europe to the American practice of\nlynching exists in the rural districts of little Russia where the\npeasants sometimes adopt summary measures against horse-thieves. The\nRussian law provides only a light punishment for horse-stealing, and,\nsince the peasant\u2019s horse is almost his only property and is his chief\ninstrument of labor, summary methods seem necessary in order to check\nthe veritable plague of horse-stealing which breaks out every year as\nsoon as the dark nights of autumn begin. When a thief is caught, the\ncommon way is for the men of the village to club him to death, each\ntrying to strike in such a way as to inflict no injury more serious than\na bruise. Another method is to tie the criminal by the feet to the tail\nof a young and active colt which is then ridden at a gallop until little\nis left of the horse-thief. There is also a mode of execution whereby\nthe thief is bound hand and foot to a bench or log, and the women of the\nvillage thrust needles and pins into the soles of the victim\u2019s feet and\nother sensitive parts, until death ensues.[2]\n\nAside from this instance which is found in the loosely organized society\nof the peasants in the rural districts of Russia, nothing like lynch-law\ncan be said to prevail in Europe. Occasionally mobs put persons to death\nwho have committed some brutal and outrageous crime. A newspaper report\nstates that the burgomaster of Stujhely, Hungary, was lynched in\nNovember, 1902, for having set fire to his home in which were his wife,\nfather, mother, and three sisters, all of whom were burned to death. The\nburgomaster had become angry at the members of his family for some\ntrifling cause, and his method of revenge so enraged his neighbors that\nthey immediately \u201ctook summary measures and lynched him.\u201d[3] A similar\nreport tells of the lynching of a Bohemian village schoolmaster who\nsuddenly became insane and began shooting his revolver right and left\namong his pupils, killing three and dangerously wounding three\nothers.[4] People in the lower stages of civilization, such as the\nMelanesians, Micronesians, and the inhabitants of the Guinea Coast of\nAfrica, often have secret societies which take control of important\nfunctions, such as the initiation of young persons arriving at maturity,\nor the exaction of penalties for the transgression of customs and\ntraditions. In most cases these societies form an essential part of the\nstate, holding quite the place of the chief. Occasionally they\ndegenerate and create a reign of terror by their extortions and\nexactions. Secret tribunals for thieves and robbers, like the society of\nthe \u201cOld Ox,\u201d have existed in China.[5] Such instances, however, merely\nillustrate the general truth that summary methods of punishing offenders\nare sometimes resorted to in every country in times of great popular\nexcitement or when some peculiarly atrocious crime has been perpetrated.\nThey in no way invalidate the assertion that the practice of lynching is\npeculiarly an American institution.\n\nHistorically some parallels may be cited showing the execution of\nsummary justice under frontier conditions in other countries. In\nBrande\u2019s Dictionary of Science, Literature, and Art, published in 1842,\nit was stated that \u201clynch law may be called a democratic imitation of\nthe old feudal _Vehmgerichte_.\u201d Reference was there made to the\n\u201cirregular and revengeful species of justice administered by the\npopulace in some parts of the United States,\u201d evidently meaning the\noperation of lynch-law on the western frontier at that time. Lynch-law\nin the United States has never been administered by an organization so\nperfect and extensive as that of the Vehmic courts.[6] The feudal\nconditions have been lacking which made that organization possible. It\nis only in its _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_ that the frontier type of lynch-law may\nbe compared to the Vehmic courts. The early settlers in this country\nfelt themselves compelled to resort to summary proceedings as a means of\nprotection; the civil government was not sufficiently organized and\nestablished to insure the punishment of violators of the public peace\nand security. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries utter\nlawlessness and disregard of authority was prevailing in Germany, and\nfor a time the Vehmic courts afforded some protection against the\noutrages of the princes and nobles. With the increasing strength of the\nregular governments, however, the need of special protection diminished\nand these tribunals gradually disappeared. Like the Vehmic courts, with\nthe establishment of the judiciary and a more effective execution of the\nlaws by the officials, the administration of lynch-law in the western\nhalf of the United States has declined.\n\nThe tendency, it may be noted, for societies secretly organized for the\narbitrary punishment of offenders to pass into the control of the\npersons against whom they were originally directed, is to be seen not\nonly in the history of the Vehmic courts but also in the history of the\nKu-Klux Klan and numerous vigilance societies in the United States. The\nproceedings of such societies necessarily awaken distrust and fear among\nthe more quiet in the community, while the rogues, whose characters are\nnot yet known, hasten to obtain admittance, both as a shield against\nenemies and a cloak to cover their own misdeeds. Soon their vindictive\nactions and their rascalities excite the indignation of the community; a\ncounterparty of \u201cmoderators\u201d must be formed to check the \u201cregulators\u201d;\nthen begins a deadly struggle for supremacy. Such, in brief, is the\nabuse of lynch-law on the frontier. The tyranny of the Vehmic courts\nbecomes the taking of private vengeance, the feud and the _vendetta_,\nunder lynch-law.\n\nThe Vehmic courts, however, give no explanation for the presence of\nlynch-law as an institution in American society. No connection can be\ntraced further than a few similarities in the methods adopted to put\ndown lawlessness at a time when the civil government proved weak and\ninefficient.\n\nSome writers have stated that lynch-law was anciently known in England\nby the name of Lydford law and Halifax law, and that the same thing was\nknown in Scotland as Cowper justice and Jeddart or Jedburg justice.\nLydford law is defined in a dictionary of the seventeenth century as \u201ca\ncertain Law whereby they first hang a Man and afterwards indite him.\u201d[7]\nOne of Grose\u2019s Proverbs reads:\n\n \u201cFirst hang and draw,\n Then hear the cause by Lidford law.\u201d\n\nWestcott, in his \u201cHistory of Devonshire,\u201d has preserved some droll\nverses about the town of Lydford. The first twelve lines are as follows:\n\n \u201cI oft have heard of Lydford law,\n How in the morning they hange and draw,\n And sit in judgement after;\n At first I wondered at yt much,\n But since I fynd the reasons such\n As yt deserves no laughter.\n\n \u201cThey have a castle on a hill,\n I tooke it for an old wyndmill,\n The vanes blowen off by weather:\n To lye therein one night, \u2019tis guest,\n \u2019Twere better to be ston\u2019d and prest,\n Or hang\u2019d; now chuse you whether.\u201d[8]\n\nIt has been asserted, therefore, that \u201cLydford law became a proverbial\nexpression for summary punishment without trial.\u201d[9] This, however, is\ngoing further than the facts will allow, and is wholly misleading when\nthus used to show the connection between Lydford law and lynch-law. It\nwould seem to imply that Lydford law in England was once as well known,\nas a name for summary punishment, as lynch-law has become in this\ncountry. As a proverbial expression Lydford law never came into general\nuse; it was confined to one section of England and never became more\nthan a localism.\n\nIn another part of England a certain summary procedure was known by the\nname of Halifax law. In this case there was a trial followed by\nimmediate punishment. The trial was of a summary nature without adequate\nopportunity of defense, and the punishment was irrevocable. The name,\nHalifax law, originated from the so-called _gibbet law_ or custom in the\nforest of Hardwick, coextensive with the parish of Halifax, under which\nthe frith burghers summarily tried any one charged with stealing goods\nto the value of 13\u00bd d., and could condemn him to be beheaded on the\nmarket-day.[10]\n\nCowper justice is defined by Jamieson to mean \u201ctrying a man after\nexecution; the same with Jeddart, or Jedburgh justice,\u201d and the latter\nhe defines as \u201ca legal trial after the infliction of punishment.\u201d\nJeddart justice refers to Jedburgh, a Scotch border town, where many of\nthe border raiders are said to have been hanged without the formality of\na trial. It is said that \u201cin mockery of justice, assizes were held upon\nthem after that they had suffered.\u201d[11]\n\nAll of these expressions, however, were entirely provincial. They were\nmerely different names used to characterize the methods employed in\nvarious parts of England and Scotland for executing popular justice.\nThese practices differ from the administration of lynch-law in not\ndispensing with all regular proceedings. Further, as will appear later,\nthe death penalty was not at first inflicted under lynch-law;\noriginally, lynching was synonymous with whipping. It is impossible,\ntherefore, to trace lynch-law back to these medi\u00e6val practices and find\nin them any explanation for the existence of the practice of lynching in\nthe United States.\n\nA general idea of the history of lynch-law in the United States is\nobtained by noting the definitions of the term that have appeared from\ntime to time in the dictionaries. Brande\u2019s Dictionary of Science,\nLiterature, and Art (1842)[12] contains the following: \u201cLynch Law. The\nirregular and revengeful species of justice administered by the populace\nin some parts of the United States is said to have been so called from a\nVirginian farmer of the name of Lynch, who took the law into his hands\non some occasion, by chasing a thief, tying him to a tree, and flogging\nhim with his own hands.\u201d A \u201cUniversity Edition\u201d of Webster\u2019s Dictionary\n(1845) defines \u201cLynch-law\u201d as \u201cThe practice of punishing men for crime\nby private, unauthorized persons, without a legal trial\u201d; and gives the\nverb lynch meaning \u201cto inflict punishment without the forms of law, as\nby a mob.\u201d Worcester\u2019s Dictionary (1846) has \u201cLynch-law. An irregular\nand revengeful species of justice, administered by the populace or a\nmob, without any legal authority or trial. Brande.\u201d For the verb lynch\nthe meaning is given, \u201cTo condemn and execute in obedience to the decree\nof a multitude or mob, without a legal trial; sometimes practiced in the\nnew settlements in the southwest part of the United States. Qu. Rev.\u201d In\nWebster\u2019s Dictionary (1848) \u201cLynch-law\u201d is defined as \u201cThe practice of\npunishing men for crimes or offenses by private, unauthorized persons,\nwithout a legal trial. The term is said to be derived from a Virginia\nfarmer, named Lynch, who thus took the law into his own hands. (U.\nS.)\u201d[13]\n\nSome important changes are noticeable in the definitions attached to\nlynch-law forty years later. The Progressive Dictionary of the English\nLanguage, edited by Samuel Fallows and published at Chicago in 1885,\ngives this definition for the verb lynch: \u201cTo punish without the forms\nof law; specifically to hang by mob-law.\u201d In a note it is stated that\nmore than one etymology is claimed for the word. John S. Farmer in his\n\u201cAmericanisms,\u201d published at London in 1889, says the origin of the term\nlynch-law \u201cis wrapped in mystery; many explanations have been put\nforward; none, however, are conclusive.\u201d In Webster\u2019s Dictionary,\nedition of 1893, the following definition is found: \u201cLynch: To inflict\npunishment upon, especially death, without the forms of law, as when a\nmob captures and hangs a suspected person.\u201d Lynch-law is defined in a\ngeneral way as \u201cThe act or practice by private persons of inflicting\npunishment for crimes or offenses, without due process of law,\u201d but this\nnote is added: \u201cThe term _Lynch law_ is said to be derived from a\nVirginian named Lynch, who took the law into his own hands. But the\norigin of the term is very doubtful.\u201d[14]\n\nThere are two differences between the definitions formulated in the\nforties and those formulated in the eighties and in recent years. In the\nlater definitions the operation of lynch-law is described as being much\nmore harsh and severe, and there is an expression of doubt as to the\norigin of the term. In the earlier definitions death is not mentioned as\nthe ordinary penalty administered by lynch-law and the American origin\nof the term is accepted without question. The doubt as to the origin\nprobably arose because of the number of stories which have appeared, all\nclaiming to account for its origin, and also because of the lack of any\ncareful investigation to determine the question authentically from\nhistorical sources. The increased harshness expressed in the definitions\nis, of course, due to the fact that the punishment inflicted under the\nname of lynch-law has become more severe and inexorable. Lynching is now\npractically synonymous with summary and illegal capital punishment at\nthe hands of a mob. In the following pages the history of this change\nwill be traced and the conditions noted which have led to the\ncontinuance of the practice of lynching and given to it its increased\nseverity.\n\nIn the above citations to various definitions that have been given for\nlynch-law it was noted that more than one origin has been claimed for\nthe term. An investigation into the circumstances surrounding its origin\nwill throw considerable light on the early history of lynch-law\nprocedure in the United States, and this question will therefore be\ntaken up in some detail.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n ORIGIN OF THE TERM LYNCH-LAW\n\n\nMany and various explanations of the origin of the term Lynch\u2019s law, or\nlynch-law, have been offered. Some of these explanations are evidently\nnothing more than the offspring of minds fertile in resources; others\nhave the support of tradition and are entitled to consideration. Not\ninfrequently confusion and apparent contradiction have resulted from the\nfailure to distinguish clearly between the practice itself and the name\nby which it has been known. To follow back through history the\nsuccessive outbreaks of such practices is not to discover the origin of\n\u201clynch-law,\u201d the term which has now become so firmly established in the\nEnglish language. The origin is to be found at that time when these\npractices first came to be known by the name Lynch\u2019s law or lynch-law.\n\nAccording to one account, given more or less indorsement in the\nencyclopedias, lynch-law owes its name to James Fitzstephen Lynch, mayor\nand warden of Galway, Ireland. He was the famous \u201cWarden of Galway\u201d who\ntried, condemned, and executed his own son in the year 1493. The story\nis told with varying details. One tradition has it that the mayor sent\nhis son to Spain to purchase a cargo of wine. The young man squandered\nthe money intrusted to him, but succeeded in obtaining a cargo on credit\nfrom a Spanish friend of his father. This gentleman\u2019s nephew accompanied\nhim on the return voyage to Ireland where the money was to be paid.\nYoung Lynch, to conceal his misuse of the money, caused the Spaniard to\nbe thrown overboard and returned home in triumph with his cargo of wine.\nBut a sailor, on his death-bed, revealed to the mayor of Galway the\ncrime which his son had committed. The young man was tried before his\nfather, convicted and sentenced to be hanged. Another tradition states\nthat the son of the Spanish friend of his father was visiting him at his\nhome in Ireland. This son was fast supplanting him in the affections of\na Galway lady to whom he was engaged. One night, in a fit of jealous\npassion, he stabbed the Spaniard to the heart and threw his body into\nthe sea. The crime was quickly discovered, and on being brought before\nhis father for trial he was condemned to die as a sacrifice to public\njustice. Public sympathy, however, turned in favor of the young man, and\nevery effort was made to effect his pardon. The father \u201cundauntedly\ndeclared that the law should take its course.\u201d On the way to the place\nof execution a mob appeared, led by members of the mother\u2019s family,\ndemanding mercy. The father, finding that he could not \u201caccomplish the\nends of justice at the accustomed place and by the usual hands,\u201d\nconducted his son up a winding stairway to a window overlooking the\npublic street. \u201cHere he secured the end of a rope, which had been\npreviously fixed around the neck of his son, to an iron staple which\nprojected from the wall, and, after taking from him a last embrace, he\nlaunched him into eternity.\u201d The people, \u201coverawed by the magnanimous\nact, retired slowly and peaceably to their several dwellings.\u201d In the\ncouncil books of Galway there is said to be a minute that \u201cJames Lynch,\nmayor of Galway, hanged his own son out of the window for defrauding and\nkilling strangers, without martial or common law, to show a good example\nto posterity.\u201d In commemoration of this \u201cRoman act of justice,\u201d a stone\nsculptured with a skull and crossbones was erected in Lombard Street,\nGalway, in 1524, and in 1854 was reerected on the wall of St. Nicholas\nChurchyard.[15]\n\nThis \u201cGalway story\u201d may be dismissed with but little consideration.\nHowell Colton Featherston of the Lynchburg (Va.) Bar has clearly shown\nthat this act of the mayor of Galway was entirely without any definition\never attached to lynch-law and that there was no reason for bestowing\nupon it any name, and more particularly his name. Mayor Lynch was the\nlegally constituted authority presiding over the tribunal in which his\nson had had, presumably, a fair and regular trial. He merely persisted\nin executing the laws in the face of popular opposition and tumult.\nLynch-law has always been considered as operating wholly without, or in\nopposition to, established laws of government.[16]\n\nEqually fanciful and fictitious but less romantic is the \u201cpirate story\u201d\nof the origin of the name lynch-law. It is said that about 1687 one\nLynch was sent to this country from England under a commission to\nsuppress piracy. He is credited with having faithfully executed, without\nthe formality of a trial, every pirate that he captured. It is presumed\nthat owing to the difficulty of adhering to the usual forms of law in\nthe colonies, this Judge Lynch was empowered to proceed summarily\nagainst pirates and thus gave rise to the term.[17] But whatever the\nfacts may be about the methods employed by this man Lynch to suppress\npiracy,[18] there is no evidence to show that they were ever known as\nLynch\u2019s law or had any connection whatever with lynch-law.\n\nOn its etymological side the word lynch has been traced to an old\nAnglo-Saxon verb _linch_, meaning to beat severely with a pliable\ninstrument, to chastise or to maltreat, which is said to have survived\nin this cognate meaning in America, as have many other words and\nexpressions long obsolete in Great Britain.[19] For this derivation,\nhowever, there seems to be no authority. There is no evidence that such\na verb \u201csurvived\u201d in America; nor is there any evidence that such an\nAnglo-Saxon verb ever existed.[20] According to Skeat the name Lynch is\nfrom _hlinc_, an Anlgo-Saxon word meaning a ridge of land.[21]\nFurthermore, as was noted in the preceding chapter, when the word lynch\nfirst came into general use, it was stamped as of American origin.[22]\nNo English lexicographer recognized the terms lynch or lynch-law until\n1848, and in 1849 Craig gave the verb \u201clynch\u201d as meaning \u201cto punish\nsummarily without judicial investigation, as by a mob.\u2014An American\nword.\u201d[23] The fact that Wright\u2019s English Dialect Dictionary (1902) does\nnot contain the word lynch, and the further fact that Murray\u2019s Oxford\nDictionary (1903) states that the term was originally used in the United\nStates, may be regarded as conclusive evidence that the origin of\n\u201clynch-law\u201d is not to be sought in England.\n\nThere is a tradition in the Drake family of South Carolina which\nascribes the origin of the term to the precipitate hanging, to prevent a\nrescue, of a Tory named Major Beard, on Lynch Creek in Franklin County,\nNorth Carolina. The following account of it is given by John H. Wheeler,\nto whom it was communicated by Hon. B. F. Moore, who received it from\nthe Drake family:\n\n \u201cThe origin of lynch-law: During the revolution there was a noted\n tory ... in that portion formerly called Bute County, now embraced\n within the counties of Franklin and Nash, called Major Beard. Major\n John H. Drake lived near Hilliardston; he and his family were decided\n whigs. He had a daughter, beautiful and accomplished, by whose charms\n Beard was captivated; and the tradition runs, that the handsome figure\n and commanding air of Beard had its effect on the young lady,\n notwithstanding the difference in politics between him and her father.\n On one occasion, Beard encamped for the night near a mill on Swift\n Creek. This became known to Major Drake and other whigs, and they\n organized a force ... and captured him.... After some consultation it\n was resolved to take him as a prisoner to headquarters of Colonel\n Seawell, commanding in camp at a ford on Lynch Creek, in Franklin\n County, about twenty miles off. He was tied on his horse and carried\n under guard. After reaching camp, it was determined to organize a\n court-martial, and try him for his life. But before proceeding to\n trial, a report came that a strong body of tories were in pursuit to\n rescue him; this created a panic, for they knew his popularity and\n power, so they hung him. The reported pursuit proved a false alarm,\n and it being suggested that as the sentence had been inflicted before\n the judgment of the court had been pronounced, therefore it was\n illegal. The body was then taken down, the court reorganized, he was\n tried, condemned and re-hung by the neck until he was dead.\n\n \u201cThe tree on which he was hung stood not far from Rocky Ford, on\n Lynch\u2019s Creek; and it became a saying in Franklin, when a person\n committed any offence of magnitude, that \u2018he ought to be taken to\n Lynch Creek\u2019; and so the word \u2018Lynch law\u2019 became a fixture in the\n English language.\u201d[24]\n\nIn passing, the resemblance of this affair to Lydford law rather than\nlynch-law is to be noted, and also the fact that Wheeler, in his\n\u201cHistory of North Carolina,\u201d published thirty-three years earlier, gives\nan account of the hanging of \u201cCaptain Beard about 1778,\u201d but says\nnothing about its being in any way connected with the origin of the term\nlynch-law. Indeed, according to this earlier account there was nothing\nirregular in the proceeding; he was hung in accordance with the ordinary\nrules of war. Beard and one of his band, named Porch, who had been\ncaptured with him, \u201cwere tried by a court-martial and both were\nforthwith hung. Such was the end of Captain Beard.\u201d[25] The two accounts\nvary somewhat, but there is no room for doubt as to their having\nreference to the same occurrence. In short, the \u201ctradition\u201d in the Drake\nfamily must have arisen between 1851 and 1884. There is no evidence,\nfurther than this statement found in Wheeler\u2019s book, that \u201cLynch law\u201d\nbecame a fixture in the English language because of a saying common in\nFranklin County, North Carolina, that any one who committed a grave\noffense \u201cought to be taken to Lynch Creek.\u201d\n\nSome evidence has recently been brought forward indicating that\nlynch-law may have derived its name from Lynch\u2019s Creek, South\nCarolina.[26] Some extracts from Boston newspapers in the year 1768,\ndated Charlestown, South Carolina, show the existence of \u201cRegulators\u201d at\nthat time, and mention is made of a meeting that they were to have on\nLynch\u2019s Creek \u201cwhere it was expected 1,200 would be assembled.\u201d It is\nalso evident that one of their methods of inflicting punishment was by\nwhipping. One extract states that \u201cthe people called regulators have\nlately severely chastised one Lum, who is come to town; but we have not\nyet learnt the real cause of this severity to him.\u201d The assertion has\nbeen made, therefore, that lynch-law derived its name from Lynch\u2019s\nCreek, South Carolina, because at that place the practice of lynching\nbegan.\n\nThe practice which came to be known as \u201cregulating\u201d had its beginning\nearlier than 1768, however, and this beginning was not in the\nneighborhood of Lynch\u2019s Creek. As early as 1766 it had begun in North\nCarolina and had extended from Granville County into Orange and Anson\ncounties. Up to April, 1768, those who had taken part in these\nproceedings in North Carolina were designated by the appellation of the\n\u201cMob,\u201d and seem to have adopted it themselves. But on April 4, 1768, at\na general meeting, they dropped this name and formally adopted the name\nof \u201cRegulators.\u201d[27] When this practice of \u201cregulating\u201d was started in\nSouth Carolina it was instituted by Thomas Woodward, Joseph Kirkland,\nand Barnaby Pope,[28] who lived in the region between the Catawba and\nthe Saluda Rivers, and not on the Pedee or Lynch\u2019s Creek. Thus, a\nname\u2014that of \u201cRegulation,\u201d not \u201cLynch Law,\u201d\u2014had been given this practice\nbefore it reached the Pedee section of the Province. If the conduct of\nthe Regulators in South Carolina was to give the name to the practice of\nillegal punishment, it would have been called, not \u201cLynch Law,\u201d but\n\u201cBroad River Justice\u201d or \u201cSavannah Law.\u201d[29]\n\nNo evidence has yet been found which shows any connection between \u201cLynch\nLaw\u201d and \u201cRegulation\u201d at this time.[30] Alexander Gregg, writing of the\nRegulator movement in the Carolinas, makes the statement: \u201cThey called\nthemselves \u2018Regulators\u2019; and thus \u2018Lynch law\u2019 had its origin at this\nperiod.\u201d[31] Dr. R. W. Gibbes had written eight years earlier than\nGregg: \u201cThe Regulation, an association of respectable planters, took the\nmatter in hand, and enforced order by a system of Lynch law.\u201d[32]\nNeither of these writers, however, implies that the Regulation in South\nCarolina had anything to do with the origin of the term lynch-law.\nJoseph Johnson, in a book published in 1851, gave a brief account of the\nRegulators and Schofilites. He says, \u201cthe most respectable inhabitants\nunited to inflict summary justice on the depredators and called\nthemselves Regulators.\u201d[33] In this connection he does not refer to\nlynch-law at all. In another connection he writes: \u201cThis process, in\nwhat is now called \u2018lynch law,\u2019 was then designated \u2018regulating,\u2019 and\nthe associates for this purpose were called \u2018Regulators.\u2019\u201d[34] No\nreference to lynch-law is to be found in Ramsay\u2019s History of the\nRevolution in South Carolina which was published in 1785. Both of the\naccounts given by Wheeler of the occurrence at Lynch Creek, North\nCarolina, referred to above, imply that the term lynch-law was not in\nuse any time previous to the Revolutionary War. As will appear later,\nthe terms regulation and lynch-law are not found together until a much\nlater date, and then they are not used in connection with events in the\nCarolinas.\n\nStill another \u201cOrigin of Lynch\u2019s law\u201d is given in Niles\u2019 Register for\nAugust 8, 1835.[35] An anecdote is related of an occurrence \u201cin\nWashington County, Pa., many years ago.\u201d A poaching vagabond, long under\nsuspicion, was finally detected and told to leave the neighborhood in\ntwenty-four hours on penalty of prosecution. The poacher refused to\ncomply and a party of five or six of his neighbors went to his home and\n\u201cproceeded to try him in due form, choosing one of their number, a\nfarmer named Lynch, to be judge.\u201d The judge \u201cdecided that the poacher\nshould be tied up and receive three hundred lashes, \u2018well laid on,\u2019 and\nthen be given twenty-four hours to leave the place under penalty of\nreceiving three hundred more if found after that time. The first part of\nthe sentence was inflicted on the spot, with such _good intent_ as to\nrender its repetition unnecessary. The culprit made off as fast as his\nlacerated limbs would permit him.\u201d\n\nNothing further is known of this farmer named Lynch, who acted as judge\nat this impromptu trial, and there is no reason for regarding this\nincident as in any way connected with the origin of lynch-law. It is\nmerely an instance of recourse to summary procedure against an unpopular\nindividual. It may or may not have been known at the time as punishment\nby Lynch\u2019s law.\n\nWe now come to the explanation of the origin of the term which has been\nmost frequently given and which was for years accepted without question.\nIt is to the effect that lynch-law originally had reference to the kind\nof law administered by Charles Lynch, in Virginia, during the latter\npart of the Revolutionary War.\n\nIt is needless to recount here all the variations in the stories\nconnecting the origin of lynch-law with the Lynch family in\nVirginia.[36] In certain accounts Charles Lynch has been confused with\nhis older brother, John Lynch, who remained a Quaker all his life and\nwas the founder of Lynchburg, Virginia. Some accounts refer vaguely to a\nVirginia farmer, or planter, by the name of Lynch, whose vigorous\nmethods of punishing wrongdoers gave rise to the term lynch-law.[37]\nHaydn\u2019s Dictionary of Dates (1860) apparently is responsible for the\nfiction that this mode of administering justice began about the end of\nthe seventeenth century and derives its name from John Lynch, a farmer,\nwho exercised it upon the fugitive slaves and criminals dwelling in the\nDismal Swamp, North Carolina, when they committed outrages upon persons\nand property which the law could not promptly repress. This story is\nrepeated in the editions of 1873 and 1885, and is also given in Harpers\u2019\nPopular Cyclop\u00e6dia of the History of the United States,[38] and seems to\nhave become generally accepted in France.[39] It is, however, wholly\nerroneous.\n\nThe movement for independence had from the first a great many opponents\nin the mountainous sections of Virginia, and there was a considerable\nnumber of Tories in Bedford County, where Charles Lynch lived.[40] The\nunsettled condition of affairs also led many desperadoes to resort to\nthis section of Virginia. Both Tories and desperadoes harassed the\nContinentals and plundered their property with impunity.[41] The prices\npaid by both armies for horses made horse-stealing a lucrative practice,\nand the inefficiency of the judiciary made punishment practically out of\nthe question. The county courts were merely examining courts in all such\ncases, and the single court for the final trial of felonies sat at\nWilliamsburg, more than two hundred miles away. To take the prisoners\nthither, and the witnesses necessary to convict them, was next to\nimpossible. Frequently the officers in charge of prisoners would be\nattacked by outlaws and forced to release their men, or be captured by\nBritish troops and themselves made prisoners.\n\nIt was under these circumstances that Colonel Lynch conferred with some\nof his neighbors as to what was best to be done. After deliberation they\ndecided to take matters into their own hands, to punish lawlessness of\nevery kind, and so far as possible restore peace and security to their\ncommunity. For the purpose of attaining these ends they formed an\norganization with Mr. Lynch at the head. Under his direction suspected\npersons were arrested and brought to his house, where they were tried by\na court composed of himself, as presiding justice, and his three\nneighbors, William Preston, Robert Adams, Jr., and James Callaway,\nsitting as associate justices.\n\nThe practice of this court was to have the accused brought face to face\nwith his accusers, permit him to hear the testimony against himself, and\nto allow him to defend himself by calling witnesses in his behalf and by\nshowing mitigating and extenuating circumstances. If acquitted, he was\nallowed to go, \u201coften with apologies and reparation.\u201d If convicted, he\nwas sentenced to receive thirty-nine lashes on the bare back, and if he\ndid not then shout \u201cLiberty Forever,\u201d to be hanged up by the thumbs\nuntil he did so. The execution of the sentence took place immediately\nupon conviction. The condemned was tied to a large walnut tree standing\nin Mr. Lynch\u2019s yard and the stripes inflicted\u2014with such vigor, it is\nsaid, that even the stoutest hearted Tory shouted for \u201cLiberty\u201d without\nnecessitating a resort to further punishment.[42]\n\nThe news of the invasion of Virginia by Cornwallis gave the Bedford\nTories strong encouragement and a conspiracy was formed to overthrow the\ncounty organization and seize, for the use of Cornwallis on his arrival,\nthe stores that Lynch had collected for Greene\u2019s army in North Carolina.\nThe conspirator\u2019s plans, however, became known to Colonel Lynch,\ntradition says through one of their own number, and he had them all\narrested. In the case of these conspirators, who were guilty of a\ntreasonable offense, a more serious situation presented itself. Lynch\nhimself was on the point of setting out with his regiment for the east\nto oppose the British under Benedict Arnold. It was not wise to inflict\nthe usual punishment and then give the conspirators their freedom again;\nneither could he take them as prisoners along with him on the rapid\nmarch that he was forced to make. After careful deliberation, Colonel\nLynch, as the presiding justice, sentenced them to terms of imprisonment\nvarying from one to five years. Robert Cowan, who had formerly been a\nfellow justice on the county bench and who seems to have been the\nringleader, was sentenced to a year\u2019s imprisonment and a fine of\n\u00a320,000.[43]\n\nThis court, even though it be considered as still the regular county\ncourt, had clearly transcended its powers; the General Court alone had\njurisdiction in cases of treason. After the war, therefore, the Tories\nwho had suffered at his hands threatened to prosecute Colonel Lynch and\nhis friends. To avoid lawsuits and as a means of finally settling the\naffair, Lynch brought the whole matter before the Virginia legislature.\nAfter a lengthy debate, which, according to Mr. Page, \u201caroused the\ninterest of the whole country,\u201d the following act was passed in October,\n1782:\n\n \u201cAn act to indemnify certain persons in suppressing a conspiracy\n against this state.\n\n I. WHEREAS divers evil-disposed persons in the year one thousand seven\n hundred and eighty, formed a conspiracy and did actually attempt to\n levy war against the commonwealth; and it is represented to the\n present general assembly, that William Preston, Robert Adams, junior,\n James Callaway, and Charles Lynch, and other faithful citizens, aided\n by detachments of volunteers from different parts of the state, did,\n by timely and effectual measures, suppress such conspiracy: And\n whereas the measures taken for that purpose may not be strictly\n warranted by law, although justifiable from the imminence of the\n danger;\n\n II. BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED, That the said William Preston, Robert\n Adams, junior, James Callaway and Charles Lynch, and all other persons\n whatsoever, concerned in suppressing the said conspiracy, or in\n advising, issuing, or executing any orders, or measures taken for that\n purpose, stand indemnified and exonerated of and from all pains,\n penalties, prosecutions, actions, suits, and damages, on account\n thereof. And that if any indictment, prosecution, action, or suit,\n shall be laid or brought against them, or any of them, for any act or\n thing done therein, the defendant, or defendants may plead in bar, or\n the general issue, and give this act in evidence.\u201d[44]\n\n\u201cThe proceedings in Bedford, which the legislature thus pronounced to be\nillegal, but justifiable, were imitated in other parts of the State, and\ncame to be known by the name of Lynch\u2019s Law. In justice to Colonel\nLynch, it should be remembered that his action was taken at a time when\nthe State was in the throes of a hostile invasion. The General Court,\nbefore which the conspirators should have been tried, was temporarily\ndispersed. Thomas Jefferson, then the governor of the State, was proving\nhimself peculiarly incompetent to fill the position. The whole executive\ndepartment was in a state of partial paralysis. It was, therefore, no\nspirit of insubordination or disregard of the law that induced Lynch to\nact as he did. There were few men living more inclined than this simple\nQuaker farmer to render due respect in word and deed to the established\nauthorities.\u201d[45]\n\nThe old walnut tree on which lynch-law is said to have been first\nadministered was still standing, in 1900,[46] on the lawn of the Lynch\nhomestead, two miles from the village of Lynch Station on the Southern\nRailway. A part of it was dead but the rest was still vigorous and bore\nits annual crop of nuts. The death penalty, however, was never inflicted\nunder its shadow. Some say that the Quaker proclivities of \u201cJudge\nLynch\u201d[47] prevented him from passing sentence of death; others say that\nit was due to his native sense of humanity. Mr. Page presents some\nevidence showing that \u201cboth custom and sentiment were violently opposed\nto visiting capital punishment upon the detected Tory conspirators.\u201d[48]\n\nIn the determination of origins it is frequently impossible to obtain\ndirect evidence bearing on the point in question. In this case there is\ndirect evidence for connecting the name of Charles Lynch with the origin\nof \u201clynch-law.\u201d[49] In 1817 Judge Spencer Roane wrote in a letter to\nWilliam Wirt: \u201cIn the year 1792 there were many suits on the south side\nof James River, for inflicting Lynch\u2019s law.\u201d Mr. Wirt adds, in a note\nexplanatory of the words \u201cLynch\u2019s law,\u201d \u201cThirty-nine lashes, inflicted\nwithout trial or law, on mere suspicion of guilt, which could not be\nregularly proven. This lawless practice, which, sometimes by the order\nof a magistrate, sometimes without, prevailed extensively in the upper\ncounties on James River, took its name from the gentleman who set the\nfirst example of it.\u201d[50] Though Wirt does not mention Charles Lynch by\nname, he does say that the lawless practice \u201cprevailed extensively in\nthe upper counties on James River,\u201d and Charles Lynch was for years\nclosely identified with the interests of Campbell[51] and Bedford\ncounties\u2014two of the upper counties on the James River.\n\nHenry Howe, in his \u201cHistorical Collections of Virginia,\u201d in a section\nentitled \u201cLynch Law,\u201d says: \u201cAt that time (the time of the Revolution),\nthis country (Campbell County and vicinity) was very thinly settled, and\ninfested by a lawless band of tories and desperadoes. The necessity of\nthe case involved desperate measures, and Col. Lynch, then a leading\nwhig, apprehended and had them punished, without any superfluous\nceremony. Hence the origin of the term \u2018Lynch Law.\u2019 This practice of\nLynching continued years after the war, and was applied to many cases of\nmere suspicion of guilt, which could not be regularly proven.\u201d[52]\n\nIn a book written a few years later than the above, Howe has the\nfollowing to say on the same subject: \u201cThe Lynch Law, as it is termed,\noriginated in Virginia at the time of the American Revolution, and was\nfirst adopted by Colonel Lynch against a lawless band of tories and\ndesperadoes, who infested the country at the base of the Blue Ridge.\nThis plan was afterwards followed in the west, and its operation was\nsalutary in ridding the country of miscreants whom the law was not\nstrong enough to punish. The tribunal of _Squire Birch_, as the person\nwho personated the judge was called, was established under a tree in the\nwoods; the culprit being usually found guilty was tied to a tree and\nlashed without mercy, and then expelled from the country. In general,\n\u2018_the regulators_\u2019 only exercised this law upon the most base and vile\ncharacters.\u201d[53]\n\nThis account given by Howe cannot be considered as wholly independent of\nthe influence of Wirt. In his \u201cHistorical Collections of Virginia,\u201d Howe\nquotes from Wirt\u2019s book in substantiation of his statement that the\n\u201cpractice of Lynching continued years after the war.\u201d On the other hand,\nhowever, the fact that he repeated his assertions in regard to the\norigin of \u201cLynch Law\u201d in emphatic terms in his later book, and therewith\ndescribed the operation of \u201cLynch Law\u201d in the west, is strong evidence\nthat he had other sources of information than Wirt\u2019s book on the\nmatter.[54]\n\nAn account, entirely independent of any influence from either Wirt or\nHowe, is found in \u201cColonel William Martin\u2019s Narrative of Frontier Life,\u201d\nprepared about 1842 for Dr. Lyman C. Draper and now in the Draper MS.\nCollections in the Wisconsin State Historical Society Library. It is as\nfollows:\n\n \u201cIn those times there were a great many bad men settled along the\n frontiers who by their thefts annoyed the country greatly. Insomuch\n that the people entered into combinations to suppress them and formed\n companies called regulators. They formed in military style, with\n officers, etc.\n\n \u201cThey also organized a court and appointed some three or four of their\n aged, discreet men judges to try criminal causes, award punishment,\n etc. The company would bring up suspected fellows and the court would\n try them. But they seldom extended punishment beyond whipping and\n driving them from the country, sometimes making them pay for property\n stolen, when they had the means.\n\n \u201cThis method of breaking up combinations of rogues was first set on\n foot by Col. Charles Lynch, of Bedford county, Va., where I was\n raised. He and my father were acquainted. (The same man for whom\n Lynchburg was named.) This plan was started some seventy or eighty\n years ago.[55]\n\n \u201cThe measure seemed to be called for from the situation of the country\n at the time. And it has been practiced more or less in the settling of\n new countries from that time until within a few years past, since the\n laws operate with more efficiency. The authorities generally connived\n at it from the necessity of the case. And perhaps nowhere has it been\n more common than in Tennessee. Lynch at first punished with\n thirty-nine stripes, taking, as I suppose, Moses for his model. And\n this was for a great while called Lynch\u2019s law, meaning all unlawful\n whipping. Any of the old men now in the South and West can tell the\n meaning of Lynch\u2019s law.\n\n \u201cLynch, however, has been improved upon and more severe punishments\n sometimes inflicted. I have given this feature of Western history from\n the presumption that you may not have known it.\u201d[56]\n\nSuch is the strongest evidence bearing directly on the point under\nconsideration. It is true that Martin\u2019s account, as well as Howe\u2019s, was\nnot written until more than forty years after the death of Charles\nLynch. It is true, also, that many stories have referred to a man by the\nname of Lynch in Virginia, sometimes specifically mentioning Charles\nLynch or Colonel Lynch, at other times naming some other Lynch.[57] But\nit is likewise true that it is in this way that tradition has been\npersistent in attributing the origin of lynch-law to a member of the\nLynch family in Virginia. Furthermore, since no evidence whatsoever has\nbeen found for tracing the beginning of lynch-law to any other member of\nthat family, it may be said that tradition has thus persistently pointed\nto Colonel Charles Lynch as the first lyncher. Traditions are in general\nfar from trustworthy, but, on the other hand, they usually have _some_\nbasis in fact. In this case Wirt\u2019s statement gives, at the very least, a\npresumption in favor of the tradition, which facts to the contrary only\ncan remove.[58]\n\nThe earliest use of the expression \u201cLynch\u2019s law\u201d that is known at the\npresent time is this one found in Wirt\u2019s book which was published in\n1818. Judge Roane wrote that there were many suits in the year 1792 for\ninflicting Lynch\u2019s law. From his statement it does not follow that the\nterm Lynch\u2019s law was in use in the year 1792. It does follow, however,\nthat the term was at least a localism in Virginia in the year 1817.\n\nOther terms were also in use for summary and illegal punishment in the\nperiod 1780\u20131830. The following appeared in the Salem Gazette of October\n2, 1812: \u201cPeople who clamored violently against Mr. Adams\u2019 \u2018_gag law_\u2019\nin \u201899, see nothing to disapprove in the \u2018club law\u2019 enacted at\nBaltimore, as a substitute for it.\u2014_Messenger._\u201d[59]\n\nIn the year 1819 two passages entitled \u201cSummary justice\u201d appeared in\nNiles\u2019 Register. They read as follows: \u201c_Summary justice._\u2014A tin pedlar\nat Easton, Pa. was discovered to have two negro children in his cart. On\nexamination, one of the little sufferers was found to have been crammed\nin such a manner, that his ear was rubbed off! The people indignantly\nrose and cut off the fellow\u2019s ear. I am no advocate for the violation of\nthe laws, but from my heart I can\u2019t feel sorry for him.\u2014_Village\nRecorder._\u201d[60] \u201c_Summary justice._ After a late extensive fire which\nhappened at Charleston, a fellow was found secreting some goods that had\nbeen stolen during the calamity. The alternative was offered to him,\nwhether he would be prosecuted at law, or suffer punishment on the spot;\nhe chose the latter, was tied to a tree, received fifty lashes well laid\non, and got off _clear_, having restored the stolen goods.\u201d[61]\n\nIn the year 1822 Niles\u2019 Register contained the following: \u201c_Riot._ A\nparcel of Irish laborers employed in the navy yard at Charlestown,\nlately attempted to rescue some property of one of their fellows out of\nthe hands of the sheriff. The affray was a severe one\u2014but \u2018club law\u2019 did\nnot prevail. Captain Hull exposed himself considerably to quell the\nriot.\u201d[62]\n\nWriting under the date of November 29, 1819, W. Faux describes an\ninstance of the use of summary methods against an unpopular individual\nin Princeton, Indiana, and says: \u201cThe people of the place deputed four\npersons to inform him, that unless he quitted the town and the state\nimmediately, he should receive Lynch\u2019s law, that is, whipping in the\nwoods.\u201d[63] Under the date of December 16, 1819, referring to \u201cthe\nRowdies of Kentucky,\u201d the same author writes: \u201cThese regulators are\nself-appointed ministers of justice, to punish or destroy those whom the\nlaw cannot touch.\u201d[64]\n\nOn July 17, 1824, Niles\u2019 Register published the information that several\nmurders had been committed in Kentucky \u201cby persons who called themselves\n\u2018regulators.\u2019\u201d[65]\n\nW. N. Blane published in London in 1824 an account of his travels in\nAmerica and described \u201cthe practice of _Regulating_\u201d that then existed\nin parts of Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois. He tells how the bands of\nRegulators were organized and their methods of inflicting punishment,\nbut does not use the term lynch or lynch-law.[66]\n\nJudge James Hall, in his \u201cLetters from the West,\u201d published in 1828,\nuses the following words: \u201cNo commentator has taken any notice of\n_Linch\u2019s Law_, which was once the _lex loci_ of the frontier. The\ncitizens formed themselves into a \u2018_regulating company_.\u2019 Sometimes the\nsufferers resorted to courts of justice for remuneration, and there have\nbeen instances of heavy damages being recovered of the regulators.\u201d[67]\n\nIt thus appears that summary and illegal methods of punishing offenders\nwere known under various names between 1780 and 1830. The term Lynch\u2019s\nlaw was not exclusively applied to such practices. The evidence\nobtainable at present, therefore, indicates that at some time between\n1780 and 1817 the term Lynch\u2019s law became a localism in Virginia in the\nregion of the James River. By the year 1819 it had spread as far west as\nIndiana, and by 1828 it had become still more widely used but had not\nsuperseded all other terms for the popular administration of justice.\n\nTo the question why or how Lynch\u2019s name came to be attached to this\npractice, there is at present no conclusive answer. It may be said that\nColonel Charles Lynch was a prominent man in his community, and when he\nadopted extra-legal methods of punishing public offenders during the\ntroublous times of the Revolution, he no doubt attracted considerable\nattention to himself, and thus his name became identified with such\npractices. It may also be said that the uniqueness of some of his\npunishments, such as compelling the Tories to shout \u201cLiberty forever,\u201d\nprobably brought his name into prominence with the practice. The fact\nremains, however, that no contemporaneous evidence has yet been\ndiscovered which will explain why Lynch\u2019s name came to be applied to the\npractice. We know definitely only that the form of the expression was at\nfirst Lynch\u2019s law, and that tradition, supported by all the evidence\nthat we have, ascribes its origin to Colonel Lynch. Equally certain it\nis that Lynch\u2019s law originally signified a whipping for reformatory\npurposes with more or less disregard for its legality, and was so used\nat a time subsequent to the American Revolution and not before that\ntime. Evidently the term originated in Virginia, and as the tide of\nemigration moved westward it was carried along the frontier where\nconditions were such as to encourage the use of extra-legal methods\nagainst public offenders.\n\nThis becomes more evident when the early history of the popular\nadministration of punishment in the United States is taken into account.\nA consideration of early lynch-law, or lynch-law down to 1830,\nconstitutes the following chapter.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n EARLY LYNCH-LAW\n\n\nIn the preceding chapter we have been concerned with the origin of the\nterm by which the practice has come to be known. In this chapter we are\nconcerned with the practice itself. Something of the nature of lynch-law\nprocedure during the Revolutionary epoch has already become apparent,\nbut a more detailed investigation into the early history of such\nprocedure will reveal other characteristics.\n\nIt has been said by some that the first instance of the operation of\nlynch-law in America was in December, 1763, at Paxtang (now Harrisburg),\nPennsylvania. Indian scalping parties had been laying waste the\nsettlements with relentless fury, and the appeals of the settlers to the\nQuaker government for help had been treated with contempt. Exasperated\nat the policy pursued by the Quakers toward the Indians, the\nScotch-Irish who had settled in Lancaster and Cumberland counties formed\nseveral companies of Rangers to patrol the borders and give protection.\n\u201cAbout the middle of December, word was brought to the settlers living\nat Paxtang, that an Indian known to have committed depredations in the\nvicinity had been traced to Conestoga. Matthew Smith, a man of influence\nand popularity among his associates, called together a number of the\nPaxtang Rangers, and led them to the Conestoga settlement. One of the\nmen saw an Indian issuing from a house, and thought that he recognized\nhim as the savage who had killed his own mother. Firing his rifle, he\nbrought the Indian down. Then, with a loud shout, the furious mob rushed\ninto the cabins, and killed all the Indians whom they found there, some\nsix in number. Fourteen of the Conestogas managed to escape, and,\nfleeing to Lancaster, were given a place of refuge in the county jail.\nWhile there, word was again carried to the Paxtang men that an Indian,\nknown to have murdered the relatives of one of their number, was among\nthose who had received the protection of the Lancaster magistrates. This\nagain aroused a feeling of rage and resentment amongst the Rangers. On\nDecember 27, some fifty of them, under the leadership of Lazarus\nStewart, marched to Lancaster, broke open the jail, and with the fury of\na mob massacred every Indian contained therein, man, woman, and\nchild.\u201d[68]\n\nIn connection with this incident it has been suggested that the\nScotch-Irish are to blame for the introduction of lynch-law in America;\nthat they brought with them traditions of the administration of summary\njustice in Medi\u00e6val Scotland, and, amidst the perils of the frontier,\nquickly resorted to the ancient methods of suppressing violence and\ndepredation. The case of the Regulators in the Carolinas is also cited\nas an instance of the Scotch-Irish backwoodsmen taking the\nadministration of justice into their own hands, when their rulers failed\nto provide for them a safe government. It is said that this same\nself-reliant spirit is exhibited in the \u201cfamily feuds of Kentucky, which\nfor the most part seem peculiar to families bearing Scottish names.\u201d[69]\n\nUndoubtedly the Scotch-Irish played an important part in the early\nhistory of lynch-law in the United States. But it was rather because\nthey were the vanguard of a new civilization than because they were of\nScottish descent that they played this important part. Environmental\ninfluences of old had made them pioneers. Before coming to this country\nthey had behind them a century of frontier life. Their experience in\nIreland, where the soil was poor and where by reason of the difference\nin religion they lived apart from, and often in open hostility to, the\nnatives, led them to be self-reliant and self-assertive. Their training\nhad thus made them sturdy frontiersmen, quite the sort to subdue the\nwilderness and become the founders of a new civilization. Amid the\nvicissitudes incident to settlement in a virgin territory it was often\nnecessary, as a matter of self-preservation, to use prompt and decisive\nmeasures against depredators. That the early settlers did not always\nobserve \u201cdue process of law\u201d can scarcely be urged as deserving\ncondemnation. They merely adopted the means which seemed to them the\nmost expedient under the existing circumstances.\n\nThe adoption of summary measures by Scotch-Irish Rangers in Pennsylvania\nin 1763, however, does not furnish an isolated instance, nor indeed the\nearliest instance, of the use of such measures against Indians. The\nprovincial governments were not infrequently called upon to take note of\nsuch occurrences in order to preserve amicable relations with the\nvarious Indian tribes, and considerable difficulty was commonly\nexperienced when the attempt was made to bring to justice white men who\nhad murdered Indians.\n\nIn the Province of New Hampshire in June, 1753, two white men killed two\nIndians who were accused of having carried off two negroes the preceding\nyear. After several months the men were arrested, indicted for the\nmurder, placed in the jail at Portsmouth, and their trial set for March\n21, 1754. The night previous to the day appointed for the trial a party\nof their neighbors appeared in Portsmouth, broke open the jail and set\nthem free. \u201cThis outrage produced great excitement in the community\u2014some\nendeavoring to discover and retake the murderers, and others favoring\ntheir escape. Both the murder and the rescue, however, were generally\njustified in the community. And, although rewards were offered by\nGovernor Wentworth for the apprehension of Bowen and Morrill, yet in a\nshort time they went openly about their business, without fear of\nmolestation, and the men engaged in breaking the jail at Portsmouth,\nthough well known, were never called to account, but, on the contrary,\nwere considered as having performed a most meritorious act. In fact,\nsome of the most substantial men in the country were engaged in the\nrescue,\u2014by act or advice,\u2014and the Government could not have made an\narrest had they made the attempt. Presents were afterwards made to the\nrelatives of these Indians by the Government of New Hampshire, and thus\nthe \u2018blood was wiped away\u2019 to the satisfaction of the Indians.\u201d[70]\n\nIn May, 1795, in the county of St. Clair in the Illinois country, two\nIndians were murdered while they were in the custody of the sheriff who\nwas conveying them to jail upon warrant. An effort was made to bring the\nmurderers to justice, but although \u201cthe most positive evidence was\nadduced to the grand jury against two persons, inhabitants of the county\nof St. Clair, that the murder was committed by them,\u201d no bill of\nindictment was found against them. Three attempts were made to secure an\nindictment from the grand jury, all of which were unsuccessful.\nReferring to another instance where Indians were murdered by whites,\nwhich occurred at about the same time but the circumstances of which\nwere \u201cnot only not blameable but laudable,\u201d Governor St. Clair wrote, in\nhis report to the Secretary of State, \u201chad the affair been ever so\ncriminal in its nature, it would have been, I believe, impossible to\nhave brought the actors to punishment.\u201d[71]\n\nIn several respects there is a resemblance between the means which were\nemployed by the early settlers for protection against Indian depredators\nand the methods which have been adopted in more recent years for the\npunishment of public offenders. In their purpose, in their organization,\nand in their summary infliction of the death penalty, the Rangers were\nnot unlike the vigilance committees which have been closely identified\nwith the later operation of the frontier type of lynch-law. In breaking\nopen jails, and, as in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in massacring inmates\nagainst whom there was a strong popular resentment, or, as in\nPortsmouth, New Hampshire, in liberating prisoners whose criminal\nconduct was generally justified in the community, there appear some of\nthe distinctive features which have marked the later operation of\nlynch-law in well settled communities. It is also probably true that the\nantagonistic relations which existed between the whites and the Indians\nduring the early history of this country directly encouraged a popular\ndisregard of all legal procedure on the part of the whites when dealing\nwith Indians. But the use of summary measures against Indians and the\nattendant occurrences can scarcely be said to mark the beginning of the\noperation of lynch-law in America. The meaning which was at first\nattached to the term Lynch\u2019s law and the nature of the practice which\nfirst came to be known by that name preclude such a beginning for the\npractice. Lynch\u2019s law originally corresponded much more closely to what\nwas known as \u201cregulating,\u201d a practice which was early adopted not only\nwhere the frontier type of society existed, but also where there was the\nstable and better organized form of society characteristic of older\ncommunities.\n\nThe following appeared in the New York Gazette of December 18, 1752: \u201cWe\nhear from _Elizabeth-Town_, that an odd Sect of People have lately\nappeared there, who go under the Denomination of _Regulars_: there are\nnear a Dozen of them, who dress themselves in Women\u2019s Cloaths, and\npainting their Faces, go in the Evening to the Houses of such as are\nreported to have beat their Wives: where one of them entering in first,\nseizes the Delinquent, whilst the rest follow, strip him, turn up his\nPosteriors and flog him with Rods most severely, crying out all the\nTime, _Wo to the Men that beat their Wives_:\u2014It seems that several\nPersons in that Borough, (and \u2019tis said some very deservedly) have\nundergone the Discipline, to the no small Terror of others, who are in\nany Way conscious of deserving the same Punishment. \u2019Twere to be wish\u2019d,\nthat in order for the more equal Distribution of Justice, there wou\u2019d\narise another Sect, under the Title of _Regulatrixes_ who should dress\nthemselves in Mens Cloathes, and flagilate the Posteriors of the Scolds,\nTermagants, &c., &c.\u201d[72]\n\nIn a letter dated December 7, 1753, \u201cPrudence Goodwife,\u201d after relating\nhow her husband beats and maltreats her, writes as follows: \u201cMy Case\nbeing happily nois\u2019d abroad, induced several generous young Men to\ndiscipline him. These young Persons do stile, or are stiled, Regulators:\nand so they are with Propriety: for they have regulated my dear Husband,\nand the rest of the bad Ones hereabouts, that they are afraid of using\nsuch Barbarity; and I must with Pleasure acknowledge, that since my\nHusband has felt what whipping was, he has entirely left off whipping\nme, and promises faithfully he will never begin again. Tho\u2019 there are\nsome that are afraid of whipping their Wives, for fear of dancing the\nsame Jigg; yet I understand, they are not afraid of making Application,\nin order to have those dear Regulators indicted; and if they should it\nmight discourage them for the future, to appear to the Assistance of the\nInnocent and Helpless; and then poor Wives who have the unhappiness to\nbe lockt in Wedlock with bad Husbands, take care of your tender Hides;\nfor you may depend upon being bang\u2019d without Mercy.\u201d[73]\n\nThese may be regarded as sporadic cases of \u201cregulating,\u201d as\nillustrations of the kind of \u201cregulating\u201d which is found in a stable and\nwell organized form of society. They are instances of the infliction of\nsummary corporal punishment upon individuals for whose punishment under\nthe law little tangible evidence can be adduced, and the nature of whose\noffense is such that legal penalties are popularly believed to be\ninapplicable.\n\nIn North Carolina, from 1765 to 1771, under frontier conditions combined\nwith political dissension, \u201cregulation\u201d assumed a well-organized form\nand gained considerable strength.[74] The movement was inaugurated in\nthe north-central part of the province to resist what was considered\noppressive exactions laid by government officials. Specifically, the\ngrievances were excessive taxes, dishonest sheriffs, and extortionate\nfees. A meeting \u201cto inquire into the abuse of power and take proper\nmeasures for amendment\u201d was held at Maddock\u2019s mill on October 10, 1766,\nand several resolutions were drafted and adopted.[75] Nothing was done\nby the authorities to alleviate the grievances, however, and a general\nmeeting was held on April 4, 1768, at which the organization into a body\nof Regulators was perfected. An agreement was drawn up and the members\nbound themselves by oath to its observance. This agreement reads as\nfollows:\n\n \u201cWe the subscribers do voluntarily agree to form ourselves into an\n association, to assemble ourselves for conference for regulating\n public grievances and abuses of power, in the following particulars,\n with others of the like nature that may occur.\n\n \u201c1. That we will pay no more taxes until we are satisfied they are\n agreeable to law, and applied to the purposes therein mentioned;\n unless we cannot help it, or are forced.\n\n \u201c2. That we will pay no officer any more fees than the law allows,\n unless we are obliged to it; and then to show our dislike, and bear an\n open testimony against it.\n\n \u201c3. That we will attend our meetings of conference as often as we\n conveniently can, and is necessary, in order to consult our\n representatives on the amendment of such laws as may be found grievous\n or unnecessary; and to choose more suitable men than we have done\n heretofore for burgesses and vestrymen; and to petition the houses of\n assembly, governor, council, king and parliament, &c., for redress in\n such grievances as in the course of the undertaking may occur; and to\n inform one another, learn, know, and enjoy all the privileges and\n liberties that are allowed and were settled on us by our worthy\n ancestors, the founders of our present constitution, in order to\n preserve it on its ancient foundation, that it may stand firm and\n unshaken.\n\n \u201c4. That we will contribute to collections for defraying necessary\n expenses attending the work, according to our abilities.\n\n \u201c5. That in case of difference in judgment, we will submit to the\n judgment of the majority of our body.\n\n \u201cTo all which we solemnly swear, or being a quaker, or otherwise\n scrupulous in conscience of the common oath, do solemnly affirm, that\n we will stand true and faithful to this cause, till we bring things to\n a true regulation, according to the true intent and meaning hereof, in\n the judgment of the majority of us.\u201d[76]\n\nAs this agreement indicates, this organization was primarily for the\npurpose of \u201cregulating public grievances and abuses of power,\u201d not for\nthe purpose of bringing to justice public offenders beyond the reach of\nlaw, such as horse thieves and desperadoes. Their methods of procedure,\nhowever, closely resembled those that have been adopted by other bands\nof Regulators for the purpose of meting out justice to frontier\ncriminals. Their favorite method seems to have been to administer\nwhippings. In an intercepted letter from Rednap Howell to James Hunter,\nboth leading Regulators, the following passage occurs: \u201cI give out here\nthat the Regulators are determined to whip every one who goes to law, or\nwill not pay his just debts, or will not agree to leave his cause to\nmen, where disputed. That they will choose representatives, but not send\nthem to be put in jail. In short, to stand in defence; and as to\nthieves, to drive them out of the country.\u201d[77] From time to time,\nhowever, serious disturbances and riots occurred. In September, 1770,\nabout 150 Regulators attacked the superior court which was in session at\nHillsboro, severely whipped several men who had incurred their enmity,\nand destroyed considerable property. New laws were hurriedly enacted by\nthe legislature and the leaders of the riots were arrested, but the\nRegulators were not easily subdued or conciliated. In 1771 Governor\nTryon called out the militia, and a battle took place between the\nRegulators and the militia, in which the Regulators were utterly\ndefeated and their organization broken up. Each side, however, had\nseveral men killed and many wounded.\n\nA similar attempt at \u201cregulating\u201d was made in South Carolina at about\nthe same time.[78] The \u201cBack Country,\u201d as it was called, had become\ninfested with robbers and brigands. Prior to the year 1769 the only\ncourt of criminal and civil jurisdiction in the Province\u2014except the\ncourts of Justices of the Peace, which had jurisdiction in civil causes\nas high as twenty pounds current money\u2014\u201cwas holden in Charlestown.\u201d This\ngave practical immunity from punishment to those who were lawlessly\ninclined in the distant parts of the Province. As early as the year\n1752, the inhabitants along the Pedee River near the mouth of Lynche\u2019s\nCreek petitioned the Upper House of Assembly for the creation of a new\ncounty in which twelve or more Justices should be appointed who should\nhave a general jurisdiction over both civil and criminal causes. This\nand other petitions which were presented in the following years from\ndifferent parts of the Province received scant attention on the part of\nthe Provincial Government. For several years the Government did not seem\nto comprehend the real nature of the evils, or the remedies necessary to\nbe applied. Consequently, there was a very decided opposition between\nthe Regulators and the Government.\n\nThe earliest account we have of the operations of the organization which\nbecame known as the Regulators is in the South Carolina Gazette of May\n26, 1767, in an extract from a letter from Pine Tree Hill (Camden),\ndated May 14, 1767. It is as follows: \u201cOn the 6th inst., a number of\narmed men, being in search of Horse Stealers, robbers, &c., discovered a\nparcel of them in camp on Broad River, where an engagement soon ensued,\nand the Thieves were put to flight; and though none of them were taken,\nit is reasonable to suppose, from the quantity of blood on the ground,\nthat some of them were killed. They left behind them ten horses,\nthirteen saddles, some guns, &c.\u201d[79]\n\nThe South Carolina Gazette of July 27\u2013August 3, in the same year, made\nthis statement: \u201cThe gang of Villains from Virginia and North Carolina,\nwho have for some years past, in small parties, under particular\nleaders, infested the back parts of the Southern Provinces, stealing\nhorses from one, and selling them in the next, notwithstanding the late\npublic examples made of several of them, we hear are more formidable\nthan ever as to numbers, and more audacious and cruel in their thefts\nand outrages. \u2019Tis reported that they consist of more than 200, form a\nchain of communication with each other, and have places of general\nmeeting; where (in imitation of Councils of War) they form plans of\noperation and defence, and (alluding to their secrecy and fidelity to\neach other) call their places Free Mason Lodges. Instances of their\ncruelty to the people in the back settlements, where they rob or\notherwise abuse, are so numerous and shocking, that a narrative of them\nwould fill a whole _Gazette_, and every reader with horror. They at\npresent range in the Forks between Broad, Saludy, and Savannah Rivers.\nTwo of the gang were hanged last week at Savannah, viz., Lundy Hart and\nObadiah Greenage. Two others, James Ferguson and Jesse Hambersam, were\nkilled when these were taken.\u201d[80]\n\nApparently, it was for the purpose of breaking up and bringing to\njustice this \u201cgang of Villains\u201d that Thomas Woodward, Joseph Kirkland,\nand Barnaby Pope \u201cinstituted the Regulation.\u201d[81] At any rate, an\norganization had been formed in the region surrounding the Broad River,\nand, as early as 1767, the members of this organization had come to be\nknown as Regulators. In an address to both Houses of Assembly, November\n5, 1767, the Governor of the Province, referring to the \u201cunhappy\nsituation in the Back Parts of this Country,\u201d made the following\nstatement: \u201cThe means to suppress those licentious spirits that have so\nlately appeared in the distant parts of the Province, and, assuming the\nname of Regulators, have, in defiance of Government, and to the\nsubversion of good order, illegally tried, condemned, and punished many\npersons, require an attentive deliberation.\u201d[82]\n\nThe courts that were asked for by the inhabitants were not established,\nhowever, and the \u201cregulation\u201d continued. The following is taken from the\nSouth Carolina Gazette of June 13, 1768: \u201cIt seems hardly probable that\nthe disturbances in our back settlements will entirely subside,\nnotwithstanding all the prudent steps that have been taken, or can be\ntaken, by the Government to suppress them, until the late Act of the\nGeneral Assembly of this Province for establishing Circuit Courts,[83]\ntakes effect: for we daily hear of new irregularities committed by the\npeople called Regulators, who, seeming to despair of rooting out those\ndesperate villains that remain among them any other way, still take upon\nthemselves to punish such offenders as they can catch. We hear, that\nwithin this month, one Watts and one Distoe, have received 500 lashes\neach by their direction; and that an infamous woman has also received\ncorporal punishment. We hear, also, that one John Bowles has lately lost\nhis life in attempting to take Mr. Woodward, one of the leaders of the\npeople called Regulators. According to our account, Woodward, refusing\nto surrender himself, Bowles fired at, and would have killed him, but\nthe ball struck the barrel of a gun which he held across his breast,\nupon which, some people in company with Woodward, fired, and killed\nBowles.\u201d[84]\n\nOn July 25, the following intelligence was given in the South Carolina\nGazette: \u201cThe last accounts from the Back Settlements say, that the\nPeople called the Regulators were to have a meeting at Lynche\u2019s Creek,\non last Friday, where it was expected 1200 would be assembled. The\noccasion of this meeting is said to be, a Party of them lately having\nbeen roughly used by a Gang of Banditti, consisting of Mulattoes, Free\nNegroes, &c., notorious Harborers of runaway slaves, at a place called\nThompson\u2019s Creek, whom they ordered to remove. It is added, they\nanxiously wait to hear the fate of the Act for establishing Circuit\nCourts in this Province, sent home for the Royal approbation, which, if\nit obtains, will restore good order in those parts.\u201d[85]\n\nThe Governor of the Province, not understanding the situation in the\nremote settlements, made an attempt to enforce order and compel\nobedience to law by sending an officer with full discretionary power\nagainst the Regulators. The course of events is described by Ramsay in\nthe following words: \u201cThe extreme difficulty of bringing criminals from\nthe remote settlements to a legal condemnation had induced a number of\nmen, who called themselves regulators, to take the law into their hands.\nThey, by their own authority, inflicted corporal punishment on sundry\npersons without any regular condemnation. To remedy abuses of this kind,\nlord Charles Greville Montague, then governor of the province, advanced\nto the rank of colonel a man of low character, of the name of Scovil,\nand employed him to enforce regular law among these self-constituted\nregulators. In execution of his commission he adopted severe measures,\nwhich involved multitudes in great distress.\u201d[86] This Colonel Scovil\n(or Schovel\u2014his name is written in various ways), instead of redressing\nthe grievances on both sides, armed the depredators and paraded them for\nbattle. Before a battle took place, however, between the Regulators and\nthe Schofilites, as they were known from the name of their leader, wiser\ncounsels prevailed and both parties sent delegates to the Governor\nasking for his intervention.[87] In this way the disastrous results of\nthe conflict in North Carolina between the Regulators and the Government\nwere avoided in South Carolina.\n\nFinally, the necessity for courts in the interior of the Province could\nno longer be denied. The Royal approval was given, and in the year 1769\nseven new courts, with suitable jails and court-houses, were established\nin different parts of the interior.[88] This marked the end of the\nRegulation movement in South Carolina. The condition of affairs which\nhad called it into existence had ceased to prevail and the practice of\n\u201cregulating\u201d was, therefore, discontinued.\n\nA single quotation will conclude all that need here be said in regard to\nthe Regulation in South Carolina. It is an \u201cextract of a letter from a\nGentleman at Pedee, to his friend in Town,\u201d and appeared in the South\nCarolina Gazette, September 2, 1768. It reads as follows:\n\n \u201cI wish you would inform me what is generally thought in town of the\n Regulators, who now reign uncontrolled in all the remote parts of the\n Province. In June, they held a Congress at the Congarees, where a vast\n number of people assembled; several of the principal settlers on this\n River, men of property, among them. When these returned, they\n requested the most respectable people in these parts to meet on a\n certain day; they did so, and, upon the report made to them, they\n unanimously adopted the Plan of Regulation, and are now executing it\n with indefatigable ardour. Their resolution is, in general,\n effectually to deny the Jurisdiction of the Courts holden in\n Charlestown over those parts of the Province that ought to be by right\n out of it; to purge, by methods of their own, the country of all idle\n persons, all that have not a visible way of getting an honest living,\n all that are suspected or known to be guilty of malpractices, and also\n to prevent the service of any writ or warrant from Charlestown; so\n that a Deputy Marshal would be handled by them with severity. Against\n those they breathe high indignation. They are every day, excepting\n Sundays, employed in this Regulation work, as they term it. They have\n brought many under the lash, and are scourging and banishing the baser\n sort of people, such as the above, with universal diligence.\n\n \u201cSuch as they think reclaimable, they are a little tender of; and\n those they task, giving them so many acres to tend in so many days, on\n pain of flagellation, that they may not be reduced to poverty, and by\n that be led to steal from their industrious neighbours. This course,\n they say, they are determined to pursue, with every other effectual\n measure, that will answer their purpose; and that they will defend\n themselves in it to the last extremity. They hold correspondence with\n others in the same plan, and are engaged to abide by and support each\n other whenever they may be called upon for that purpose. This, it\n seems, they are to continue till County Courts, as well as Circuit\n Courts, shall be rightly established, that they may enjoy, by that\n means, the rights and privileges of British subjects, which they think\n themselves now deprived of. They imagine that, as the Jurisdiction of\n the Courts in Charlestown extends all over the Province, Government is\n not a protection, but an oppression; that they are not tried there by\n their Peers; and that the accumulated expenses of a law-suit, or\n prosecution, puts justice out of their power; by which means the\n honest man is not secure in his property, and villainy becomes rampant\n with impunity.\n\n \u201cIndeed, the grievances they complain of are many, and the spirit of\n Regulation rises higher and spreads wider every day. What this is to\n end in, I know not; but thus matters are situated; an account of\n which, I imagine, is not unacceptable, though perhaps disagreeable to\n hear.\u201d[89]\n\nThis letter may be regarded, upon the whole, as an impartial account of\nthe Regulation movement in South Carolina.[90] It exhibits the character\nof those who were taking the lead in the matter, and indicates the\nobjects which they proposed to accomplish. It also indicates that their\nusual procedure was to whip and banish all persons whom they considered\ninimical to the interests of the community. In this respect the\nRegulation movement in South Carolina closely resembled the Regulation\nmovement in North Carolina. It may be said, therefore, that lynch-law\nwas in operation at this time in the Carolinas, though not known by that\nname. The practice of administering corporal punishment for reformatory\nor corrective purposes, the practice of \u201cregulating\u201d public offenders\nand public grievances, is the essence of lynch-law procedure.\n\nAs events shaped themselves for the outbreak of the Revolution in 1775,\nconditions became such as to encourage the frequent use of summary\nmethods of redressing grievances in all of the colonies. The increasing\ndissatisfaction among the colonists with the way they were being\ngoverned by the mother country, the obnoxious Stamp Act and other\nmeasures which they thought to be unjustly imposed upon them, rendered\nrecourse to summary procedure not only easy but popularly\njustifiable.[91] It was a time of excitement when neighbor looked upon\nneighbor with suspicion and the slightest offense was deemed worthy of\nsevere punishment. Social conditions were unsettled; the civil\nauthorities were fast losing the respect and support of the people in\nthe community; threats and taunts, satire and insult, were\nprevalent.[92] Under such conditions it is not strange that summary\nprocedure came to be in vogue from Maine to Georgia.\n\nFurthermore, during the entire period of the Revolutionary War not only\nwere the usual unsettled conditions incident to a war prevailing, but,\nin addition, there was disaffection and disagreement among the colonists\nthemselves. Almost every community had its Tories who frequently sought,\nopenly or secretly, to further the Royal cause and injure the American\ncause. In return, the American sympathizers often adopted retaliatory\nmeasures against the Tories. In such cases it was hopeless to appeal to\nthe civil or the judicial powers for they were badly disorganized. Not\ninfrequently conditions were such as to preclude action under martial\nlaw, and thus the only recourse possible was the popular administration\nof justice in the form of summary procedure of one sort or another.\n\nParticularly characteristic of the Revolutionary period was the practice\nof tarring and feathering.[93] It has been said that \u201cthis singular\npunishment\u201d was begun in America by British troops who tarred and\nfeathered an inhabitant of the town of Billerica, Massachusetts, on\nMarch 9, 1775.[94] But a number of instances may be cited showing that\nthis punishment had been administered in more than one of the colonies\nseveral years earlier. It is probable that many of the early immigrants\nknew of this manner of punishment before they left their native\nshores[95]; at any rate, they did not wait until 1775 for the British\ntroops to set them an example.[96]\n\nOn September 7, 1768, at Salem, Massachusetts, a \u201cCustom-House Waiter\u201d\ninformed an officer of the customs that some measures had been taken on\nboard a vessel, in the harbor to elude the payment of certain duties.\nThis \u201cengaged the Attention of a Number of the Inhabitants. Between the\nHours of Ten and Eleven, A.M. he was taken from one of the Wharves, and\nconducted to the common, where his Head, Body and Limbs were covered\nwith warm Tar, and then a large Quantity of Feathers were applied to all\nParts. The poor Waiter was then exalted to a Seat on the Front of a\nCart, and in this Manner led into the Main Street, where a Paper, with\nthe Word _Informer_ thereon, in large Letters, was affixed to his\nBreast, and another Paper, with the same Word, to his Back. This Scene\ndrew together, within a few Minutes, several Hundred People, who\nproceeded, with Huzzas and loud Acclamations, through the Town.\u201d[97]\n\nOn Saturday, September 10, 1768, \u201ctwo Informers, an Englishman and a\nFrenchman, were taken up by the Populace at Newbury-Port, (Mass.) who\ntarred them & feathered them; but being late they were hand-cuffed and\nput into custody until the Sabbath was over:\u2014Accordingly on Monday\nMorning, they were again tarred and rolled in Feathers, then fixed in a\nCart with Halters, and carried thro\u2019 the principal Streets of the\nTown.\u201d[98] Upon his release the Englishman, Joshua Vickery by name, went\nbefore a justice of the peace and took oath \u201cthat he never did directly\nor indirectly make or give any Information to any Officer of the Customs\nnor to any other Person either against Capt. John Emmery, or any other\nMan whatever; that he was no ways concerned with Francis Magno in his\nInformation, nor ever wrote one Line for the said Francis, on that\nAccount.\u201d[99] These statements were corroborated by the Frenchman and it\nwas shown that the only ground for suspicion against Vickery was the\nfact that he had been in the company of the Frenchman on the day that\nthe \u201cInformation\u201d was given.\n\nOn the evening of May 18, 1769, at Providence, Rhode Island, Jesse\nSaville, \u201ca Tidesman belonging to the Custom-House\u201d who was accused of\n\u201cInforming,\u201d was seized by a number of people, stripped naked, covered\nfrom head to foot with turpentine and feathers and severely beaten. \u201cFor\nthe better bringing to Justice and condign Punishment the Authors of\nthis daring & atrocious Outrage, the Commissioners of His Majesty\u2019s\nCustoms\u201d offered a reward of fifty pounds sterling for their discovery\nand conviction.[100]\n\nA similar case of tarring and feathering, the offender being \u201ca Person\nwho had informed against a Merchant, respecting a Vessel then in the\nWest-Indies,\u201d occurred in New Haven, Connecticut, in September,\n1769.[101]\n\nIn New York, in October, 1769, \u201cone Kelly, an Oysterman, Mitchner, a\nTavern-keeper, and one or two more, having, it is said, made an\nInformation to the Custom-House Officers, which occasioned the Seizure\nof a few Casks of Wine belonging to the Mate of a Vessel, and was, it is\nsaid, the whole Saving he had made of three Years Wages: The Populace\nbeing greatly incensed against the Informers, after several Days Search,\nfound and seized them, placed and tied them in Carts, and carried them\nthro\u2019 great Part of the City, attended with many Thousand People, who\nhuzza\u2019d, insulted and treated them with the utmost Indignity, often\nbesmearing their Faces and Clothes with Tar, and sprinkling them with\nFeathers.... The Magistrates interposed, but were for some Time unable\nto stop the Cavalcade, till the Populace had in some Measure satiated\ntheir Resentment.\u201d[102]\n\nThe Boston Chronicle for October 26\u201330, 1769,[103] contained the\nfollowing under the heading of \u201cBoston\u201d: \u201cLast Saturday evening, a\nperson suspected to be an informer, was stripped naked, put in a Cart,\nwhere he was first tarred, then feathered, and in this condition,\ncarried through the principal streets of the town, followed by a great\nconcourse of people.\u201d\n\nDuring the year 1770 there was much popular feeling against merchants\nwho imported goods contrary to the non-importation agreement. Such\nimporters were threatened with many dire punishments including tar and\nfeathers, and in several instances the threatened punishments were\nadministered.[104]\n\nAt Philadelphia, in October, 1773, a certain Ebenezer Richardson,\naccused of \u201cseeking an opportunity to distress the Trade of\nPhiladelphia,\u201d was publicly notified, by \u201cTar _and_ Feathers,\u201d of the\npunishment which was in store for him, a punishment which he narrowly\nescaped by leaving the city \u201cclosely pursued by many well-wishers to\npeace and good order.\u201d[105]\n\nOn November 1, 1773, John Malcolm who had rendered himself obnoxious \u201cby\nbeing an Informer\u201d was \u201cgenteely _Tarr\u2019d_ and _Feather\u2019d_\u201d by \u201cabout 30\nSailors\u201d at Pownalborough (Mass.).[106] On January 25, 1774, Malcolm was\nin Boston, and when some taunting remarks were made to him to the effect\nthat he had been tarred and feathered but not in the proper manner, he\ndared any one to do it better and assaulted one man, slightly injuring\nhim. In the evening a number of people took Malcolm out, stripped him,\ntarred his head and his body, feathered him, set him in a chair in a\ncart, and thus carried him through the streets, finally whipping and\nbeating him before they let him go.[107] On the morning of January 30\nthe following handbill[108] was found pasted up in the most public\nplaces:\n\n BRETHREN, AND FELLOW-CITIZENS!\n\n This is to Certify, That the modern Punishment lately inflicted on the\n ignoble JOHN MALCOLM, was not done by our Order\u2014We reserve that Method\n for bringing Villains of greater Consequence to a Sense of Guilt and\n Infamy.\n\n JOYCE, jun^r.\n (_Chairman of the Committee for_ Taring _and_ Feathering.)\n\n \u261e If any Person should be so hardy as to tear this down, they may\n expect my severest Resentment.\n\n J. jun.\n\nDuring the years 1773 and 1774 tea commissioners and tea consignees, in\naddition to customs informers and importers of British goods, fell into\npopular disfavor, and thus became subjects for tarring and feathering.\n\u201cTiewaghnodago\u201d in the Boston Gazette, December 20, 1773,[109] said that\nhe had been informed that \u201csome _little_ Shopkeepers in this Town,\u201d\nfinding that tea was not likely to be used, had raised the price of\ncoffee a few coppers per pound, and he asked \u201cwhether _Tar_ and\n_Feathers_ would not be a constitutional encouragement for such eminent\nPatriotism.\u201d\n\nIn the period 1765\u20131775 there were likewise cases of mob violence where\nhouses were attacked and damaged by having missiles thrown at them and\nwhere property was destroyed.[110] In one instance at least the owner of\ngoods which were destroyed by a mob recovered damages in the courts.\nEarly in the year 1772, according to S. G. Arnold,[111] there occurred\n\u201ca memorable instance of the triumph of law over popular prejudice.\u201d One\nDavid Hill was detected in selling goods included in the non-importation\nagreement, and the goods were seized and destroyed by a mob. Hill\nbrought action in the Rhode Island courts, and the superior court\nconfirmed the judgment of the inferior court and gave the plaintiff two\nhundred and eighty-two pounds damages and costs.\n\nTarring and feathering was not reserved for certain informers and\nimporters or for tea consignees alone, however. This punishment was\nadministered in at least two instances for offenses other than those\ngrowing out of the political controversies of the time.\n\nThe Boston Gazette for November 6, 1769,[112] contained the following\nitem: \u201cLast Thursday Afternoon a young Woman from the Country was\ndecoyed into one of the Barracks in Town, and most shamefully abused by\nsome of the Soldiers there:\u2014the Person that enticed her thither with\npromises of disposing of all her marketing there (who also belonged to\nthe Country) was afterwards taken by the Populace and several times\nduck\u2019d in the Water at one of the Docks in Town; but luckily for him he\nmade his escape from them sooner than was intended;\u2014however, we hear,\nthat after he had crossed the Ferry to Charlestown, on his return home,\nthe People there being informed of the base part he had been acting,\ntook him and placed him in a Cart, and after tarring and feathering him\n(the present popular Punishment for modern delinquents) they carted him\nabout that Town for two or three Hours, as a Spectacle of Contempt and a\nWarning to others from practising such vile Artifices for the Delusion\nand Ruin of the virtuous and innocent: He was then dismissed, and\npermitted to proceed to the Town where he belonged, for them to act with\nas they should see fit.\u201d\n\nIn January, 1774, smallpox became prevalent in Marblehead,\nMassachusetts, and an inoculating hospital was erected on Cat Island as\na private enterprise. This hospital, however, was popularly regarded\nwith suspicion and disfavor, for it was thought to be a source of\ncontagion. When four men were detected in the act of stealing clothing\nfrom the hospital, they were promptly tarred and feathered, and, after\nbeing placed in a cart and exhibited through the principal streets of\nthe town, were carried to Salem, accompanied by a procession of men and\nboys, marching to the music of a fife and several drums. A number of new\ncases of smallpox developed soon after this affair, and popular\nindignation ran so high against the proprietors of the hospital that\nthey were openly threatened with personal violence and were finally\ncompelled to close its doors. Subsequently a rumor that the hospital was\nto be opened again awakened fresh opposition, and on January 26 a party\nof disguised men visited the island, and as a result of their visit the\nbuilding was completely destroyed by fire. Two men were arrested as\nbeing implicated in the incendiarism and were confined in the Salem\njail, but a large number of men from Marblehead marched to Salem,\nsurrounded the jail, broke open the doors, overpowered the jailer and\nhis assistants, released the two prisoners and conducted them home in\ntriumph. A force of citizens was later organized by the sheriff for the\npurpose of going to Marblehead to recapture the men, but when it became\nknown that an equally large force was organizing and arming in\nMarblehead to protect them, the sheriff abandoned his purpose and no\nfurther effort was made to prosecute the incendiaries. Before the\ntrouble connected with the hospital was finally ended, however, one of\nthe four men who had been tarred and feathered was again the subject of\npopular indignation because of his bringing away clothing from Cat\nIsland. He was taken from his bed one night by a mob and carried to the\npublic whipping-post where he was severely whipped and beaten.[113]\n\nDuring the year 1775, when the spirit of rebellion rose to the height of\narmed resistance and open warfare, there was increased occasion for\nrecourse to summary procedure. In that year mobs gathered in many\nplaces,[114] riots were numerous and cases of tarring and feathering\noccurred in several of the colonies.\n\nIn June, 1775, Laughlin Martin and James Dealy were stripped of their\nclothes, tarred and feathered, and carted through the Streets of\nCharleston, South Carolina, by order of the \u201cSecret Committee,\u201d one of\nthe committees which had been formed to carry on an independent\ngovernment in that Province.[115] In August of the same year, this\ncommittee had another man, \u201ca Mr. Walker, Gunner of Fort Johnston,\u201d\ntreated in the same way.[116]\n\nIn September, 1775, James Smith, a judge of the Court of Common Pleas\nfor Duchess County, New York, together with Coen Smith of the same\nplace, were \u201chandsomely tarred and feathered\u201d for acting in open\ncontempt of the resolves of the County Committee. \u201cThe judge undertook\nto sue for, and recover the arms taken from the Tories by order of said\ncommittee, and actually committed one of the committee, who assisted at\ndisarming the Tories, which enraged the people so much, that they rose\nand rescued the prisoner, and poured out their resentment on this\nvillanous retailer of the law.\u201d[117]\n\nIn December, 1775, \u201cat Quibbletown, New Jersey, Thomas Randolph, cooper,\nwho had publicly proved himself an enemy to his country, by reviling and\nusing his utmost endeavors to oppose the proceedings of the continental\nand provincial conventions, in defence of their rights and liberties;\nand being judged a person not of consequence enough for a severer\npunishment, was ordered to be stripped naked, well coated with tar and\nfeathers, and carried in a wagon publicly around the town\u2014which\npunishment was accordingly inflicted. As soon as he became duly sensible\nof his offence, for which he earnestly begged pardon, and promised to\natone, as far as he was able, by a contrary behavior for the future, he\nwas released and suffered to return to his home, in less than half an\nhour. The whole was conducted with that regularity and decorum that\nought to be observed in all public punishments.\u201d[118]\n\nIn the later years of the Revolution, also, there were cases of tarring\nand feathering. At Charleston, South Carolina, in 1776, \u201cJohn Roberts, a\ndissenting minister, was seized on suspicion of being an enemy to the\nrights of America, when he was tarred and feathered; after which, the\npopulace, whose fury could not be appeased, erected a gibbet on which\nthey hanged him, and afterwards made a bonfire, in which Roberts,\ntogether with the gibbet, was consumed to ashes.\u201d[119]\n\nDuring the campaign of April to December, 1776, for the possession of\nthe Hudson River, Tryon, who when governor of North Carolina had led the\nmilitia against the Regulators, was \u201cfomenting plots of a most dastardly\ncharacter against the persons and property of patriots. One of these was\nthe seizure of Washington himself. The plotters were sometimes\ndiscovered, and, when they were, such was the exasperation of the New\nYork patriots that they did not hesitate to cruelly maltreat them, a\ncoat of tar and feathers being among the lightest penalties.\u201d[120]\n\nIn Virginia the manner of punishing by tarring and feathering was\nlikewise sometimes followed. According to Wirt, \u201cThe name of \u2018British\ntory\u2019 was of itself enough, at that period (the close of the\nRevolution), to throw almost any company in Virginia into flames, and\nwas pretty generally a signal for a coat of tar and feathers; a signal\nwhich was not very often disobeyed.\u201d[121]\n\nThe practice of tarring and feathering was thus mainly confined to cases\nin which popular indignation was aroused against Tories, or against\npersons expressing Tory sentiments and conspiring to injure the American\ncause. It is this fact that makes tarring and feathering particularly\ncharacteristic of Revolutionary times. It is to be remembered, however,\nthat summary punishment was also administered in other ways. Various\nother forms of corporal punishment, as well as the occasional infliction\nof capital punishment, were very frequently adopted during the period of\nthe Revolution.\n\nIn the preceding chapter, in the discussion of the origin of the term\nlynch-law, the legislative act was cited which indemnified Charles Lynch\nand some others for the part which they had taken in suppressing a\nconspiracy. A similar act of indemnification was passed by the\nlegislature of Virginia in the year 1779. This act reads as follows:\n\n \u201cWHEREAS divers evil disposed persons on the frontiers of this\n commonwealth had broke out into an open insurrection and conspiracy,\n and actually levied war against the commonwealth, and it is\n represented to the present general assembly, that William Campbell,\n Walter Crockett, and other liege subjects of the commonwealth, aided\n by detachments of the militia and volunteers from the county of\n Washington, and other parts of the frontiers did by timely and\n effectual exertion, suppress and defeat such conspiracy: And whereas\n the necessary measures taken for that purpose may not be strictly\n warranted by law, although justifiable from the immediate urgency and\n imminence of the danger: _Be it therefore declared and enacted_, That\n the said William Campbell, Walter Crockett, and all other persons\n whatsoever concerned in suppressing the said conspiracy and\n insurrection, or in advising, issuing or executing any orders or\n measures taken for that purpose, stand indemnified and clearly\n exonerated of, and from all pains, penalties, prosecutions, actions,\n suits, and damages on account thereof: And that if any indictment,\n prosecution, action, or suit, shall be laid or brought against them,\n or any of them, for any act or thing done therein, the defendant or\n defendants may plead in bar, or the general issue, and give this act\n in evidence.\u201d[122]\n\nIn the year 1836 the editor of the Southern Literary Messenger said that\nfrequent inquiry had been made in the preceding year as to the origin of\nLynch\u2019s law. After an allusion to the historical interest of the\nsubject, he answered the inquiry in the following words:\n\n \u201cIt will be perceived from the annexed paper, that the law, so called,\n originated in 1780, in Pittsylvania, Virginia. Colonel William Lynch,\n of that county, was its author; and we are informed by a resident, who\n was a member of a body formed for the purpose of carrying it into\n effect, that the efforts of the association were wholly successful. A\n trained band of villains, whose operations extended from North to\n South, whose well concerted schemes had bidden defiance to the\n ordinary laws of the land, and whose success encouraged them to\n persevere in depredations upon an unoffending community, was dispersed\n and laid prostrate under the infliction of Lynch\u2019s law. Of how many\n terrible, and deeply to be lamented consequences\u2014of how great an\n amount of permanent evil\u2014has the partial and temporary good been\n productive!\n\n \u201c\u2018Whereas, many of the inhabitants of the county of Pittsylvania, as\n well as elsewhere, have sustained great and intolerable losses by a\n set of lawless men who have banded themselves together to deprive\n honest men of their just rights and property, by stealing their\n horses, counterfeiting, and passing paper currency, and committing\n many other species of villainy, too tedious to mention, and that those\n vile miscreants do still persist in their diabolical practices, and\n have hitherto escaped the civil power with impunity, it being almost\n useless and unnecessary to have recourse to our laws to suppress and\n punish those freebooters, they having it in their power to extricate\n themselves when brought to justice by suborning witnesses who do swear\n them clear\u2014we, the subscribers, being determined to put a stop to the\n iniquitous practices of those unlawful and abandoned wretches, do\n enter into the following association, to wit: that next to our\n consciences, soul and body, we hold our rights and property, sacred\n and inviolable. We solemnly protest before God and the world, that\n (for the future) upon hearing or having sufficient reason to believe,\n that any villainy or species of villainy having been committed within\n our neighborhood, we will forthwith embody ourselves, and repair\n immediately to the person or persons suspected, or those under\n suspicious characters, harboring, aiding, or assisting those villains,\n and if they will not desist from their evil practices, we will inflict\n such corporeal punishment on him or them, as to us shall seem adequate\n to the crime committed or the damage sustained; that we will protect\n and defend each and every one of us, the subscribers, as well jointly\n as severally, from the insults and assaults offered by any other\n person in their behalf: and further, we do bind ourselves jointly and\n severally, our joint and several heirs &c. to pay or cause to be paid,\n all damages that shall or may accrue in consequence of this our\n laudable undertaking, and will pay an equal proportion according to\n our several abilities; and we, after having a sufficient number of\n subscribers to this association, will convene ourselves to some\n convenient place, and will make choice of our body five of the best\n and most discreet men belonging to our body, to direct and govern the\n whole, and we will strictly adhere to their determinations in all\n cases whatsoever relative to the above undertaking; and if any of our\n body summoned to attend the execution of this our plan, and fail so to\n do without a reasonable excuse, they shall forfeit and pay the sum of\n one hundred pounds current money of Virginia, to be appropriated\n toward defraying the contingent expenses of this our undertaking. In\n witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands, this 22d day September\n 1780.\u2019\u201d[123]\n\nThe only indication of the source from which the editor obtained this\nagreement is found in the reference to \u201ca resident, who was a member of\na body formed for the purpose of carrying it into effect.\u201d It is upon\nthis reference that its authenticity depends. The agreement sounds\ngenuine and is not out of harmony with the condition of affairs at that\ntime in Virginia. Nothing is known, however, of any Colonel William\nLynch in the county of Pittsylvania, Virginia.[124] It is possible that\nthe man referred to was Colonel Charles Lynch of Bedford County.\n\nAn instance of summary corporal punishment occurred in Virginia on\nOctober 10, 1783, as is shown by the following act entitled \u201c_An act of\nindemnity to certain persons_\u201d: \u201c_Be it enacted by the General\nAssembly_, That all and every person or persons who either directly or\nindirectly committed any insult or injury against the person of a\ncertain Joseph Williamson, on the tenth day of October, in the year one\nthousand seven hundred and eighty three, or breach of the peace on that\noccasion, and which was previous to the ratification of the definitive\ntreaty between Great Britain and America, shall be, and they are hereby\nrespectively indemnified for the same, and shall be exonerated and\ndischarged of and from any fines, penalties, or forfeitures, which they\nmight have incurred thereby.\u201d[125]\n\nJudge Roane\u2019s statement that there were many suits in 1792 for\ninflicting Lynch\u2019s law indicates that there were many cases of its\ninfliction in the years preceding that date. It seems probable,\ntherefore, that the practice of administering corporal punishment in a\nsummary manner was very prevalent in Virginia from 1780 to 1792.\n\nDuring the period 1792\u20131819 accounts of lynch-law procedure are very\nrare. There are but few sources of information on the subject during\nthat period. Indeed, it is true that the chief source of information on\nthe subject from 1792 to 1830 is the writings of travelers who have\nchanced to witness or hear of instances of such procedure.\n\nUnder the date of November 29, 1819, W. Faux describes the treatment\ngiven a young Yankee, of the name of Williams, near Princeton, Indiana,\ntwo years earlier. He was suspected of having robbed a store, but only\ncircumstantial evidence could be adduced against him and he was\nacquitted. \u201cThe people of the place, however, prejudiced against him, as\na Yankee, deputed four persons to inform him, that unless he quitted the\ntown and state immediately, he should receive Lynch\u2019s law, that is, a\nwhipping in the woods. He departed, with his wife and child, next day,\non foot; but in the woods, four miles from Princeton, they were\novertaken by two men, armed with guns, dogs, and a whip, who said they\ncame to whip him, unless he would confess and discover to them the\nstolen money, so that they might have it. He vainly expostulated with\nthem; but, in consideration of his wife\u2019s entreaties and cries, they\nremitted his sentence to thirteen lashes. One man then bound him to a\ntree and lashed him with a cow-hide whip, while the other held and\ngagged him; the alarmed wife, all the time, shrieking murder. He was\nthen untied, and told to depart from the state immediately, or he should\nreceive another whipping on the morrow, as a warning and terror to all\nfuture coming Yankees.\n\n\u201cThis poor fellow was of respectable parents at Berlin, in the state of\nNew York, and possessed a well-informed mind. He quitted the state, and\nreturning, soon after, to prosecute his executioners, died at\nEvansville, before he had effected so desirable an object.\u201d[126]\n\nIn \u201cLetters from Illinois,\u201d the second edition of which was published in\nLondon in 1818, Morris Birkbeck writes:\n\n \u201cThere is nothing that I anticipate with so much satisfaction and\n security as the rapid development of society in our new country. Its\n elements are rude certainly, and heterogeneous. The first settlers,\n unprotected, and unassisted amid dangers and difficulties, have been\n accustomed from early youth to rely on their own powers; and they\n surrender with reluctance, and only by halves, their right of defence\n against every aggression, even to the laws which themselves have\n constituted.\n\n \u201cThey have been anxiously studious of mildness in the forming of these\n laws, and when, in practice, they seem inefficient, they too\n frequently proceed with Indian perseverance to acts of vengeance,\n inconsistent with the duty of forbearance essential to social man.\n Hence deeds of savage and even ferocious violence are too common to be\n viewed with the abhorrence due to them.\n\n \u201cThis disposition is evinced continually, and acted on without any\n feeling of private or personal animosity.\n\n \u201cIf a man, whom the public voice has proclaimed a thief or a swindler,\n escapes from justice for want of a legal proof of his guilt, though\n the law and a jury of his fellow citizens have acquitted him, ten to\n one but he is met with before he can quit the neighborhood, and, tied\n up to a sapling, receives a scourging that marks him for the rest of\n his life.\n\n \u201cIn Kentucky, whose institutions have acquired greater maturity, such\n events _have_ taken place some years ago; but now they would scarcely\n be tolerated, and they will soon be matter of history only, in Indiana\n and Illinois.\n\n \u201cNo crime but murder \u2018of the first degree\u2019 is punished with death, in\n any of the western states, nor, I believe, in the Union. In Kentucky\n there is a general penitentiary, for the punishment of other offences\n by imprisonment and labour.\u201d[127]\n\nWilliam Newnham Blane, who traveled through the United States and Canada\nin the years 1822 and 1823, described the lynch-law procedure of that\ntime as follows:\n\n \u201cAfter leaving Carlyle, I took the Shawnee town road, that branches\n off to the S. E., and passed the Walnut Hills, and Moore\u2019s Prairie.\n These two places had a year or two before been infested by a notorious\n gang of robbers and forgers, who had fixed themselves in these wild\n parts, in order to avoid justice. As the country became more settled,\n these desperadoes became more and more troublesome. The inhabitants\n therefore took that method of getting rid of them, that had been\n adopted not many years ago in Hopkinson and Henderson counties\n Kentucky, and which is absolutely necessary in new and thinly settled\n districts, where it is almost impossible to punish a criminal\n according to legal forms.\n\n \u201cOn such occasions therefore, all the quiet and industrious men of a\n district form themselves into companies, under the name of\n \u2018Regulators.\u2019 They appoint officers, put themselves under their\n orders, and bind themselves to assist and stand by each other. The\n first step they then take, is to send notice to any notorious\n vagabonds, desiring them to quit the State in a certain number of\n days, under the penalty of receiving a domiciliary visit. Should the\n person who receives the notice refuse to comply, they suddenly\n assemble, and when unexpected, go, in the night time, to the rogue\u2019s\n house, take him out, tie him to a tree, and give him a severe\n whipping, every one of the party striking him a certain number of\n times.\n\n \u201cThis discipline is generally sufficient to drive off the culprit; but\n should he continue obstinate, and refuse to avail himself of another\n warning, the Regulators pay him a second visit, inflict a still\n severer whipping, with the addition probably of cutting off both his\n ears. No culprit has ever been known to remain after a second visit.\n For instance, an old man, the father of a family, all of whom he\n educated as robbers, fixed himself at Moore\u2019s Prairie, and committed\n numerous thefts, &c. &c. He was hardy enough to remain after the first\n visit, when both he and his sons received a whipping. At the second\n visit the Regulators punished him very severely, and cut off his ears.\n This drove him off, together with his whole gang; and travellers can\n now pass in perfect safety, where it was once dangerous to travel\n alone.\n\n \u201cThere is also a company of Regulators near Vincennes, who have broken\n up a notorious gang of coiners and thieves who had fixed themselves\n near that place. These rascals, before they were driven off, had\n parties settled at different distances in the woods, and thus held\n communication and passed horses and stolen goods from one to another,\n from the Ohio to Lake Erie, and from thence into Canada or the New\n England States. Thus it was next to impossible to detect the robbers,\n or to recover the stolen property.\n\n \u201cWhile I was staying at the house of a Mr. Mulligan in Illinois,\n thirty miles from St. Louis, one of the men, who had belonged to the\n gang near Vincennes, was taken up on the charge of passing counterfeit\n money....\n\n \u201cThis practice of _Regulating_ seems very strange to an European. I\n have talked with some of the chief men of the Regulators, who all\n lamented the necessity of such a system. They very sensibly remarked,\n that when the country became more thickly settled, there would no\n longer be any necessity for such proceedings, and that they should all\n be delighted at being able to obtain justice in a more formal manner.\n I forgot to mention, that the rascals punished, have sometimes\n prosecuted the Regulators, for an assault. The juries however, knowing\n the bad characters of the prosecutors, would give but trifling\n damages, which divided among so many, amounted to next to nothing for\n each individual.\u201d[128]\n\nIn a book entitled \u201cLetters from the West,\u201d which was published in\nLondon in 1828, Judge James Hall wrote on the subject of lynch-law as\nfollows:\n\n \u201cAmong the early settlers there was a way of trying causes, which may\n perhaps be new to you. No commentator has taken any notice of _Linch\u2019s\n Law_, which was once the _lex loci_ of the frontiers. Its operation\n was as follows: When a horse thief, a counterfeiter, or any other\n desperate vagabond, infested a neighborhood, evading justice by\n cunning, or by a strong arm, or by the number of his confederates, the\n citizens formed themselves into a \u2018_regulating company_,\u2019 a kind of\n holy brotherhood, whose duty was to purge the community of its unruly\n members. Mounted, armed, and commanded by a leader, they proceeded to\n arrest such notorious offenders as were deemed fit subjects of\n exemplary justice; their operations were generally carried on in the\n night. Squire Birch, who was personated by one of the party,\n established his tribunal under a tree in the woods, and the culprit\n was brought before him, tried, and generally convicted; he was then\n tied to a tree, lashed without mercy, and ordered to leave the country\n within a given time, under pain of a second visitation. It seldom\n happened, that more than one or two were thus punished; their\n confederates took the hint and fled, or were admonished to quit the\n neighborhood. Neither the justice nor the policy of this practice can\n be defended; but it was often resorted to from necessity, and its\n operation was salutary, in ridding the country of miscreants whom the\n law was not strong enough to punish. It was liable to abuse, and was\n sometimes abused; but in general, it was conducted with moderation,\n and only exerted upon the basest and most lawless men. Sometimes the\n sufferers resorted to courts of justice for remuneration, and there\n have been instances of heavy damages being recovered of the\n _regulators_. Whenever a county became strong enough to enforce the\n laws, these high-handed doings ceased to be tolerated.\u201d[129]\n\nIn the above extracts we have a fair description of the operation of\nlynch-law as it was carried westward by the emigrants from Virginia and\nthe neighboring States. The weakness and inadequacy of the civil\nregulations, and the presence of such criminals as the horse-thief, the\ncounterfeiter, the robber, and the desperado, who find the frontier both\na retreat from the consequences of past crime and a new theater for the\nperpetration of crime, gave a constant justification for recourse to\nlynch-law.\n\nThe usual manner of proceeding was for the settlers to consult together\nand in a more or less formal way to establish \u201cthe institution of\nRegulators.\u201d Sometimes the Regulators were small bodies of men chosen by\nthe people to look after the interests of the community\u2014in effect, they\nwere committees of safety. At other times, the Regulators were bodies of\nmen who voluntarily assumed the duty of policing a district. The duties\nof such companies, whether known as Regulators or as Rangers or by some\nother name, were to ferret out and punish criminals, to drive out\n\u201csuspicious characters,\u201d and to exercise a general supervision over the\ninterests of the settlements in which they lived. Their statute-book was\nthe \u201ccode of his honor, Judge Lynch\u201d[130]; their order of trial was\nsimilar to that of a \u201cdrum-head court-martial\u201d; the principles of their\npunishment were certainty, rapidity, and inexorability. They were in\nthemselves judges, juries, witnesses, and executioners.\n\nThese bodies of men bound themselves by a regular compact, to the people\nand to each other, to rid the community of all thieves, robbers,\nplunderers, and villains of every description. Such compacts were\nusually verbal but they were sometimes in writing.[131] The compact\nentered into by the Regulators of North Carolina has already been cited.\nIf the agreement of 1780 in Virginia, to which the editor of the\nSouthern Literary Messenger gave his indorsement, be accepted as\ngenuine, we have a record of another such compact. There is recorded,\nalso, a compact entered into by a company of Regulators in Illinois in\n1820. It reads as follows:\n\n \u201c_Know all men by these presents_:\n\n \u201cThat we (_here follow twelve names_), citizens of \u2014\u2014 settlement, in\n the state of Illinois, have this day, _jointly and severally_, bound\n themselves together as a company of Rangers and Regulators, to protect\n this settlement against the crimes and misdemeanors of, all and\n singular, every person or persons whomsoever, and especially against\n _all horse-thieves, and renegades, and robbers_. And we do by these\n presents, hereby bind ourselves, jointly and severally as aforesaid,\n unto each other, and to the fellow-citizens of this settlement, to\n punish, according to the code of his honor, Judge Lynch, all\n violations of the law, _against the peace and dignity of the said\n people of_ \u2014\u2014 settlement; and to discover and bring to speedy\n punishment, _all illegal combinations_\u2014to rid the country of such as\n are dangerous to the welfare of this settlement\u2014to preserve the peace,\n and _generally to vindicate the law_, within the settlement aforesaid.\n All of which purposes we are to accomplish as peaceably as possible:\n _but we are to accomplish them one way or another_.\n\n \u201cIn testimony whereof, we have hereunto set our hands and affixed our\n seals, this twelfth day of October, _Anno Domini_, eighteen hundred\n and twenty.\n\n (Signed by twelve men.)\n\n \u201cAcknowledged and subscribed in the presence of\n\n \u201cC\u2014\u2014T. H\u2014\u2014n,\n \u201cJ\u2014\u2014P. D\u2014\u2014n,\u201d\n\nand five others, who seem to have been a portion of \u201cthe fellow-citizens\nof this settlement,\u201d referred to in the document.[132]\n\nThe companies of Regulators were generally organized only temporarily to\nmeet some emergency in particular communities. The one striking\nexception is the Regulation movement in the Carolinas. The circumstances\nsurrounding that movement, however, were not paralleled elsewhere. The\nduration and strength of the organization there, was undoubtedly due to\nthe prominence of the political factor in its existence. Leaving out of\nconsideration the Carolina Regulation and the summary practices which\nwere incident to the Revolutionary War, there existed almost exclusively\ndown to 1830 what may be called the frontier type of lynch-law pure and\nsimple. This form of lynch-law procedure has always been justified on\nthe ground of necessity, and has been condemned only because of its\nliability to abuse. As one writer has said, referring to the Regulators:\n\u201cTheir acts may sometimes have been high-handed and unjustifiable, but\non the whole\u2014and it is only in such a view that social institutions are\nto be estimated\u2014they were the preservers of the communities for whom\nthey acted. In time, it is true, they degenerated, and sometimes the\ncorps fell into the hands of the very men they were organized to punish.\n\n\u201cEvery social organization is liable to misdirection, and this, among\nothers, has been perverted to the furtherance of selfish and\nunprincipled purposes; for, like prejudices and habits of thought,\norganized institutions frequently survive the necessities which call\nthem into existence. Abuses grow up under all systems; and, perhaps, the\nworst abuse of all, is a measure or expedient, good though temporary,\nretained after the passing away of the time for which it was\nadopted.\u201d[133]\n\nIf it be said that \u201call law emanates from the people, and is, in fact,\nwhether written or not, nothing more or less than certain rules of\naction by which a people agree to be governed,\u201d then the frontier type\nof lynch-law is scarcely more than one step removed from genuine law.\nFor instance, in the year 1834, a large number of persons, citizens of\nthe United States, but of no particular state or territory, and beyond\nthe pale of the regular operations of the law, were collected at a place\ncalled _Dubuque\u2019s mines_, west of the Mississippi, and north of the\nState of Missouri. On May 29 of that year, Patrick O\u2019Conner, who had the\nreputation of being a desperate character, shot and killed George\nO\u2019Keefe. O\u2019Conner \u201cwas arrested by mutual consent of all parties, and,\non the next day, was duly tried, by a jury of twelve citizens, taken\nfrom the multitude. Privilege was given to the prisoner to object to all\nsuch as he chose not to be tried by, and he made no objections to the\nmode of trial. He was allowed the privilege of choosing a friend to\ncounsel with him, and assist in conducting the trial.\u201d\n\nAfter hearing the testimony of the witnesses that were called, the jury\nretired, and \u201cafter a session of about two hours,\u201d returned the\nfollowing verdict: \u201cWe, the jury selected to try Patrick O\u2019Conner, for\nthe murder of George O\u2019Keefe, on the 29th inst. after examining the\nwitnesses on oath, and attentively hearing and considering the testimony\nagainst the prisoner, do unanimously agree that the said O\u2019Conner is\nguilty of murder in the highest degree, and are of opinion that the said\nO\u2019Conner has done an act which, in a land of laws, would forfeit his\nlife. And inasmuch as the security of the lives of the good citizens of\nthis country requires that an example should be made, to preserve order\nand convince evil disposed persons that this is not a place where the\nlives of men may be taken with impunity\u2014we are of opinion that the said\nO\u2019Conner should be carefully secured until the 20th day of June, and\nthat, at the hour of 12 o\u2019clock, of said day, the said Patrick O\u2019Conner\nbe conducted to the place of execution, and there be hung by the neck\nuntil he is dead.\u201d This verdict was signed by the twelve members of the\njury.\n\nPursuant to a public notice, a meeting of the citizens was held on June\n17 to make arrangements for the execution of O\u2019Conner on June 20. L.\nWheeler was requested to take command of a company of volunteers to act\nas a guard. A committee of three was appointed to make the necessary\narrangements for the execution and burial of O\u2019Conner. Henry Adams was\nrequested to act as sheriff on the day of the execution. A committee of\nthree was appointed to collect sums to defray the necessary expense \u201cfor\nthe keeping, executing, burial, &c., of said O\u2019Conner.\u201d It was voted\nthat the sheriff be allowed the sum of twenty-five dollars for the\nkeeping and execution of said O\u2019Conner; and that if there were anything\nover and above that amount, after all necessary expenses were paid, the\nsame should go to the executioner.\n\n\u201cAt 12 o\u2019clock, on the day of the execution, the prisoner was taken from\nhis place of confinement, under a guard of a company of volunteers,\ncommanded by L. Wheeler, to the place of execution, where had assembled\nabout 1,500 citizens. He was placed on a cart, the rope was made fast to\nthe gallows, when the cart was driven away, leaving the prisoner\nsuspended between the heavens and the earth.\n\n\u201cThe whole proceedings were carried on with the utmost regularity and\ngood order. By mutual consent of all, every coffee house was kept\nclosed, and not a drop of spirits was sold until after the\nexecution.\u201d[134]\n\nAt the time of this affair no judicial or civil regulations were yet\nestablished in that region. Under these circumstances, then, was Patrick\nO\u2019Conner legally executed or was he executed by lynch-law? Doubtless\nmost men will agree that he was, to all intents and purposes, legally\nexecuted, and yet many instances of the operation of lynch-law on the\nfrontier were scarcely less justifiable, though the trial and infliction\nof punishment may have been far more summary.\n\nIn general, the punishments administered under lynch-law previous to\n1830 were not severe, usually consisting of a whipping, or some other\nform of corporal punishment, and banishment after a specified time.\nNiles\u2019 Register for July 17, 1824 (26: 326) contains the following:\n\u201cKentucky.\u2014Several murders have lately been committed in this state by\npersons who call themselves \u2018regulators\u2019\u2014but effectual measures have\nbeen taken to arrest and punish them.\u201d This case was evidently an abuse\nof lynch-law; a band of desperadoes, presumably, adopted the name of\n\u201cregulators\u201d as a cloak for their misdeeds, and thus sought immunity\nfrom punishment. Capital punishment was very rarely inflicted by the\nsubstantial and respectable settlers who sometimes found it necessary to\nuse lynch-law methods at this early period.\n\nIt thus appears that the summary and extra-legal methods of punishment\nadopted during colonial times, and the summary practices of the time of\nthe Revolution, were carried by the emigrants from the original colonies\nas they pushed the line of the frontier further and further to the\nwestward. Frequent occasion was found on the frontier for the use of\nsuch methods and practices to curb the activity of the lawless and the\nvicious. When the legislature of Virginia authoritatively declared that\ncircumstances may arise under which measures, though not strictly\nwarranted by law, are justifiable from the imminence of the danger, it\ngave expression to a principle which found ready acceptance among the\nearly settlers exposed to the dangers and vicissitudes of frontier life.\nThough the statement of the principle by the legislature of Virginia may\nnot have been known, and probably was not known, to very many of those\nwho took an active part in the subsequent history of lynch-law,\nnevertheless the principle itself was a matter of common knowledge, for\nit was in the air, as it were, and it was repeatedly embodied in action.\nIn reality, the subsequent history of lynch-law is but the working out\nof this principle under varying conditions.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV\n LYNCH-LAW 1830\u20131860\n\n\nWith the exception of the summary practices characteristic of\nRevolutionary times, the lynch-law procedure that prevailed prior to\n1830 was largely of the frontier type. Even in Revolutionary times,\nhowever, when war and political controversies had brought about a state\nof social disruption leading to the adoption of lynch-law procedure in\nwell settled communities, many of the instances of such procedure might\nproperly be classified under the frontier type. In remote parts of many\nof the colonies the civil regulations had never been sufficiently\nestablished to insure the punishment of public offenders, and recourse\nwas had to summary and extra-legal methods on the ground that there was\na lack of courts and other requisites for legal procedure. The\nRegulation movement in the Carolinas, though stimulated by political\ndissension, had its basis and origin in frontier conditions; and it is\nobvious that lynch-law operated under frontier conditions in the\nrough-and-ready methods of administering justice which were adopted by\nthe pioneers who moved westward over the Alleghanies into the valley of\nthe Mississippi. Before about the year 1830, then, lynch-law was\nconfined almost entirely to the border settlements, and was generally\nexcused and justified on the ground of necessity. It was not regarded as\na serious menace to law and order. It was adopted merely as a temporary\nexpedient which was expected to fall into disuse when the civil\ngovernment and the judiciary became firmly established.\n\nSoon after 1830 a change took place. The anti-slavery agitation was\naccompanied by a revival of lynch-law, and the practice spread\nthroughout the country. Not only did lynch-law continue to be exercised\noccasionally in the border settlements, but it was revived in\nwell-established communities for the purpose of putting down\nabolitionism. The early thirties witnessed many acts of violence. The\nfollowing appeared in the Massachusetts Journal in the year 1831:\n\u201cProgress of Violence.\u2014It ought to be observed that there never was a\ntime of peace in which violence was so common in this country as at this\nperiod.... Citizens who feel offended take the law into their own hands\nwithout ceremony.\u201d Then follows a recital of thirteen cases of violence\nwhich occurred within two or three months, including riots, duels,\ninsurrections of negroes, persecutions of abolitionists, &c.[135]\n\nThe following instances, selected with reference to the localities in\nwhich they occurred, indicate the extent of territory over which\nlynch-law practices prevailed at this time:\n\n\u201cWilmington, N. C., Sept. 28.\u2014Three ringleaders of the late diabolical\nconspiracy were executed at Onslow Court House, on Friday evening last,\n23d inst. by the people. There was a fourth, who escaped during the\ntumult.\u201d[136] The editor of the Liberator adds: \u201c\u2018Executed by the\npeople\u2019 doubtless means executed by a mob, on suspicion of guilt,\nwithout investigation or trial.\u201d\n\nA Mr. Robinson was lashed on the bare back at Petersburg, Virginia, for\nsaying \u201cthat black men have, in the abstract, a right to their freedom.\u201d\nAfter the scourging he was told to leave Petersburg and never return or\nhe would be treated \u201cworser.\u201d[137]\n\nIn Georgia, a man, named John Lamb, was severely treated because he had\nsubscribed to the Liberator. \u201cA mob of unprincipled vagabonds assembled\naround his house and violently took him out and tarred and feathered\nhim. They then poured oil on his head and set fire to it. They next\ncarried him on a rail to the river and ducked him. And then they\nreturned with him to a post near Darraugh and Simms\u2019 Tavern, and whipped\nhim.\u201d[138]\n\nThe slave insurrection in Virginia under the leadership of Nat Turner\ntook place in August of the year 1831. The nature and extent of this\ninsurrection has been frequently misunderstood. On the one hand, it has\nbeen represented as having been confined to a magisterial district; on\nthe other hand, its leader is said to have recruited his forces through\nall Eastern Virginia and through North Carolina. Both of these views are\nin a measure true.[139]\n\nNat was a negro endowed with a mind capable of high attainments. He was\na careful student of the Bible and a Baptist preacher. He read the\nnewspapers and every book within his reach, and he was an attentive\nlistener at discussions of the political and social questions of the\nday. But his mind grappled with things beyond its reach. The example of\nToussaint L\u2019Ouverture in the island of Hayti, and that of Gabriel\nProsser in Richmond in 1800, together with the speeches and writings of\nabolitionists, inspired him to make an attempt to \u201ccall the attention of\nthe civilized world to the condition of his race.\u201d He became a complete\nfanatic and believed that the Lord had destined him to free his race.\nThe red tint of the autumn leaves was a sign of the blood which was to\nbe shed. The eclipse of the sun in February and its peculiar appearance\nin August, 1831, were to him omens indicating that the time had come for\nhim to put his plans into operation.\n\nFor several years plans for insurrection had been maturing in Nat\u2019s\nmind, and by February, 1831, he had so far determined upon his scheme\nthat he related it to four of the most influential negroes of his\nsection. From that time every effort was made to enlist the co-operation\nof other slaves, but with the greatest patience and prudence. He deemed\nit possible to conquer the county of Southampton, march to the Dismal\nSwamp, collecting the slaves as he went, and so gradually overcome the\nState, as the Americans had the British in the Revolutionary War.\n\nOn the night of Sunday, August 21, Nat opened the insurrection. A\nmisunderstanding in regard to the date deprived him of a few of his\nfollowers, but, at the head of a small party which increased in numbers\nas it proceeded, he went from house to house murdering every white\nperson that could be found. It is characterized as a massacre \u201cbarbarous\nbeyond degree.\u201d Depredations, murders, and the most revolting crimes\nwere committed in cold blood. Before the insurrection was put down about\nsixty whites,\u2014men, women and children,\u2014were slaughtered. The condition\nof affairs in Southampton for about ten days after the massacre is best\ndescribed by a committee of citizens in a letter to President Jackson,\non the 29th of August, of which the following is an extract: \u201cMost of\nthe havoc has been confined to a limited section of our county, but so\ninhuman has been the butchery, so indiscriminate the carnage, that the\ntomahawk and scalping knife have now no horrors. Along the road traveled\nby our rebellious blacks, comprising a distance of something like\ntwenty-seven miles, no white soul now lives to tell how fiendlike was\ntheir purpose. In the bosom of almost every family this enemy still\nexists. Our homes, those near the scenes of havoc, as well as others\nmore remote, have all been deserted and our families gathered together\nand guarded at public places in the county; and, still further, the\nexcitement is so great that were the justices to pronounce a slave\ninnocent, we fear a mob would be the consequence.\u201d[140]\n\nMany of the rebellious slaves were shot on sight and some innocent\nnegroes suffered. Some prisoners taken near Cross Keys were shot by the\nMurfreesboro troops and their heads were left for weeks stuck up on\npoles as a warning to all who should undertake a similar plot. The\ncaptain of the marines, as they marched through Vicksville on their way\nhome, bore upon his sword the head of a rebel. A negress who attempted\nto kill a Mrs. Francis was dragged out, after she had been taken\nprisoner, tied to an oak tree, and her body riddled with bullets. It is\nsaid that some of the slaves suffered fearful torture, being burnt with\nred-hot irons and their bodies being horribly mutilated, before death\ncame to their relief. Nat was persecuted with pin-pricks and soundly\nwhipped before he was put in jail to await his trial.\n\nAccording to Drewry, however, although \u201cmuch excitement and rashness had\nprevailed in the pursuit and capture of the rebels, the cases of mercy\nand humanity overshadow those of barbarity and leave the decision in\nfavor of the former.\u201d Fifty-three of the sixty or seventy negroes\nconnected with the massacre were brought before the county court. Of\nthese seventeen were executed and twelve transported. The rest were\ndischarged, except the four free negroes who were sent on to the\nSuperior Court, three of whom were executed. Nat and his three\nassociate-leaders, Hark, Nelson, and Sam, were hung according to the\nsentence of the court. \u201cThe bodies of those executed, with one\nexception, were buried in a decent and becoming manner. That of Nat\nTurner was delivered to the doctors, who skinned it and made grease of\nthe flesh.\u201d\n\nThe execution of the plot was thus confined to a magisterial district of\nthree thousand inhabitants. Yet every effort had been made to rouse the\nnegroes of neighboring counties in Virginia and North Carolina. The\ninfluence of the insurrection was wide-spread, extending to the North as\nwell as the South. The immediate result in many parts of the South was\nthe greatest excitement, alarm, and confusion. \u201cMen went about in\ngroups, the militia drills were renewed, and the arms called in a few\nmonths before, reissued.\u201d Thomas Gray, who lived in Southampton, said:\n\u201cIt is the first instance in our history of an open rebellion of the\nslaves, and attended with such atrocious circumstances of cruelty and\ndestruction as could not fail to leave a deep impression, not only on\nthe minds of the community where the fearful tragedy was wrought, but\nthroughout every portion of our country in which this population is\nfound.\u201d In the North the immediate effect was a more pronounced\nconviction of the evils of slavery. In general, the effect of the\nSouthampton insurrection was to center public consideration on the slave\nquestion.[141] Its influence was indirect, rather than direct, in\nstimulating recourse to lynch-law in the country.\n\nDuring the spring and summer of 1834 there was a great deal of rioting\nin which Irishmen were principally concerned. Several riots occurred in\nNew York City and in Philadelphia between whites and blacks, which were\nsaid to be due to the abolitionists having stirred up the blacks.[142]\nThe following appeared in the Boston Whig in October, 1834: \u201cThe history\nof the proceedings of the past year furnishes examples of outrage and\nviolence altogether unprecedented in the annals of our country. It would\nseem that the supremacy of the laws is to be no farther regarded than it\ncoincides with the caprices and prejudices of an infuriated and\nmisguided and ignorant populace.... Mobs, which now seem to be the order\nof the day, are of recent origin among us.... Our newspapers now, with a\nfew honorable exceptions, encourage these outrages and barbarous\nproceedings, and by the inflammatory articles in their columns, incite\nto the commission of the most heinous crimes.\u201d[143]\n\nThe expression \u201cLynch\u2019s law\u201d first appears in the Liberator in the issue\nof September 27, 1834 (4: 153), in an extract from the Lancaster\n(Pennsylvania) Journal. The passage quoted is as follows: \u201cIn our quiet\nvillage of New Holland, we understand _Lynch\u2019s law_ was carried into\nexecution last week, against a stranger who had given some offence to\nthe inhabitants. The man was taken from his domicile, tarred and\nfeathered in the true Yankee style, marched out of town and let run. We\nhave not heard the cause of this summary proceeding.\u201d\n\nAnother extract from the Lancaster Journal reads as follows: \u201cWe have\nheard of another case of an appeal to Lynch\u2019s code. A celebrated\nPhiladelphia doctor, a disciple of the Tappan school, who could not find\nroom for the overflowings of his milk of human kindness in the city of\nbrotherly love, paid a visit to Columbia, in this county, a few days\nsince, prepared, it is said, to deliver a course of amalgamation\nlectures. A barrel of tar was purchased, and a pillow well stuffed with\nfeathers procured for the occasion. A hint of these proceedings was\ngiven to the learned Doctor\u2019s friends, who did not keep the secret, and\nthe Doctor not wishing to be exhibited in the costume of a goose, took\nwing in an eastern direction, and has not been heard of since.\u201d[144]\n\nThe expression \u201cLynch\u2019s law\u201d first appears in Niles\u2019 Register under the\ndate of October 5, 1833 (45: 87), in an extract from the St. Louis\nRepublican. The quotation is as follows: \u201c\u2018Lynch\u2019s Law.\u2019 We have heard,\nthat capt. _Slick_ summoned his corps the other night, and obtained\npossession of a man with whose misdeeds they had become familiar,\ncarried him to the prairie near town, and administered \u2018Lynch\u2019s Law\u2019\nupon him in fine style. He received about fifty lashes\u2014and was ordered\nto decamp. The offence consisted in cheating at the gaming table\u2014whereof\nhe was over-fond.... Several very effective demonstrations have been\nmade upon the gamblers in and about town, and they have been obliged to\nmake themselves scarce. This is as it should be.\u201d\n\nLynch-law proceedings were inaugurated against gamblers in Virginia\nabout a year later. Niles\u2019 Register for October 4, 1834 (47: 66) says:\n\u201cLarge nests of gamblers in Richmond and Norfolk were completely routed,\na short time ago, by summary processes\u2014numerous bodies of young men\nhaving taken the matter in charge. They broke into the gambling houses,\nand destroyed all the apparatus and furniture\u2014but farther than this,\ncommitted no acts of violence. Some curious disclosures of the great\nprofits made by the knaves have been brought to light by these\nproceedings.\u201d\n\nThe most notorious case of an appeal to summary procedure against\ngamblers occurred in July, 1835, at Vicksburg, Mississippi. Professional\ngamblers had for years made Vicksburg their rendezvous and certain\nsections of the city were almost wholly given over to them. Frequently,\nin armed bodies, they disturbed the good order of public assemblages,\ninsulted citizens on the streets, and openly defied the civil\nauthorities. The laws were found ineffectual for their punishment; their\nnumbers and their crimes continually increased.[145] At a barbecue on\nthe Fourth of July one of these gamblers, named Cakler, became insolent\nand created a disturbance. Later a meeting was held and an anti-gambling\nsociety was organized. \u201cIt was determined to take him (Cakler) into the\nwoods and _Lynch_ him\u2014which is a mode of punishment provided for such as\nbecome obnoxious in a manner which the law cannot reach. He was\nimmediately carried out under a guard, attended by a crowd of\nrespectable citizens\u2014tied to a tree, punished with stripes\u2014tarred and\nfeathered; and ordered to leave town in forty-eight hours.\u201d The\nfollowing morning public notice was given that all gamblers must leave\nthe town in twenty-four hours. That night another was \u201cLynched.\u201d The\nnext morning the citizens understood that a noted gambler, named North,\nhad defied them, barricaded his house, and together with some of his\nfellows had made preparations to stay in the town. The volunteers were\nimmediately assembled and, followed by a crowd of citizens, marched to\nNorth\u2019s residence and demanded an unconditional surrender. This was\nrefused. The house was then surrounded and an attempt made to force an\nentrance. Just as the door was burst open, Dr. H. S. Bodley, a highly\nrespected citizen, was shot and instantly killed by the gamblers.\nGreatly incensed at this, the crowd rushed into the building and dragged\nout the inmates, one of whom had been seriously wounded, hurried them\nwithout ceremony to the common gallows and hanged them. Five gamblers\nwere thus executed at this time and their bodies left suspended for\ntwenty-four hours.[146]\n\nAbout the time of the Vicksburg affair suspicion was aroused in Madison\nCounty, Mississippi, that the Murrell gang had organized the blacks for\nan insurrection.[147] \u201cTwo individuals, by name Cotton and Saunders,\nboth of them steam doctors by profession,\u201d were thought to be\nprominently connected with the scheme. A \u201ccommittee of investigation\u201d\nwas appointed by a mass-meeting of the citizens and as a result of the\ninvestigation the two \u201csteam doctors\u201d and three other white men were\nhanged, and also several negroes, \u201csome ten or fifteen,\u201d without any\nprocess at law.[148]\n\nJ. H. Ingraham, writing of conditions in Mississippi at about this time,\nafter describing a \u201cchain gang\u201d of negroes, uses the following language:\n\u201cIn Natchez, negro criminals only are thus honored\u2014a coat of tar and\nfeathers\u2019 being applied to those white men who may require some kind of\ndiscipline not provided by the courts of justice. This last summary\nprocess of popular justice, or more properly excitement, termed \u2018Lynch\u2019s\nlaw\u2019, I believe, from its originator, is too much in vogue in this\nstate. In the resentment of public as well as private wrongs,\nindividuals have long been in the habit of forestalling and improving\nupon the decisions of the courts, by taking the execution of the laws\ninto their own hands.... The want of a penitentiary has had a tendency\nto keep this custom alive in this state longer than it would otherwise\nhave existed. When an individual is guilty of any offence, which renders\nhim amenable to the laws, he must either be acquitted altogether or\nsuffer death.\u201d[149]\n\nLynch-law was also known in the eastern states at this time. Not only\nwere there mobs which dealt summarily with offenders, as in the year\n1831, but their proceedings were known by a different name. It was now\nno longer simply \u201cmobs\u201d and \u201cmobocracy,\u201d but \u201cLynch\u2019s law,\u201d and \u201cJudge\nLynch\u2019s court\u201d as well. The Boston Daily Advertiser in July, 1835, gave\nexpression to the following, under the heading \u201cLynch\u2019s Law\u201d: \u201cWe have\nhad occasion of late to advert to the use of this term in our paper, as\nindicating punishments, wantonly and in disregard of law, applied in\ncertain portions of our country to individuals suspected or guilty of\ncrime.\u201d[150] On the night of September 10, 1835, a gallows was erected\nin Brighton Street, Boston, in front of Mr. Garrison\u2019s house, with two\nropes suspended therefrom. On the crossbar was the inscription \u201cJudge\nLynch\u2019s law.\u201d[151]\n\nThe following appeared in Niles\u2019 Register, October 3, 1835 (49: 76\u20137):\n\u201cOur village (Kanawha Salines, W. Va.) was thrown into considerable\ncommotion on Friday morning last in consequence of the arrival of judge\nLynch among us. His business was soon ascertained, and by his authority\nfour white men from Ohio were soon arrested and tried before 12\nintelligent persons of our county, for endeavoring to persuade several\nslaves to leave their masters, for some free state.... These congenial\nspirits of Garrison, Tappan & Co. were arrested in the neighborhood of\nour village, tried, condemned, and received the sentence pronounced on\nthem by the jury. That is to say, Joe Gill and the elder Drake to\nreceive nine and thirty lashes each, and leave the county in 24 hours;\nthe younger Drake, with Ross, to be discharged for want of evidence, but\nwith a promise from them that they would also quit the county in 24\nhours. The evidence ... produced an unanimous verdict on the part of the\njury, that two should be _lynched_ and the other two excused, provided\nthey would leave this part of the country.\u201d\n\nThe following appeared in Niles\u2019 Register, December 5, 1835 (49: 228):\n\u201cLynch law in Colerain. The sect known as perfectionists have recently\nbeen making some converts in Colerain (Franklin County, Mass.), and\nholding meetings there considerably to the annoyance of the majority of\nthe inhabitants. We learn that one of the leaders ... who was suspected\nof taking with his female disciples some liberties inconsistent with the\nholiness of his profession, was taken out a few days since, ridden\nnearly three miles upon a rail, tarred and feathered, and dismissed,\nwith an admonition to quit the town\u2014a piece of advice with which he has\nsince complied.\u201d[152]\n\nSome idea of the prevalence of mob violence and lynch-law procedure in\n1835 is obtained from the following editorials in Niles\u2019 Register:\n\n \u201cMeetings have been held at Danville, Kentucky; at Richmond and\n Petersburg and many other towns in Virginia; at Charleston, South\n Carolina; at many places in Mississippi; and, indeed, it may be\n generally said in all the south and southwest in consequence of the\n flood of incendiary publications let loose by a few \u2018anti-slavery\u2019 men\n of the north, inciting the negroes to insurrection, and murder, and\n desolation; and, at as many places, perhaps, a like spirit has been\n shown against _gamblers_. Anti-gaming societies have been introduced\n in a number of cities and towns. _Executions_ by \u2018Lynch law,\u2019 have\n been numerous. Acts of personal violence, on other accounts, some of\n which are terrific, also abound. Society is in an awful state. What is\n the cause of it?\u201d[153]\n\n \u201cDuring the last and the present week we have cut out and laid aside\n more than 500 articles, relating to the various _excitements_ now\n acting on the people of the United States, public and private!\n _Society seems everywhere unhinged_, and the demon of \u2018blood and\n slaughter\u2019 has been let loose upon us! We have the _slave_ question in\n many different forms, including the proceedings of _kidnappers_ and\n _manstealers_\u2014and others belonging to the _free negroes_: the\n proscription and prosecution of _gamblers_; with mobs growing out of\n _local matters_\u2014and a great collection of acts of violence of a\n _private_, or _personal_ nature, ending in death; and regret to\n believe, also, that an awful _political_ outcry is about to be raised\n to rally the \u2018poor against the rich\u2019! We have executions, and murders,\n and riots to the utmost limits of the union. The character of our\n countrymen seems suddenly changed, and thousands interpret the law in\n their own way\u2014sometimes in one case, and then in another, guided\n apparently only by their own will!... We lately gave, by way of a\n specimen, a few articles of a nature similar to those now in our\n possession. We cannot consent to hold up our country to the contempt\n and scorn of the old world, and shall, therefore, generally suppress\n them, though some cases of peculiar atrocity must be inserted. Let the\n laws rule. And let no one do anything that may have a tendency to\n bring them into popular disrespect!\u201d[154]\n\nEven though some allowance for exaggeration in the above statements may\nbe necessary, there yet remains unquestionable evidence of a very\nunsettled state of affairs.[155] An editorial written in a less\nsensational style appeared in the Register in October. The first\nsentences are as follows: \u201cMeetings of the people have been held in\nnearly all the chief cities and towns in the northern states\u2014at which\nthe proceedings of the abolitionists were rejected and disavowed, with\ngreat unanimity and much zeal. And in the south we almost daily hear of\n\u2018judge Lynch,\u2019 and of persons who are flogged and driven away, or\n\u2018executed,\u2019 under sentences rendered by him.\u201d[156]\n\nJudge Jay in a charge to a Grand Jury at White Plains, New York, in\nNovember, 1835, referred to the \u201cspirit of lawless violence\u201d that was\nabroad in the land, and spoke of the danger to civil and religious\nliberty if it were not arrested. About the same time, Judge Cranch, in a\nsimilar charge to a Grand Jury in the District of Columbia, spoke of the\n\u201cstate of excitement\u201d which existed in some parts of the country.[157]\n\nSome attributed the cause of all this excitement to the\nabolitionists.[158] A correspondent of the Medina (Ohio) Free Press\nearly in the year 1836 wrote as follows: \u201cWhen a body of men with such\nfeelings and principles, begin to distract the nation with their mad\nschemes, it is high time for a community to notice them. I am no\nadvocate of Lynch law, but I must say that if Lynch law must be\npractised, I know of no fitter subjects for its operation than such\nfanatics.\u201d[159] The following appears in an article on Lynch Law in\nAmerica published in England in 1877: \u201cAmong the institutions specially\nAmerican, few have had worse odour in England than what is commonly\nknown as \u2018Lynch law.\u2019 In the time of the anti-slavery agitation the\nrecourse to Lynch law by the supporters of \u2018the domestic institution,\u2019\nor \u2018involuntary servitude,\u2019 as it was euphoniously called, caused just\nindignation. It was by Lynch law that men who dared to speak against\nslavery were silenced in the Slave States.\u201d[160] Thus, the defenders of\nslavery in the Southern States were highly incensed at the interference\nof abolitionists whom they felt knew but little about the actual\nconditions, and laid upon the shoulders of these \u201cfanatics\u201d the blame\nfor the necessity of resorting to lynch-law; the abolitionists, on the\nother hand, said that lawless violence was the direct result of\nslavery[161] and the attempt of the South to put down free discussion by\nmeans of force.\n\nThe years of Jackson\u2019s presidency, 1829\u20131837, have been distinguished by\npolitical writers as the Jacksonian period,\u2014a period in which there was\nan unusual amount of turbulence and violence. It has been repeatedly\nsuggested that Jackson\u2019s own arbitrary temperament and example did\nsomething to set this fashion. \u201cIt is, however, more just to see, both\nin the President himself and in the mobs of his time of power, symptoms\nof one and the same thing; namely, a great democratic upheaval, the\nwilful self-assertion of a masterful people, and of a man who was their\ntrue representative.... During Jackson\u2019s eight years everything is\nchanging; both society and politics are undergoing revolution; deep\norganic processes are in progress; significant atmospheric changes are\nsetting in.\u201d[162] \u201cIt is not possible that a growing nation should\nspread over new territory, and feel the thrill of its own young energies\ncontending successfully with nature in all her rude force, without\nsocial commotions and a certain recklessness and uproar. The contagion\nof these forms of disorder produces other and less excusable\nforms.\u201d[163]\n\nThe cause for all the turbulence and violence lay deeper than\nabolitionism, slavery, or the character of political leaders. These were\nmerely the manifestations of the disruption of underlying social forces\nwhich were warring against each other while seeking to come to a stable\nequilibrium under new and changed conditions. Society was in process of\nreorganization. It was a time of social readjustment. This was the\ncondition of society which existed, and it was a condition conducive to\nthe spread of lynch-law.\n\nIt was due to this fact that the term lynch-law gained a permanent place\nin the English language. Early in the forties, as mentioned in the\nintroduction, the dictionaries admitted the term to their list and thus\ngave to it the seal of their approval. A writer in Harper\u2019s Magazine for\nMay, 1859 (p. 794) says: \u201cI think I had never heard of lynch-law until\nabout the year 1834, when the citizens of Vicksburg organized themselves\ninto a Court of Uncommon Pleas, with special reference to certain men in\ntheir midst who were, or were said to be, \u2018living on the borders of the\nlaw.\u2019 And I well remember, boy as I was, the sensation with which the\nnews of the hanging of the Vicksburg gamblers was received in the old\nStates, and how soon the terms \u2018Lynch law\u2019 and \u2018lynching\u2019 became\nfamiliar as household words.\u201d It was the application of lynch-law, then,\nto the gamblers infesting the towns along the Mississippi River that\nfamiliarized the public with the term, and it was the constant exercise\nof summary methods of punishment against abolitionists and other\nunpopular individuals in various parts of the country that furnished the\noccasion for its continued use.\n\nIn the month of May, 1835, two negroes were burned to death near Mobile,\nAlabama, for \u201cmost barbarously murdering\u201d two children. The murderers\nhad their trial, the result of which is given in the following paragraph\ntaken from a Mobile paper: \u201cAs the Court pronounced the only sentence\nknown to the law\u2014the smothered flame broke forth. The laws of the\ncountry had never conceived that crimes could be perpetrated with such\npeculiar circumstances of barbarity, and had therefore provided no\nadequate punishment. Their lives were justly forfeited to the laws of\nthe country, but the peculiar circumstances demanded that the ordinary\npunishment should be departed from\u2014they were seized, taken to the place\nwhere they had perpetrated the act, and burned to death.\u201d[164]\n\nA case of burning alive, which on account of the subsequent events\ngained great notoriety, occurred at St. Louis, Missouri, April 28, 1836.\nOne writer designated it as \u201cthe execution of \u2018Lynch Law\u2019 upon a yellow\nfellow, by means of a slow fire.\u201d A colored man was arrested on board a\nboat by a deputy sheriff and a constable. Another colored man, a free\nmulatto, assisted him to escape, and the officers immediately arrested\nthe mulatto. He, however, turned upon the officers, drew a knife and\nstabbed Deputy Sheriff Hammond, killing him instantly, and also\nseriously wounded Mr. Mull, the constable. He was finally captured,\nhowever, and locked up in the jail. Later the people assembled and,\nafter threatening to tear down the jail if he was not delivered to them,\nsecured the prisoner, conducted him to the outskirts of the city, placed\na chain round his neck and a rope round his body, and thus fastened him\nto a tree a few feet from the ground. A fire was then placed round the\ntree and he was roasted alive.[165]\n\nWhen this case came up for consideration before the Grand Jury of St.\nLouis County, Judge Lawless\u2014according to subsequent comments rightly\nnamed\u2014made the following charge:\n\n \u201cI have reflected much on this matter, and after weighing all the\n considerations that present themselves as bearing upon it, I feel it\n my duty to state my opinion to be, that whether the Grand Jury shall\n act at all, depends upon the solution of this preliminary question,\n namely, whether the destruction of McIntosh was the act of the \u2018few\u2019\n or the act of the \u2018many.\u2019\n\n \u201cIf on a calm view of the circumstances attending this dreadful\n transaction, you shall be of opinion that it was perpetrated by a\n definite, and, compared to the population of St. Louis, a _small_\n number of individuals, separate from the mass, and evidently taking\n upon themselves, as contradistinguished from the multitude, the\n responsibility of the act, my opinion is that you ought to indict them\n all, without a single exception.\n\n \u201cIf on the other hand, the destruction of the murderer of Hammond was\n the act as I have said, of the many\u2014of the multitude, in the ordinary\n sense of those words\u2014not the act of numerable and ascertainable\n malefactors, but of congregated thousands, seized upon and impelled by\n that mysterious, metaphysical, and almost electric phrenzy, which, in\n all nations and ages, has hurried on the infuriated multitude to deeds\n of death and destruction\u2014then, I say, act not at all in the matter\u2014the\n case then transcends your jurisdiction\u2014it is beyond the reach of human\n law.\u201d[166]\n\nIt was for denouncing the burning of this colored man and violently\nattacking Judge Lawless in his Observer that the Rev. E. P. Lovejoy had\nhis printing-office destroyed by a mob in St. Louis, and was forced to\nremove his paper to Alton, Illinois. He did not cease to express his\nconvictions, however, and neither did his persecutions cease. Three\ntimes his press was destroyed by mobs. On November 7, 1837, while\nendeavoring to protect his property, he met his death at the hands of an\nAlton mob.\n\nIn an address on \u201cThe Perpetuation of our Political Institutions,\u201d\ndelivered before the Young Men\u2019s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, on\nJanuary 27, 1837, Abraham Lincoln characterized the spirit of the times\nin the following way:\n\n \u201cAccounts of outrages committed by mobs form the everyday news of the\n times. They have pervaded the country from New England to Louisiana;\n they are neither peculiar to the eternal snows of the former nor the\n burning suns of the latter; they are not the creature of climate,\n neither are they confined to the slaveholding or the non-slaveholding\n States. Alike they spring up among the pleasure-hunting masters of\n Southern slaves, and the order-loving citizens of the land of steady\n habits. Whatever then their cause may be, it is common to the whole\n country.\n\n \u201cIt would be tedious as well as useless to recount the horrors of all\n of them. Those happening in the State of Mississippi and at St. Louis\n are perhaps the most dangerous in example and revolting to humanity.\n In the Mississippi case they first commenced by hanging the regular\n gamblers\u2014a set of men certainly not following for a livelihood a very\n useful or very honest occupation, but one which, so far from being\n forbidden by the laws, was actually licensed by an act of the\n legislature passed but a single year before. Next, negroes suspected\n of conspiring to rise an insurrection were caught up and hanged in all\n parts of the State; then, white men supposed to be leagued with the\n negroes; and finally, strangers from neighboring States, going thither\n on business, were in many instances subjected to the same fate. Thus\n went on this process of hanging, from gamblers to negroes, from\n negroes to white citizens, and from these to strangers, till dead men\n were literally dangling from the boughs of trees by every roadside,\n and in numbers almost sufficient to rival the native Spanish moss of\n the country as a drapery of the forest.\n\n \u201cTurn then to that horror-striking scene at St. Louis. A single victim\n only was sacrificed there. This story is very short, and is perhaps\n the most highly tragic of anything of its length that has ever been\n witnessed in real life. A mulatto man by the name of McIntosh was\n seized in the street, dragged to the suburbs of the city, chained to a\n tree, and actually burned to death; and all within a single hour from\n the time he had been a freeman attending to his own business and at\n peace with the world.\n\n \u201cSuch are the effects of mob law, and such are the scenes becoming\n more and more frequent in this land so lately famed for love of law\n and order, and the stories of which have even now grown too familiar\n to attract anything more than an idle remark.\u201d[167]\n\nThe following paragraph appeared in the Southern Literary Messenger in\nthe year 1839 (5: 218): \u201cForty years ago, the practice of wreaking\nprivate vengeance, or of inflicting summary and illegal punishment for\ncrimes, actual or pretended, which has been glossed over by the name of\n_Lynch\u2019s Law_, was hardly known except in sparse, frontier settlements,\nbeyond the reach of courts and legal proceedings.\u201d\n\nThe above quotations set forth clearly the condition of affairs in the\nUnited States at this time. It was the spirit of the times, rather than\nany particular cause, which brought about recourse to lynch-law\npractices. Lynch-law was invoked for no particular offense to the\nexclusion of all other offenses; neither was it peculiar to any one\nsection of the country. From having been practised only in the border\nsettlements as a temporary means of suppressing lawlessness until the\ncivil regulations could be established, lynch-law methods had come to\nprevail even in well settled communities. Those writers who expressed\nthe opinion about 1830 that lynch-law was dying out did not foresee the\ngreat popular excitement which existed during Jackson\u2019s administration.\nThe anti-slavery agitation acted as a spark in a tinder-box and seemed\nto beget a spirit of lawlessness in every part of the country. To the\ninflamed imagination of the popular mind the slightest provocation\nseemed a serious offense. The law did not reach such offenses, or they\nwere deemed to be inadequately punished by the law, and this seemed to\nthe people a justification for summary punishment.\n\nIn the slave States such punishment was generally a whipping or\nflogging, often followed by tarring and feathering, inflicted upon\nabolitionists or any persons suspected of \u201ctampering with the slaves,\u201d\nor distributing \u201cincendiary tracts.\u201d In cases of a suspected conspiracy\nfor an insurrection among the slaves the supposed leaders were often\nsummarily punished, sometimes by the infliction of the death penalty.\n\nAlong the Mississippi River, the gamblers had aroused the resentment of\nthe peace-loving portion of the community by their vices and excesses of\nvarious kinds. In many places they were able to bid defiance to the\ncivil authorities and laugh at threats of enforcing the law against\nthem. Here again the exigencies of the situation seemed to the people to\njustify the adoption of lynch-law. This case of the summary treatment of\nthe gamblers may be regarded as a transition from the frontier type of\nlynch-law to the sporadic and epidemical type which later prevailed in\nthe well settled States.\n\nThe author of a book published in London in 1837 wrote: \u201cThe Lynch-law,\nis not, properly speaking, an opposition to the established laws of the\ncountry, or, is at least, not contemplated as such by its adherents; but\nrather as a supplement to them,\u2014a species of _common_ law, which is as\nold as the country, and which, whatever may be the notion of \u2018the\n_learned_ in the law,\u2019 has nevertheless been productive of some of the\nhappiest results.\u201d[168]\n\nIn 1839, F. Marryat wrote: \u201cThe Lynch law of the present day, as\npracticed in the States of the West and South, may be divided into two\ndifferent heads: the first is, the administration of it in cases in\nwhich the laws of the States are considered by the majority as not\nhaving awarded a punishment adequate, in their opinion, to the offence\ncommitted; and the other, when from excitement the majority will not\nwait for the law to act, but inflict the punishment with their own\nhands.\u201d[169]\n\nOccasionally innocent persons suffered the violence of lynching\nmobs,[170] and sometimes damages were secured through the courts for\nhaving suffered lynch-law. Cases of this nature were not uncommon in the\nearly history of the operation of lynch-law in Virginia,[171] and in the\nlater thirties similar suits were instituted in the courts. On September\n4, 1835, certain inhabitants of Brownsville, Tennessee, constituted\nthemselves a lynch court for the trial of Anson Moody, suspected of\nbeing a kidnapper, or slave stealer. They seized him in the dead of\nnight, tried him, convicted him, and then proceeded to punishment by\ninflicting one hundred lashes with a \u201ccowskin,\u201d branding him on the\ncheek with the letter R and commanding him to leave the country. A jury\nin the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of West\nTennessee gave him a verdict of $2,000 and costs against five of the\nmembers of the Lynch court.[172]\n\nIn Yazoo, Mississippi, a Mr. Harris, for some real or supposed offense,\nwas \u201cseverely lynched\u201d by H. W. Dunn, C. W. Bain, and others. He\nprosecuted those two individuals for the outrage, and the case was tried\nin the circuit court of Yazoo County. The jury returned a verdict for\nthe plaintiff of $20,000.[173]\n\nTwo young men in Fayette County, Tennessee, were sentenced to three\nmonths\u2019 imprisonment and to pay a fine of $50 each for assisting to ride\nJohn T. Foster on a rail. The said Foster died in consequence of the\ninjuries he received during the outrage.[174]\n\nSherman Thompson and Samuel Thompson, of Meriden, Connecticut, were\nsentenced to pay a fine of $20 each and to suffer imprisonment in the\ncommon jail for the term of six months for having participated in an\noutrage upon the Rev. Mr. Ludlow in October, 1837.[175]\n\nThe Grand Jury of Alton, Illinois, found bills of indictment against a\nnumber of individuals concerned in the affair of November 7, 1837, when\nLovejoy was killed, but the suits were evidently not pushed against\nthem. In the trial of Rock, one of the assailants, which came up before\nthe municipal court, the jury returned a special verdict that the\ndefendant, in their opinion, was guilty of the various charges in the\nindictment, but that they return him not guilty on a question of\njurisdiction.[176]\n\nPrevious to 1840 the verb lynch was occasionally used to include capital\npunishment, but the common and general use was to indicate a personal\ncastigation of some sort. \u201cTo lynch\u201d had not then undergone a change in\nmeaning and acquired the sense of \u201cto put to death.\u201d[177] Webster\u2019s\nDictionary, edition of 1848, gives: \u201cLynch, v. t. To inflict pain, or\npunish, without the forms of law, as by a mob, or by unauthorized\npersons,\u201d and \u201cLynched, pp. Punished or abused without the forms of\nlaw.\u201d These same definitions still stand in the edition of 1876. It was\nnot until a time subsequent to the Civil War that the verb lynch came to\ncarry the idea of putting to death. Men were punished with death \u201cby\nLynch-law\u201d and \u201cby order of Judge Lynch,\u201d but it is so stated in every\nsuch case that death was inflicted.\n\nA few typical instances of the use of the word will illustrate the\npoint. The St. Louis Bulletin, November 21, 1835, contained the\nfollowing item: \u201cFuller and Bridges, the men suspected of having\nkidnapped Major Dougherty\u2019s slaves ... were soundly flogged, or in other\nwords\u2014_Lynched_, and set on the opposite side of the river, with the\npositive assurance that, if they were again found within the limits of\nthe State of Missouri, their fate should be death by hanging.\u201d[178]\n\nNiles\u2019 Register for December 5, 1835 (49: 228) heads a paragraph taken\nfrom the Louisiana Advertiser \u201cMore Lynching.\u201d The paragraph tells of\nthe murder of John W. Brock by John Joseph Short, who was \u201ctried in a\nsummary manner, and executed, by hanging.\u201d\n\nUnder the title \u201cLynchers Lynched\u201d the following language was used in\nthe Liberator for September 24, 1836 (6: 155): \u201cA party of from 6 to 12\npersons proceeded to the house of Judge Bermudez last night ... their\nobject being, as it is supposed, to assault or Lynch the Judge.\u201d\n\nThe following passage is from the Liberator, August 17, 1838 (8: 131):\n\u201cLynching. A man named John Miles, who hails from Cincinnati, received\n100 lashes in Adams county, Mississippi, for endeavoring to entice\nnegroes away.\u201d\n\nUnder the heading \u201cHorrible Lynching\u201d the following item, taken from the\nSouthern Mississippi Sun of the 19th ult., appears in Niles\u2019 Register\nfor December 14, 1839 (57: 256): \u201cCrook and Carter who were confined in\nthe jail of Scott county for murder, have been taken by force from\nprison by some of the citizens of that county and hung! It will be\nrecollected that they once made their escape from the jail and were\nretaken.\u2014They were brought to Rankin county two or three weeks since for\ntrial, but were remanded for want of some testimony. The people have\ntaken the law into their own hands, and executed them without a trial.\u201d\n\nThe ordinary use of the term at this time was very well stated by Philip\nHone when he wrote in his diary on August 2, 1835: \u201cA terrible system\nprevails in some of the Southern and Western States, which consists\nin ... beating, tarring and feathering, and in some cases hanging the\nunhappy object of their vengeance, and this is generally called \u2018Lynch\u2019s\nLaw.\u2019\u201d[179]\n\nInstances may be cited showing that the term continued to be used in\nthis way down to 1860. Niles\u2019 Register for August 24, 1844 (66: 428) has\nthis paragraph: \u201cJudge Lynch. Four men, Rea, Mitchell, White and Jones,\nwere tried and condemned before his honor, Chief Justice Lynch, on the\n16th inst. at South Sulphur, Texas, for killing two men and one boy of\nthe Delaware tribe of friendly Indians. They were executed under said\nsentence, the next day, in the presence of a large number of persons.\u201d\n\nIn the year 1845 there were some lawless proceedings in Scott County,\nMissouri. Niles\u2019 Register for July 26, 1845 (68: 325) describes the\noccurrence in the following way: \u201cA party of men ... were charged with\nburning the houses, stocks, etc. and doing other injuries to a man named\nLane. Some of his neighbors collected and caught several of the persons\ncharged, lynched them, and ordered them to leave the county, which they\ndid. A few days ago, they returned with a considerable party and avowed\ntheir determination to drive out or be avenged on Lane and those who had\nassisted to lynch and drive them away.\u201d\n\nThe following item is taken from the St. Louis Reveille for October 2,\n1845: \u201cIt is reported that the two men named Redman, brothers, with five\nothers, were recently arrested in the vicinity of Davenport, charged\nwith the murder of Colonel Davenport. Suspicion was strong as to their\nguilt. We have heard rumors that Lynch law had been inflicted upon both\nthe Redmans since their arrest\u2014that they both were hung.\u201d[180]\n\nNiles\u2019 Register for January 17, 1846 (69: 320) gives the following:\n\u201cLynching in Florida. A man by the name of Yeoman, accused of being a\nnoted slave stealer\u2014having been discharged by Judge Warren, of Baker\nCounty, Georgia, on a writ of _habeas corpus_ ... on his arrival at\nJefferson County, Florida, ninety citizens assembled and took a formal\nvote, which stood 67 for and 23 against hanging him. He was executed\naccordingly at 12 o\u2019clock, on the 2d inst.\u201d[181]\n\nIn 1855 several negroes were summarily executed by mobs in Tennessee.\nThe Liberator gives an account of these occurrences under the heading,\n\u201cHanging Negroes in Tennessee by Judge Lynch\u2019s Code.\u201d[182]\n\nIn the Liberator, January 18, 1856 (p. 12), it is stated that \u201cJudge\nThomas Clingman, of Carroll county, Missouri, was murdered, about the\nmiddle of October, by one of his field slaves. The murderer was\ninstantly hung by Lynch law.\u201d\n\nThe Liberator, May 2, 1856 (p. 72), contains this paragraph, taken from\nthe Western Herald: \u201cLynch Law in Virginia.\u2014A man named William\nHornbeck, living in Lewis County, Virginia, for the alleged\nill-treatment of his family, was lynched by the young men in the\nneighborhood, one night last week.\u2014Stripped of his clothing, rode on a\nrail, made to run through a briar patch, a stout paddle used to keep him\ngoing, and a coat of tar and feathers applied.\u201d\n\nThe Liberator, December 4, 1857 (p. 196) copies the following account of\nthe manner in which an abolitionist was lynched in Mississippi: \u201c... A\ncrowd took him to the woods, told him to strip, carried to a hollow and\ntied around a tree. He was then told what was their intention: to lynch\nhim until he told something. The lashing was commenced by two who used\nstraps fastened to sticks about 10 in. long....\u201d\n\nThe same issue of the Liberator contains the following: \u201cLynch Law\nProceedings.\u2014In Barton County, Southwestern Missouri, great excitement\nhas recently existed on account of the doings of a set of lawless\nwretches called \u2018Slickers,\u2019 who pretended to be after a horse-thief, but\nwho \u2018slicked\u2019[183] or barbarously beat several men until their lives\nwere despaired of, and when women interfered, some were badly beaten and\nothers violated....\u201d\n\nThe following paragraph appeared in the Liberator, December 31, 1860 (p.\n211): \u201cLynch Law Again.\u2014Two white men named Waters and a mulatto named\nWilson, at Mosely Hall, a village in North Carolina, were arrested a few\ndays ago for hurraing for Lincoln and the Abolitionists and severely\nbeating a citizen who remonstrated with them. They were immediately\ntried by a jury, who ordered them to be whipped, and to have their heads\nshaved. The verdict was carried out on the spot.\u201d\n\nThe use of the word lynch in a story entitled \u201cJack Long; or lynch-law\nand vengeance,\u201d which appeared in the American Whig Review for February,\n1845, purporting to be a true story of frontier life in Shelby County,\nTexas, fully bears out the assertion that \u201cto lynch\u201d was generally\nunderstood at that time to mean to whip or to maltreat. According to the\nstory a band of men calling themselves \u201cRegulators,\u201d led by a ruffian,\nterrorized the county. Once they lynched, that is, lashed to a tree,\nwhipped and beat, Jack Long, leaving him for dead. He recovered and left\nthe county in obedience to their orders, but later came back and shot\nall but two of the \u201cRegulators.\u201d\n\nIt should be said, however, that the instances of the application of\nlynch-law which are given in Niles\u2019 Register and the Liberator from 1830\nto 1860 show an increase in the severity of the punishment administered.\nAs the slavery controversy went on and the breach widened between the\nNorth and the South, it was but natural that such should be the case.\nMany people in the South felt that no punishment was quite severe enough\nfor an abolitionist. Crimes committed by negroes were also treated with\ngreater severity. The following extract from a private letter, dated\nHouston, Texas, August 23, 1860, to a friend in Hartford, Connecticut,\nexpresses a sentiment felt at that time in many sections of the South:\n\u201cTell your abolition friends to go on and soon they will have the\npleasure of seeing the negro reduced to such a state of hopeless bondage\nthat they may well pity them. I solemnly declare that to-day the negro\nis not as free as he was two or five years ago; and why? Simply because\nhis master has been goaded on to desperation by incendiary acts and\nspeeches. Now he fears the negro, and binds him down as you would a\nsavage animal. One year ago, all was peace and quietness here. The negro\nwas allowed to go out, to have dances and frolics; to-day one dare not\nshow his head after nine o\u2019clock in the evening. Seven companies of\npatrols are organized and guard the city each night, sixteen\nhorse-patrol scour the country around. Forty-eight vigilance men say\nlive, banish or die, as the proof may go to show. And so it is all over\nthe country. Men are hung every day by the decision of planters,\nlawyers, judges and ministers. It is no hot impetuous act, but cool,\nstern justice. It is the saving of wife and daughter, mother and sister\nfrom the hand of desecration. It is the stopping of scenes that would\nmake the Druses and Turks blush for shame.\u201d[184]\n\nAt the time this letter was written, and during the three years\npreceding, there was a great deal of excitement in Texas. Vigilance\nsocieties were in active operation against desperadoes and\nabolitionists. In 1857 a vigilance committee in the \u201cupper country,\u201d as\nit was then called, was \u201craking the country fore and aft and swinging\nevery horse-thief and murderer,\u201d that could be found. A traveler saw\ntwelve bodies suspended from one tree and on another tree five.[185] In\nthe summer of 1860 there was an insurrection and conspiracy in Dallas,\nEllis, Tarrant and Denton counties, in northern Texas. The three\nringleaders, Sam, Cato, and Patrick, were hung by a vigilance committee\non July 24. Twenty-two insurrectionists in all were said to have been\nhanged.[186] This condition of affairs must be taken into consideration\nin connection with the statements made in the above letter and the fears\nand prejudice therein expressed.\n\nWhen drawing any conclusions from the instances recorded in the\nnewspapers as to the history of lynch-law during this period, there is\nanother fact to be kept in mind. During the later years the facilities\nfor obtaining news were greatly increased; the means of communication\nbetween different parts of the country were very much improved and the\nnumber of newspapers published had rapidly increased. There were no\ndoubt many cases of the administration of summary justice in the remote\ndistricts during the thirties and the early forties which never came to\nthe notice of either the Liberator or Niles\u2019 Register. There is,\nhowever, abundant evidence to make the conclusion a safe one that\nlynch-law was more and more resorted to during this period and that the\npunishments administered under that name by vigilance committees and\nmobs came to be more and more severe, death being frequently inflicted\nduring the later years.\n\nThe Parkville (Mo.) Democrat made the following statement in the year\n1856: \u201cDeeds of daring and outrages perpetrated by negroes, are\nconstantly becoming more frequent. We hope that the proper authorities\nwill see to it that all such cases are punished to the extent of the\nlaw.\u201d[187] The Liberator for May 2, 1856 (p. 72) contains an item which\nreads in this way: \u201cIn Hancock County, La., Samuel L. Watson, a negro\noverseer, whipped one of the negroes under him, and a few days after,\nthe negro caught him in a field and beat him with a club till he died.\nThe tragedy closed in the usual way, by the summary hanging of the negro\nby the populace.\u201d There are indications, therefore, that crime was on\nthe increase among the negroes at this time and that the whites had\ncause for inflicting more rigorous punishment.\n\nThe following editorial appeared in the Liberator, December 19, 1856 (p.\n204): \u201cA record of the cases of \u2018Lynch Law\u2019 in the Southern States\nreveals the startling fact, that within twenty years, over three hundred\nwhite persons have been murdered upon the accusation\u2014in most cases\nunsupported by legal proof\u2014of carrying among slave-holders arguments\naddressed expressly to their own intellects and consciences, as to the\nmorality and expediency of slavery.\u201d If this figure may be accepted as\nreliable for the whites, it is within the truth to say that a\nconsiderably larger number of negroes met with summary capital\npunishment during the various insurrection excitements which occurred.\n\nThe summary execution of negroes did not, however, become a serious evil\nprevious to the Civil War. So long as the negroes were valuable as\nslaves, it was a direct economic loss to the slave-holder if an\nable-bodied slave were put to death. In general, it was only in cases of\nreal or supposed conspiracy against the whites, or in cases of\ninsurrection, that the negroes were killed in a summary manner. Such was\nthe case in Virginia at the time of the Nat Turner insurrection; such\nwas the case in Mississippi in 1835 when it was discovered that the\nMurrell gang had laid plans for a general uprising among the slaves. A\nsimilar condition of affairs existed in northern Texas in 1860, when it\nwas thought that strychnine had been distributed among the negroes and\nthey had been instructed to put it in the wells and in the food of their\nmasters.\n\nDamages were sometimes claimed by owners for the loss of their slaves\nthrough illegal procedure. A suit was instituted in the year 1857 in the\nJefferson Circuit Court of Kentucky against the city of Louisville for\nthe value of the slaves George, Bill, and Jack, the murderers of the\nJoyce family. George and Bill had been hung by an infuriated mob, and\nJack had cut his own throat in jail, in order to escape the fate which\nbefell his companions. $1,500 each was claimed as damages by the owners\nof the negroes. The Louisville Courier in commenting upon the case said\nthe suit would be of interest and importance, involving some delicate\nprinciples of law.[188] In 1858 a vigilance committee was established in\nShelby County, Kentucky, whose method of procedure was described as\nfollows: \u201cThey order white men and free negroes who have been concerned\nin evil deeds, to leave the county within three days. Any property\nbelonging to a white man is to be appraised by three disinterested\npersons, and the price paid, after such person has been directed to\nleave the county. Slaves who are vicious must be removed, also, from\nShelby county, by their masters.\u201d[189] The property right in the slaves\nwas generally recognized in cases where they committed offenses against\na neighbor or a neighbor\u2019s slaves. A common way of settling such matters\nwas for a number of the planters to meet together and decide upon the\namount of damages to be paid and what should constitute an equitable\nsettlement, without going through any formal legal procedure. In\nLouisiana a tribunal formed in this way tried and gave sentence of death\nupon two negroes for violating the person of a young white girl on\nChristmas eve, 1856.[190]\n\nAn examination of the files of the Liberator shows that, during the ten\nyears 1830\u20131840, in cases where masters, overseers, or mistresses were\nmurdered by slaves, the law was allowed to take its course almost\nwithout exception. The same is true in the case of rape committed upon\nwhite women by negroes. The record stands, three slaves and one free\nnegro legally executed for rape and two slaves legally executed for\nattempted rape. There are some instances reported of summary punishment,\nnot death, being administered to negroes for inducing white girls to run\naway with them, or for living with white women.\n\nThere were also three instances of burning negroes at the stake during\nthis period. These cases have been described above: one was the burning\nof two slaves near Mobile, Alabama, for murdering two children; another\nwas the burning of the free mulatto at St. Louis for killing an officer;\nand the other was the burning of a slave in Arkansas for the murder of\nhis master.\n\nFor the ten years 1850\u20131860, the record is somewhat different. Out of\nforty-six negroes put to death for the murder of owners or overseers,\ntwenty were legally executed and twenty-six were summarily executed. Of\nthe latter, one was a female slave who was taken from the constable and\nhanged upon a tree for the crime of beating her mistress to death, and\nanother was a negro woman who was burned to death for poisoning her\nmaster. Eight of the remaining twenty-four negroes were summarily\nexecuted by being burned at the stake. For the crime of rape upon white\nwomen, three negroes were legally executed, and for attempted rape two\nwere legally executed; while twelve negroes were more or less brutally\nput to death by mobs for having committed the crime. Of the latter, four\nwere burned at the stake, three of whom had committed the double crime\nof rape and murder. Some other instances of rape and of attempted rape\nare reported, but no statement is made as to the manner or the nature of\nthe punishment inflicted.\n\nIt cannot be said, however, that these cases of the infliction of\ncapital punishment upon negroes without process of law were anything\nmore than sporadic and isolated cases. They were scarcely more than\nlocal in their influence. The most important thing brought to light by\nthe above comparison of the two ten-year periods is the tendency, in the\nlater period, toward less reliance on legal procedure and toward greater\nreadiness on the part of the people to take matters into their own\nhands. The newspapers in the fifties not only frequently excused summary\nprocedure but often openly advocated it. One instance only will be cited\nand it is from a southern newspaper. In 1856, a Mr. Pearce, residing in\nMorgan County, Georgia, attempted to give one of his negroes a flogging\nfor some misdemeanor. The negro picked up an ax and at one blow split\nhis master\u2019s head open. He then fled. While he was still at large the\nMadison Messenger printed the following: \u201cBeyond doubt he will be\ncaptured before many hours. If he is, although we admire submission to\nthe course pointed out by the law of the land, in this case so much of\nthe brute has been manifested, we should be glad to see our citizens\nrise _en masse_, and avail themselves of Lynch law, and hang the rascal\nwithout court or jury.\u201d[191]\n\nThe preceding paragraphs have made it clear that negroes occasionally\nsuffered death under lynch-law previous to the Civil War. It was not\ncommon, however, to characterize the summary hanging of negroes as\nlynching. Such occurrences were neither common nor general enough to\ngive to the verb lynch its modern meaning, even though they had been\nalways designated as lynchings.\n\nIt was with reference to the lawless proceedings which took place in the\nwestern and southwestern portions of the United States in the fifties\nthat the term lynch was first used in its modern sense. The vigilance\ncommittees which were then common in that section of the country often\nhung desperadoes and horse-thieves, and frequently when such persons\nwere thus executed they were said to have been lynched. A paragraph in\nthe Liberator, November 9, 1860 (p. 179), has the heading: \u201cFour men\nLynched in Texas.\u201d The paragraph contains a clipping from a Texas paper\ndescribing the circumstances under which four men were found one morning\nhung in the public square of a town in Navarro County, and refers to the\n\u201cmany accounts of lynchings in Texas.\u201d\n\nHowitt\u2019s Journal for February 12, 1848 (3: 109), contains an article\nentitled \u201cAmerican Lynching\u2014The Desperadoes of the South-West.\u201d The\narticle is really a review of a book published under the title \u201cThe\nDesperadoes of the South-West,\u201d which, according to the reviewer, gives\na picture of the state of society in that section of the United States.\nQuotations from the book are given in which the author outlines the way\nthe West was settled up and the difficulty of keeping prisoners until a\nregular trial could be had, and the exasperating delays and\npostponements brought about by pettifogging lawyers. The author\ndescribes the operation of lynch-law at that time in the following\nwords:\n\n \u201cThen, after all other means of redress have been exhausted, the\n honest, hard-working portion of the community organize themselves into\n a community of lynchers, elect a captain, appoint a committee, and, as\n they say, \u2018take justice into their own hands.\u2019... The company of\n lynchers once formed, they proceed to the execution of summary\n justice. It is easy to see what sad work they must make of it,\n rendered furious, as they have been, by multitudinous wrongs. And\n accordingly, they whip, bang, torture, burn, flay alive; and however\n they may begin, end at last by acting like a band of savages. What\n else could be expected of such men, however honest, however merciful,\n stung to ungovernable rage by so many injuries, and now placed as\n judges in their own case, in a position beyond responsibility? By and\n by, the more cunning rogues take shelter under their protection, and\n bawl out the loudest for justice. Then the fruit of ruin is ripe. Men\n accuse their enemies of the most appalling crimes, in order to glut\n feelings of private revenge. A hypocritical zeal for honesty becomes\n the cloak for rapine and murder. Vengeance supplants law, and brute\n force and fury trample down all show of order.... But the force is\n never wholly on one side only. The lynchers, or \u2018regulators,\u2019 as they\n are often called, soon find that their foes organize also; arm\n themselves, and prepare for systematic resistance, under the\n denomination of \u2018moderators.\u2019 Then commences a guerilla warfare as\n dark and deadly in its hate, as the old English contest between the\n Red and the White Roses. It is a war of utter extermination.\u201d\n\nChambers\u2019 Journal for February 17, 1855 (23: 101) contains an article\nentitled \u201cAmerican Jottings. Eccentricities in criminal\njurisprudence\u2014Lynch Law.\u201d The following quotations are both illustrative\nand instructive:\n\n \u201cA respect for law and order is as conspicuous in general\n circumstances in the greater part of the United States as it is in\n England. This much may be said without prejudice to the fact, that\n very strange things occasionally come to pass, particularly in the\n south and west, in violation of the regular course of justice.... It\n is doubtless the perfunctoriness in the administration of justice\n which at times arouses the indignation of the public and causes them\n to have recourse to what is called Lynch Law, in which respect\n American society, in the more newly settled parts of the country, may\n be said to be at the stage of the rough populace of Edinburgh when\n they interrupted the ordinary course of justice, and laid violent\n hands on Captain Porteous. It is thus interesting to note how long it\n is before a people acquire the habit of implicit submission to the\n maxims of law\u2014the time, of course, being proportioned according as the\n administrators of that law are in themselves unworthy of respect. The\n ancient venality of judges and juries in Scotland, now the theme of\n romance, would appear to be still matched on the banks of the\n Mississippi, and sometimes, as popular feeling inclines, it leads to\n similar results.... Objectionable and dangerous as lynching may be\n considered in the abstract there can be little doubt of its propriety\n practically in certain conditions of American society. When judges and\n courts are leagued with desperadoes, or when peculiar difficulties\n stand in the way of a prompt administration of justice, the public, in\n self-defense, feel impelled to interfere. At the settlement of\n California, and before society had time to establish regular\n tribunals, or to give due efficacy to the law, life and property would\n not have been safe for a moment, unless a Vigilance Committee had\n charged itself with the duty of lynching. Even when, in such newly\n opened territories, judges are appointed, only a small advance is made\n towards a vigorous legal administration. Of American judges it needs\n to be recollected that their position is often not such as to command\n respect. A judge of the supreme courts in England is a being aloof in\n every respect from the people, and he scrupulously abstains from\n interference personally in matters which might by possibility come\n before him in his judicial capacity. An American judge, on the other\n hand, is not dissevered from the ordinary action of society; and if he\n looks forward to a governorship, or some other high function, he\n requires to cultivate a certain popularity.\u201d\n\nIn these extracts there is presented very clearly the character of the\nillegal and summary proceedings to which the term lynch-law was\ngenerally and commonly applied in the fifties. The quoted passages\nlikewise indicate the attitude of public sentiment at that time toward\nsuch proceedings and the frequency of their occurrence. The tendency for\nvigilance societies organized in the interests of law and order to pass\nquickly into the control of the lawless and the vicious, or for\ncounter-organizations to be formed by the lawless element in the\npopulation, is also given due prominence.\n\nThe Vigilance Committee movement in the West attained its highest state\nof organization and effectiveness under the San Francisco Committees of\nVigilance of 1851 and of 1856. The discovery of gold in 1848 had brought\nto California in a few years men from all parts of the world. National\ncharacteristics came into conflict. Mexicans, Frenchmen, Irishmen, and\nAmericans were suddenly thrown together in a virgin territory. The\nestablishment of civil government and judicial tribunals could not keep\npace with the rapid increase in population. When such civil government\nwas begun, the control which the vicious and corrupt element in the\npopulation was able to exercise over it rendered it ineffectual. It was\na time of social irresponsibility, and serious crimes were of common\noccurrence. Out of five hundred and thirty-five homicides which occurred\nin California during the year 1855, there were but seven legal\nexecutions.[192] It was under these conditions and on the ground that\nsome such organization was necessary to bring about order and security,\nthat the two San Francisco Vigilance Committees were organized. \u201cEach\nhanged four men and banished about thirty. Each rescued two prisoners\nfrom the county jail by means of surprise parties.... The crimes\ncommitted by the victims of the first tribunal were against property and\nlife, while those of the second were strongly tinctured with political\nimmorality.... The reformation of 1851 was superficial and temporary;\nthat of 1856 radical and permanent.\u201d[193] On the whole, though the\nmeasures taken seem extreme, these committees accomplished their end\nremarkably well, and it is to their credit that they promptly disbanded\nwhen their time of usefulness had passed.\n\nCommittees of Vigilance were formed elsewhere than in the city of San\nFrancisco, however. Many places in California during the early history\nof the State had similar committees, though outside of San Francisco\nthey were usually organized only temporarily to deal with particular\ncases. Similar \u201cPopular Tribunals\u201d existed in Utah, Nevada, Oregon,\nWashington, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado during the\nearly period of their settlement. Bancroft says at the close of his\nfirst volume on Popular Tribunals: \u201cI have given in this volume many\nexamples of Popular Tribunals, but the half has not been told. It is\nsafe to say that thus far in the history of these Pacific States far\nmore has been done toward righting wrongs and administering justice\noutside the pale of law than within it.\u201d\n\nFurther evidence of the prevalence of lynch-law during the colonization\nof the territory west of the Mississippi River is furnished by an\neditorial in the New York Times of March 19, 1864, written under the\ntitle \u201cJudge Lynch.\u201d The opening sentences are as follows: \u201cOur\nfellow-citizens in the far West, in the mineral territories bordering\nupon the Rocky Mountains, and in those on the other side of the\nmountains, are holding Lynch courts in extraordinary number, and\ncarrying out the decrees of that ferocious judge with unprecedented\nenergy. Our latest files from the distant regions of Idaho, Nevada,\nUtah, &c., contain accounts of executions in numbers that we think were\nnever equalled even in the early days of California settlement, nor in\nany part of the West.\u201d Then follows a recital of various instances,\ntwenty or more robbers and murderers hung in Idaho Territory, four\nmurderers hung by a \u201cCitizens Association\u201d in the Territory of Nevada,\n&c. It is stated that on Thursday of that week bills were passed in\nCongress enabling Nevada and two other Territories to form constitutions\npreparatory to their admission to the Union as States. As a condition to\ntheir admission an irrevocable ordinance was provided prohibiting\nslavery, and the writer of the editorial remarks, \u201cwe think lynching\nmight have been added.\u201d\n\nLynch-law prevailed to a large extent, also, during the border troubles\nattending the outbreak of the Civil War. Particularly was this the case\nin Kansas where, along with the guerrilla warfare that went on for a\nnumber of years, many instances of summary procedure occurred that may\nbe properly classified under lynch-law. A correspondent of the New York\nTribune in Lawrence, K. T., wrote on May 30, 1858: \u201cThere is a very\ngeneral disposition to pass over the helplessly useless forms of\nTerritorial law and corrupt Federal courts, and try these parties\n(_i.e._, horse-thieves) by Lynch law.\u201d[194]\n\nThe lynch-law procedure of the fifties that was most commonly mentioned\nand described in the newspapers and periodicals was that that prevailed\nin the western part of the United States. Bodies of citizens, organized\nsecretly or openly under the names of \u201cvigilance committees,\u201d \u201cvigilance\nsocieties,\u201d \u201cvigilantes,\u201d \u201cregulators,\u201d \u201claw-and-order men,\u201d \u201cCitizens\u2019\nAssociations,\u201d &c., punished with summary severity horse-thieves,\ncattle-thieves, highway robbers, counterfeiters, burglars, and\nswindlers, as well as murderers. Certain rude forms of trial were\ngenerally observed, acquittals were rare but not entirely unknown, and\nthe punishment was usually death by hanging. The frequency with which\nlynch-law was resorted to at this time is to be referred, both to the\nlack of a well established civil government, and to a doubt on the part\nof the people as to the adequacy of the ordinary legal machinery.\n\nIt was the use of the word lynching in connection with these summary\nproceedings against white men of desperate character, the criminals of\nthe frontier region west of the Mississippi, during the period of\nsettlement, that first gave to it its modern meaning of putting to\ndeath. After the Civil War, when the Southern States were being\nreconstructed and the whites were threatened with negro domination,\nsummary practices were adopted against the negroes. The negro had ceased\nto be valuable as property and was looked upon as a dangerous political\nfactor in the community; to take his life was thought to be the easiest\nand quickest way to dispose of him. The adoption of this plan in many\nparts of the South gave for the word lynching a new application. Since\nthe Reconstruction Period, then, to lynch has generally meant to put to\ndeath. The infliction of any minor punishment without legal trial still\nconstitutes lynch-law, but the simple term \u201clynching\u201d usually implies\ncapital punishment. It is in this sense that the term will be used\nthroughout the remainder of this investigation.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V\n THE RECONSTRUCTION PERIOD\n\n\nA civil war is worse in many respects than a foreign war. When the\nmembers of a society are forced to settle any differences that they may\nhave and come together in order to resist the aggressions of a foreign\nfoe, the internal organization of the society is strengthened. A civil\nwar, on the contrary, shakes the very foundations of the social\nstructure. The antagonism of interests which brings on and attends a\ncivil war weakens every social bond and tends to disorganize the\nsociety. Hence, a longer period of time is required for the effects of\ninternal dissension to be obliterated. The feelings engendered by such a\nwar are not easily overcome either by the victors or by the vanquished.\nFor men who have fought against each other on the battle-field, quietly\nto lay aside their arms and at once enter into business and social\nrelations, requires an amount of magnanimity and forbearance that human\nnature in general does not possess.\n\nAt the close of the Civil War in the United States, the South was in a\nmuch weaker condition than the North. An attempt had been made to set up\na new and separate government, but the attempt had failed utterly. The\nUnion armies had overrun whole sections of the South and left the\ncountry desolate. The Emancipation Proclamation had put an end to the\ninstitution of negro slavery on which the whole organization of Southern\nsociety had rested. Out of the ruins of the old must arise a new society\norganized on an entirely different basis. It was inevitable that there\nshould be social disturbances and acts of violence while so great a\nchange was in progress.[195]\n\nBefore the passions of war had subsided, however, and an opportunity had\nbeen given the Southerners to accommodate themselves to the new order of\nthings, new causes for irritation and animosity appeared. Politically,\nthe reconstruction policy adopted by the Federal Congress, by its lack\nof wisdom and of efficient leadership, brought continued humiliation and\nannoyance. Socially, there were two causes of vexation and exasperation\nwhich the people were in no mood to bear. The class of individuals known\nas \u201ccarpet-baggers,\u201d by reason of their mercenary and malicious conduct,\naggravated the people beyond endurance. The second disturbing element\nwas the negroes.[196]\n\nThe history of the reconstruction period\u2014the mistakes, the\nmisunderstandings, the hostility as between the whites of the North and\nof the South; the criminal dishonesty and knavery of the \u201ccarpet-bag\ngovernments\u201d; the ignorance and lawlessness prevailing among the\nnegroes\u2014all this may be read elsewhere. Without attempting to fix the\nblame for the anomalous condition of affairs, it is sufficient here to\npoint out that the administration of civil law was only partially and\nimperfectly re-established, and that for that reason, and for other\nreasons, there was an unusual amount of disorder and violence prevailing\nover the country. The proof of this is to be found not only in the daily\nnewspapers, but also in the records of the proceedings and debates in\nCongress during the twelve years from 1865 to 1877, and especially in\nthe thirteen volumes embodying the report of the joint select committee\nappointed by Congress to investigate affairs in the insurrectionary\nStates with reference to the Ku-Klux conspiracy.[197] It is to this\nso-called Ku-Klux conspiracy that attention is here to be directed. The\nmystery connected with the organization known as the Ku-Klux Klan and\nthe peculiar history and subsequent influence of the organization makes\nit necessary to speak of it here in some detail.[198]\n\nIn May, 1866, a number of young men in the town of Pulaski, in Giles\nCounty, Tennessee, formed a secret society for the purpose of diversion\nand amusement to which they gave the name \u201cKu-Klux Klan.\u201d[199] The\nmystery connected with the name\u2014mysterious because it was meaningless\nand alliterative\u2014gave it a peculiar potency. This was manifest not only\nin the impression made by it on the general public, but likewise in the\nweird influence that it had on the members of the Klan themselves. They\nhad adopted a mysterious name; thereupon the original plan was modified\nso as to make everything connected with the order harmonize with the\nname. Amusement was kept as the end in view, but the methods by which\nthey were to obtain it were those of secrecy and mystery. When the\nreport of the committee on rules and ritual came up for consideration,\nthe recommendations were modified to adapt them to the new idea. The\nreport as finally adopted provided for the following officers: a Grand\nCyclops or President, a Grand Magi or Vice-President, a Grand Turk or\nMarshal, a Grand Exchequer or Treasurer, and two Lictors who were the\nouter and inner guards of the \u201cDen,\u201d as the place of meeting was\ndesignated.\n\nThe members bound themselves by oath to maintain profound and absolute\nsecrecy with reference to the order and everything pertaining to it.\nThis obligation prohibited those who assumed it from disclosing that\nthey were Ku Klux, or the name of any other member, and from soliciting\nany one to become a member. Each member was required to provide himself\nwith the following outfit: A white mask, a tall cardboard hat so\nconstructed as to increase the wearer\u2019s apparent height, a gown or robe\nof sufficient length to cover the entire person. The matter of color and\nmaterial was left to the individual\u2019s taste and fancy, and each selected\nwhat in his judgment would be the most hideous and fantastic. Each\nmember carried also a small whistle with which, by means of a code of\nsignals agreed upon, they held communications with one another.\n\nThe \u201cden\u201d was at first in the law office of a member of the Pulaski bar,\nwhere the suggestion for the formation of the Klan had been made. But\nthe room was small, and it was too near the business portion of the town\nto be a suitable place for meeting. On the brow of a ridge that runs\nalong the western outskirts of the town there stood at that time the\nruins of an old residence that had been partially demolished by a\ncyclone. Underneath the portion that remained standing was a large\ncellar. No other houses stood near, and around these ruins were the\nstorm-torn, limbless trunks of trees which had once formed a magnificent\ngrove. This dreary, desolate and uncanny place was in every way most\nsuitable for a \u201cden,\u201d and the Klan appropriated it. When a meeting was\nheld one Lictor was stationed near the house and the other fifty yards\nfrom it on the road leading into the town. These were dressed in the\nfantastic regalia of the order and bore tremendous spears as the badge\nof their office.\n\nAt the close of the war, when the young men of the South who had escaped\ndeath on the battle-field returned to their homes, they passed through a\nperiod of enforced inactivity. They could not engage at once in business\nor professional pursuits. In the case of many, business habits were\nbroken up. Few had capital to enter mercantile or agricultural\nenterprises. There was also a total lack of the amusements and social\ndiversions which prevail wherever society is in a normal condition. The\nreaction, therefore, which followed the excitement of army scenes and\nservice was intense.\n\nIt is not strange, then, that this secret society with its mysterious\nname and grotesque disguises should awaken profound curiosity in the\ntown of Pulaski. By means of subterfuges members were easily secured\nwithout direct solicitation and the order rapidly increased in size. By\nthe time the eligible material in the town had been used up, the young\nmen from the country, whose curiosity had been inflamed by the newspaper\nnotices, began to come in and apply for admission to the Klan. Then\n\u201cdens\u201d were established at various points in the country. Sometimes a\nstranger from other parts of Tennessee, or from Mississippi, Alabama, or\nTexas, visiting in a neighborhood where the order prevailed, would be\ninitiated and on his departure carry with him permission to establish a\n\u201cden\u201d at home. In fact this was often done without such permission, and\nthus the connecting link between these \u201cdens\u201d was very fragile. It was\nonly by a sort of tacit agreement that the Pulaski Klan was regarded as\nthe source of power and authority. This was the condition of affairs in\nApril, 1867. During the fall and winter of 1866, the growth of the Klan\nhad been rapid, and it had spread over a wide extent of territory. So\nfar there had appeared no need for a compact organization, rigid rules,\nand close supervision. The leading members of the Klan were\ncontemplating nothing more serious than amusement. They enjoyed the\nbaffled curiosity and wild speculations of a mystified public even more\nthan the rude sport afforded by the ludicrous initiations.\n\nAbout this time the combined operation of several causes led to the\ntransformation of the Ku-Klux Klan into a band of \u201cregulators.\u201d These\ncauses may be grouped under three heads: (1) The impressions made by the\norder upon the minds of those who united with it; (2) The impressions\nupon the public by its weird and mysterious methods; (3) The anomalous\nand peculiar condition of affairs in the South at this time.\n\nThe prevalent idea seems to have been that the Klan contemplated some\ngreat and important mission. When admitted to membership this\nconclusion, in the case of many, was deepened rather than removed by\nwhat they saw and heard. There was nothing in the ritual or the\nobligation or in any part of the ceremony to favor such a conclusion;\nbut the impression still remained that this mysteriousness and secrecy,\nthe high-sounding titles of the officers, the grotesque dress of the\nmembers, and the formidable obligation, all meant more than mere sport.\nEach had his own speculations as to what was to be the character of the\nserious work which the Klan had to do, but many were satisfied that\nthere was such work.\n\nWhen the meetings first began to be held in the dilapidated house on the\nhill passers-by were frequent. Most of them passed the grim and ghostly\nsentinel by the roadside in silence, but always with a quickened step.\nOccasionally one would stop and ask: \u201cWho are you?\u201d In awfully\nsepulchral tones the invariable answer was: \u201cA spirit from the other\nworld. I was killed at Chickamauga.\u201d Such an answer, especially when\ngiven to a superstitious negro, was extremely terrifying and if, in\naddition, he heard the uproarious noises issuing from the \u201cden\u201d at the\nmoment of a candidate\u2019s investiture with the \u201cregal crown,\u201d he had the\nfoundation for a most awe-inspiring story. There came from the country\nsimilar stories. The belated laborer, passing after nightfall some\nlonely and secluded spot, heard horrible noises and saw fearful sights.\nThese stories were repeated with such embellishments as the imagination\nof the narrator suggested until the feeling of the negroes and of many\nof the white people, at mention of the Ku-Klux, was one of awe and\nterror.\n\nIn the country it was noticed that the nocturnal perambulations of the\ncolored population diminished or entirely ceased wherever the Ku-Klux\nappeared. In many ways there was a noticeable improvement in the habits\nof a large class which had hitherto been causing great annoyance. In\nthis way the Klan gradually realized that the most powerful devices ever\ninvented for controlling the ignorant and superstitious were in their\nhands. Even the most highly cultured were unable wholly to resist the\nweird and peculiar feeling which pervaded every community where the\nKu-Klux appeared. Circumstances made it evident that the measures and\nmethods employed for sport might be effectually used to subserve the\npublic welfare\u2014to suppress lawlessness and protect property. The very\nforce of circumstances carried the Klan away from its original purpose,\nso that in the summer of 1867 it was virtually a band of regulators,\nhonestly, but in an injudicious and dangerous way, trying to protect\nproperty and preserve peace and order.\n\nIt was this conception of the mission of the Klan which led to its\nreorganization on a plan corresponding to its increased size and new\npurpose. Some abuses of what was by common consent the law of the Klan\nand some other evils had already made their appearance. It was hoped\nalso that this danger could be effectually guarded against by\nreorganization. With these objects in view the Grand Cyclops of the\nPulaski \u201cden\u201d sent out a request to all the \u201cdens\u201d of which he had\nknowledge, to appoint delegates to meet in convention at Nashville,\nTennessee, early in the summer of 1867. At the time appointed this\nconvention was held and delegates were present from a number of States.\n\nA plan of reorganization, previously prepared, was submitted to this\nconvention and adopted. The territory covered by the Klan was designated\nas the \u201cInvisible Empire.\u201d This was subdivided into \u201crealms\u201d coterminous\nwith the boundaries of the States. The \u201crealms\u201d were divided into\n\u201cdominions,\u201d corresponding to congressional districts, the \u201cdominions\u201d\ninto \u201cprovinces\u201d coterminous with counties, and the \u201cprovinces\u201d into\n\u201cdens.\u201d The officers were the Grand Wizard of the Invisible Empire and\nhis ten Genii, the Grand Dragon of the Realm and his eight Hydras, the\nGrand Titan of the Dominion and his six Furies, the Grand Cyclops of the\nDen and his two Night Hawks, and other minor officers. The declaration\nof principles and objects prescribed loyalty to the United States\ngovernment and opposition to lawlessness and violence of every kind. No\nmaterial change was made in the methods of the Klan\u2019s operations. The\nessential features of mystery, secrecy, and grotesqueness were retained,\nbut steps were taken with a view to deepening and intensifying the\nimpressions already made upon the public mind. Henceforth the Ku-Klux\ncourted publicity as assiduously as they had formerly seemed to shun it.\nThey appeared at different points at the same time and always when and\nwhere they were least expected. Devices were multiplied to deceive\npeople in regard to their numbers and to play upon the fears of the\nsuperstitious. On the night of July 4, 1867, public parades were made in\nmany towns in Tennessee.\n\nFor several years there existed in the South a spurious and perverted\nform of the \u201cUnion League.\u201d Against this organization the Ku-Klux\ndirected their efforts, and this has given color to the assertion that\nthe Ku-Klux Klan was a political organization having only political ends\nin view. The \u201cUnion Leagues\u201d in the South, or the \u201cLoyal Leagues\u201d as\nthey were sometimes called, were generally composed of the disorderly\nelement of the negro population and led by white men who were then\nconsidered the basest and meanest of men, the \u201ccarpet-baggers\u201d and\n\u201cscalawags.\u201d The depredations committed by members of these\norganizations and the general lawlessness then prevailing constitutes\nthe justification for the Ku-Klux Klan taking upon itself the duty of a\nvigilance society. In justification of the devices which were used to\nterrorize the negroes, it was held that it was not only better to deter\nthe negroes from theft and other lawlessness in this way than to put\nthem in the penitentiary, but it was the only way at this time by which\nthey could be controlled. The jails would not contain them; the courts\ncould not or would not try them.\n\nAt first the Klan seemed to exercise a wholesome influence, but the good\neffect was short-lived. The order contained within itself sources of\nweakness. The devices and disguises by which the Klan deceived outsiders\nenabled all who were so disposed, even its own members, to practice\ndeception on the Klan itself. It placed in the hands of its own members\nthe facility to do deeds of violence for the gratification of personal\nfeeling and have them credited to the Klan. Many deeds of violence were\nthus done by men who were Ku-Klux, but who, while acting under cover of\ntheir connection with the Klan, were not under its orders. In addition\nto this the very class which the Klan proposed to hold in check and awe\ninto good behavior soon became wholly unmanageable. Those who had\nformerly committed depredations to be laid to the charge of the negroes,\nafter a brief interval of good behavior, assumed the guise of Ku-Klux\nand returned to their old ways. Outrages were committed by masked men in\nregions far remote from any Ku-Klux organizations. Secrecy was the\nstrength of the Ku-Klux Klan so long as it was conjoined with mystery,\nbut when the masks and disguises ceased to be mysterious, secrecy was\nits greatest weakness.\n\nCauses were at work also which led the Klan to adopt measures of greater\nseverity. It had come to pass that all the disorder done in the country\nwas charged upon the Ku-Klux because done under disguises which they had\ninvented and used. They felt that the charge of wrong was unfairly\nbrought against them, and, as is frequently the case, they were carried\nbeyond the limits of prudence and right by a hot zeal for\nself-vindication against unjust aspersions. The mystery and secrecy that\nhad been courted by the Klan led to the Klan and its objects being\nwholly misunderstood and misinterpreted. Many people were sure that the\nKlan meant treason and revolution. A feeling of intense hostility\nsucceeded the first impressions of awe and terror which the Klan had\ninspired. The negroes formed organizations of a military character the\navowed purpose of which was \u201cto make war upon and exterminate the\nKu-Klux.\u201d On several occasions the Klan was fired into. The effect of\nsuch attacks was to provoke counter hostility from the Klan, and so\nthere was irritation and counter irritation till in some places the\nstate of things was little short of open warfare.\n\nMatters continued to grow worse until it was imperatively necessary that\nthere should be interference on the part of the government. In\nSeptember, 1868, the legislature of Tennessee, in obedience to the call\nof Governor Brownlow, assembled in extra session and passed a most\nstringent anti-Ku-Klux statute. In some sections of the State a reign of\nterror followed and the governor was compelled to send troops and\nproclaim martial law in certain counties. In March, 1869, the Grand\nWizard of the Invisible Empire issued a proclamation to his subjects.\nThis proclamation recited the legislation directed against the Klan and\nstated that the order had in large measure accomplished the objects of\nits existence. At a time when the civil law afforded inadequate\nprotection to life and property, when robbery and lawlessness of every\ndescription were unrebuked, when all the better elements of society were\nin constant dread for the safety of their property, persons, and\nfamilies, the Klan had afforded protection and security to many\nfiresides and in many ways contributed to the public welfare. But\ngreatly to the regret of all good citizens, some members of the Klan had\nviolated positive orders; others, under the name and disguises of the\norganization, had assumed to do acts of violence, for which the Klan was\nheld responsible. The Grand Wizard had been invested with the power to\ndetermine questions of paramount importance to the interests of the\norder. Therefore, in the exercise of that power, the Grand Wizard\ndeclared that the organization that had been known as the Ku-Klux Klan\nwas dissolved and disbanded.\n\nFor several years after March, 1869, the papers reported and commented\non \u201cKu-Klux outrages\u201d committed at various places.[200] The authors of\nthese outrages no doubt acted in the name of the Klan and under its\ndisguises, and it may be that in some cases they were men who had been\nKu-Klux, but it cannot be charged that they were acting by the authority\nof the order. The report of the joint committee of Congress appointed to\ninvestigate the \u201cKu-Klux conspiracy\u201d records a great deal of lawlessness\nand violence during the period 1866\u201371, a part of which may be justly\nattributed to the Klan. The greater part of the outrageous conduct\nattributed to the Klan belongs to a date subsequent to its disbandment,\nand is chargeable merely to the influence of the operations of the Klan.\nAs one writer has put it, the birth of this order was an accident, its\ngrowth a comedy, and its death a tragedy. Its existence can be explained\nonly when the anomalous condition of social and political affairs in the\nSouth during the years immediately succeeding the war is taken into\naccount.\n\nIn this discussion of the conditions in the Southern States which\npromoted recourse to lynch-law, it must not be forgotten that at the\nsame time the frontier type of lynch-law was in vogue in the West. The\ntide of immigration toward that part of the United States, which had set\nin early in the fifties, continued with increased vigor after the close\nof the Civil War. While the establishment of Territorial government,\nfollowed by admission to the Union and State government, was remarkably\nexpeditious in the West, yet there was constant occasion for recourse to\nlynch-law against desperadoes and persons guilty of stealing live stock.\nIn other sections of the country, also, lynch-law was in operation.[201]\nThe following statistics, obtained from an examination of the files of\nthe New York Times for the three years, 1871\u201373, give some idea of the\ndistribution and character of lynchings at that time[202]:\n\n Kentucky: 2 negroes hung for rape, 1 white hung for rape, 1 negro hung\n for murder, 3 negroes shot by masked men, 1 negro \u201cmurdered\u201d by\n Ku-Klux.\n\n Tennessee: 2 negroes hung for robbery and arson, 1 negro shot and hung\n for robbery and murder, 1 negro shot for attempted outrage, 1 negro\n hung and shot for murder, 1 white shot for murder of wife.\n\n Missouri: 5 horse thieves hung, 1 negro hung for outrage, 1 white hung\n for murder, 3 whites hung for murder and robbery, 3 whites shot for\n defending and being bondsmen of county officials accused of\n peculation.\n\n California: 2 whites hung for murder, 1 white hung and shot for\n murder, 1 Indian hung for murder, 1 Malay (steward of steamer) shot\n and thrown overboard near coast of California for ravishing sick girl,\n eleven years old.\n\n Montana: 2 whites hung for murder.\n\n Louisiana: 4 negroes hung for murder, 3 horse thieves hung.\n\n Virginia: 1 desperado, horse thief and murderer hung.\n\n Alabama: 1 white shot for murder.\n\n South Carolina: 2 whites shot for murder, 10 negroes shot and hung by\n Ku-Klux.\n\n Nevada: 1 desperado hung, 1 white hung for killing man in saloon row.\n\n Wisconsin; 1 white hung for murder.\n\n Indiana: 3 negroes hung for murder, 1 white hung for murder.\n\n Nebraska: 1 negro and 1 white man \u201ckilled\u201d for robbery and shooting\n woman.\n\n Kansas: 2 whites hung for murder, 1 desperado and 1 horse thief\n \u201ckilled in jail.\u201d\n\n Colorado: 2 whites hung for keeping gambling outfit.\n\n Michigan: 2 whites died from beating which they received for killing a\n man in a German-Irish riot on the streets.\n\n Ohio: 2 whites hung for murder.\n\n Maryland: 1 negro hung for arson.\n\n Total: 41 whites, 32 negroes, 1 Malay, 1 Indian.\n\nThe majority of those lynched in these three years, as given by the\nTimes, were forcibly taken from the custody of officers of the law. In\nsome instances, the jails were broken into, and the prisoners were taken\nout and hanged or were killed in the jail; in other instances, the\nprisoners were taken from the officers and put to death before they\ncould be taken to the jail. Some of the lynchings were carried on by\nvigilance societies, others by mobs of masked persons or by \u201cKu-Kluxes.\u201d\nWith two exceptions, nothing is said in the reports of these lynchings\nabout any attempts to take legal action against the lynchers. In the two\ninstances where attempts were made to prosecute the lynchers, it does\nnot appear that there was any measure of success.\n\nIt thus appears that lynch-law was in operation in nearly every part of\nthe United States during the years immediately following the close of\nthe Civil War, and that the ordinary penalty inflicted was death. It\nwas, however, the application of lynch-law under the anomalous\nconditions in the South that rendered the reconstruction period a\ndistinctive period in the history of lynch-law. The reconstruction of\nthe Southern States has been rightly characterized as \u201cone of the worst\nperiods of misgovernment and maladministration in the history of any\ncivilized community.\u201d[203] The emancipation of the slaves and the\nreconstruction policy carried out by the political leaders in Congress\nnot only brought about a changed relation between the two races, but\nmade negro domination a real evil and an imminent danger. The Southern\nplanters considered themselves justified in resorting to summary\nmeasures as a means of protecting their property and their families.\nBoth the social and the political conditions in the South were such as\nto give a distinctively new impulse to the lynching spirit.[204]\n\nIt is true that the extreme measures taken under Ku-Klux disguises never\nreceived the approval of the mass of the Southern people, but, on the\nother hand, few determined efforts were made by the civil authorities in\nthe Southern States to bring Ku-Klux offenders to justice. The outrage\nupon freedmen, persons of Northern origin and Southerners accused of\nfavoring the reconstruction acts of Congress, were not stopped until\nafter Congress had passed the so-called \u201cforce bill\u201d in 1871. By this\nmeasure the jurisdiction of the Federal courts was extended to Ku-Klux\ncases, and the President was authorized to suspend the writ of _habeas\ncorpus_ when necessary to preserve order. The Federal troops were not\nentirely withdrawn from the South until 1877.\n\nAs a result of the doings of reconstruction times, habits of lawlessness\nhave been perpetuated at the South, the effect of which is still to be\nseen. The disguises introduced by the Ku-Klux[205] have frequently given\nsecurity against identification at lynchings in recent years. The modern\n\u201cWhite Caps,\u201d so well known in the central and eastern States as well as\nin the South, though they are merely local and generally only temporary\norganizations, use the same methods that were employed by the Ku-Klux.\nThe \u201cWhite Caps\u201d may be regarded as the successors of the Ku-Klux.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI\n LYNCHINGS\n\n\nIn recent years, particularly since about the year 1891, much has been\nsaid and written upon the subject of lynching. Explanations and excuses\nhave been offered for the prevalence of the practice in the South and in\nother parts of the country. Remedies and means for the suppression of\nlynchings have been freely and widely discussed. Most of the literature,\nhowever, shows a strong sectional or partisan spirit, and is, in\nreality, but little more than the expression of personal opinion.\nScarcely any attempt has been made to present the general facts relating\nto the practice of lynching for any considerable length of time. The\nperusal of more than seventy-five magazine articles discussing recent\nlynchings and dealing with different phases of the subject left upon the\nwriter\u2019s mind no impression more distinct than this, that some facts of\na statistical nature were very much needed.\n\nThe first plan that suggested itself was to make a personal\ninvestigation of the cases of lynching that have occurred in recent\nyears, to interview personally or to correspond with individuals\nacquainted with the facts in such occurrences, and thus get some\nreliable data. Such a plan, however, has by trial been found\nimpracticable. Mr. George C. Holt of New York had an examination made of\nthe index and files of the New York Daily Times for the first six months\nof the year 1892, and a record made of all the instances of lynching\nreported there. His experience can best be given in his own words. He\nsays:\n\n\u201cAfter obtaining a list of the cases reported in the Times, I drafted a\ncircular letter of inquiry asking for information in respect to the\nname, age, residence, and occupation of the man lynched, the charge\nagainst him, his possible guilt, the circumstances of the lynching, and\nwhat steps, if any, were afterwards taken. In each reported case of\nlynching I mailed three copies of the circular letter, with a stamped\nenvelope for reply, addressed one to the district attorney of the\ncounty, one to the postmaster, and one to any clergyman of the city or\ntown where the lynching occurred.\n\n\u201cTo the printed circulars sent out answers were received in relation to\n16 out of the 30 cases of lynching. No answers were received in 14 of\nthe cases, although the envelopes bore the usual direction to the\npostmaster to be returned if not delivered, and only one of them was\nreturned. Of the 16 cases in respect to which answers were received,\nthere were 3 cases in which 3 answers were returned, 5 in which 2 were\nreturned, and 8 in which one was returned. Most of the answers were\nunsigned; many were very vague; a few declined to state the facts; and\nseveral requested secrecy. The general impression derived from the\nattempt to obtain information by the circular was that there was, in\nmany cases, a strong disinclination, for some cause, to give any\ninformation.\u201d[206]\n\nIn an attempt to verify some reports of lynchings in the years 1902 and\n1903, the writer has met with a similar experience. A letter addressed\nto the mayor of a town in Arkansas was returned with the following\npenciled at the bottom of the sheet: \u201cif you will give me some idea as\nto your reasons for wanting this information I might give you some\ninformation regarding same.\u201d A letter addressed to the mayor of a town\nin Georgia was returned with the following written at the bottom of the\nsheet: \u201cIn answer to the above I will say that I don\u2019t know anything\nabout it.\u201d No name was signed in either case. These two replies,\ntogether with Mr. Holt\u2019s experience, are sufficient to indicate the\ndifficulties attendant upon the collection, by any such method, of data\nin regard to lynchings covering any considerable period of time.\n\nFor more than twenty-two years the Chicago Tribune has published at the\nclose of each year an itemized summary of the disasters and crimes in\nthe United States for the year. An editorial in the Tribune for January\n1, 1883, reads as follows: \u201cElsewhere in this issue will be found a\nseries of reviews of the happenings during 1882. A necrological table is\nfurnished, also a list of the more important crimes, casualties,\nsuicides, lynchings, and judicial executions for the last year. The\ntables have been prepared with great care from the columns of _The\nTribune_, and furnish as complete a review of the unpleasant features of\nthe dead year as could possibly be obtained.\u201d\n\nThis annual review published by the Tribune supplies the most available\nand practically the only source for statistics of lynchings. The\nfollowing facts are given: the date of the lynching, the name of the\nvictim, his color and his nationality, the alleged crime for which he\nwas lynched, and the town and State where the lynching took place. Only\nthe names of those who have suffered death at the hands of mobs are\nincluded. No account is taken of attempted lynchings or of persons to\nwhom mob violence was done but who recovered from their injuries.\n\nIn using this record as the basis of this investigation such means as\nwere available have been employed for purposes of correction and\nverification. In every case where an error was apparent, or there was\nany reason for doubt, the original report of the lynching has been\nexamined in some newspaper of the proper date, either the Chicago\nTribune, or the New York Times, or the New York Tribune. Only a very few\npoints have been left unsettled because of insufficient information. The\nCyclopedic Review of Current History gives confirmatory evidence for a\nperiod covering the last twelve years. It, however, mentions only the\n\u201cnotable crimes\u201d and this evidence, therefore, applies to a\ncomparatively small number of cases.\n\nFor the last six months of the year 1902 a subscription to a newspaper\nclipping agency was maintained as a further means of determining the\nreliability and completeness of the Tribune record. The agency selected\nwas an old and well established one. Instructions were given the readers\nto send full accounts of every lynching, together with a few editorial\ncomments from various parts of the country. Clippings on lynchings were\nreceived from newspapers in every section of the United States. Out of\nthe fifty-three victims of lynching given in the summary published by\nthe Chicago Tribune for the six months, July-December, 1902, forty-six\nwere reported by the newspaper clipping agency and no errors of any\nimportance were shown. A few additional cases were mentioned in the\nclippings, but they were mainly on the border line between murder and\nlynching and could rightly be disregarded.\n\nUndoubtedly there are errors and inaccuracies in particular cases in the\nTribune record.[207] Any one who has endeavored to sift the truth from\nconflicting newspaper reports will readily appreciate the difficulty of\nobtaining an accurate account of a lynching from such a source. For the\npurpose of this investigation, however, only the most general facts are\nrequired, and it is believed that in regard to these the reporter or the\nnewspaper correspondent is less likely to indulge his imaginative\npowers. Furthermore, by reason of the popular excitement which usually\nattends lynching-bees and the extraordinary methods of execution\noftentimes employed, it is fair to presume that but few lynchings escape\nthe reporter; the details of most lynchings exhibit so clearly the\njournalistic idea of facts of contemporaneous human interest that the\npublication of such news is not often intentionally omitted. There is\nneither the motive nor the opportunity to keep lynchings from the\nnewspapers that there often is in the case of suicides and murders; not\nonly indeed is every such motive for secrecy absent, but there is\nusually, more or less strongly expressed, a public sentiment approving\nor excusing a lynching.\n\nWhat the likelihood is of every lynching in the United States having\nbeen reported to the Chicago Tribune during the last twenty-two years,\nand whether the probability has been uniform throughout the period,\nthere is no means of determining. The annual review of disasters and\ncrimes has, however, been made a special feature throughout the period,\nand this gives at least a presumption in favor of fullness and\ncompleteness in the record. It is at any rate safe to say that the cases\nof lynching actually reported probably afford a fair average basis of\ncases for statistical investigation.\n\nIn view of these considerations, together with the corrections and\nverifications that have been made, it is believed that the Tribune\nrecord has reliability sufficient for its examination to lead to the\ndeduction of trustworthy and valuable conclusions.\n\nOn January 1, 1904, the Chicago Tribune published the following \u201ctable\nof lynchings\u201d covering the last nineteen years[208]:\n\n 1885 184\n 1886 138\n 1887 122\n 1888 142\n 1889 176\n 1890 127\n 1891 192\n 1892 235\n 1893 200\n 1894 190\n 1895 171\n 1896 131\n 1897 166\n 1898 127\n 1899 107\n 1900 115\n 1901 135\n 1902 96\n 1903 104\n\nAfter carefully going over the lists of names, as published each year,\nof the persons lynched during the last twenty-two years, the writer\nobtained the following table which is based throughout on the number of\npersons lynched. If only the number of lynchings were taken into account\nthe numbers given would be considerably smaller.[209]\n\n NUMBER OF\n PERSONS\n LYNCHED\n\n 1882 114\n 1883 134\n 1884 211\n 1885 184\n 1886 138\n 1887 122\n 1888 142\n 1889 176\n 1890 128\n 1891 195\n 1892 235\n 1893 200\n 1894 197\n 1895 180\n 1896 131\n 1897 165\n 1898 127\n 1899 107\n 1900 115\n 1901 135\n 1902 97\n 1903 104\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n Total 3337\n\nThis table agrees with the Tribune table for the nineteen years with the\nexception of the years 1890, 1891, 1894, 1895, 1897 and 1902. In some of\nthese cases the difference is due merely to an error which had been made\nin footing up the lists. Some instances are given of a father and son\nbeing lynched, or of five horse thieves, or of two negroes, and each of\nthese instances had been counted as one in making up the totals. In\nother cases an error was found in the instance reported. In 1902, a\nreport of a negro having been lynched for murder in Alabama was found\nlater to be untrue and his name was dropped from the list.[210] Two\nnames have been added to the list for 1902 from information which the\nwriter obtained through the newspaper clipping agency and subsequent\ncorrespondence.\n\nIn 1903 a record of persons lynched, kept by the writer from newspapers\nother than the Chicago Tribune,[211] contained sixty-three out of the\none hundred and four reported by the Tribune, and corroborated the\nTribune record with reference to these sixty-three. In the writer\u2019s\nrecord seven lynchings were reported which did not appear in the Tribune\nrecord. Letters of inquiry in regard to these resulted in only four\nreplies, one denying that the reported lynching had taken place, the\nremaining three not stating definitely whether any lynching whatsoever\nhad taken place. No alteration, therefore, has been made in the Tribune\nrecord for 1903.\n\n[Illustration: I. NUMBER LYNCHED COMPARED WITH NUMBER LEGALLY EXECUTED\n1882\u20131903]\n\n[Illustration: II. NUMBER LYNCHED ACCORDING TO MONTHS IN DIFFERENT\nSECTIONS OF THE U.S. 1882\u20131903]\n\nChart I has been prepared from the above table and shows at a glance the\nrelative prevalence of lynching during the twenty-two years,\n1882\u20131903.[212] The solid line, representing the number of persons\nlynched, begins at 114 in 1882, goes up to 211 in 1884, falls to 122 in\n1887, rises again to 176 in 1889, falls again the following year to 128,\nand then rises to 235 in the year 1892. From 1892 on the line shows a\ngeneral downward tendency.\n\nThe large number in 1884 was due to the work of vigilantes in Montana\nand Colorado. According to the record, 40 horse thieves and cattle\nthieves received summary justice in Montana during the year and the\nlynching of seventeen cattle thieves was reported from Colorado. The\nlarge number in 1892 was due to the lynching of negroes in the South.\nThese facts are shown in another form in Chart IV.\n\nFor purposes of comparison the broken line has been drawn on Chart I to\nrepresent the number of persons legally executed during the twenty-two\nyears. The figures for legal executions have also been taken from the\nTribune record, but no further verification has been made of them than\nmerely to foot up the lists of names and verify the totals. The Tribune\nrecord of legal executions is no doubt incomplete, but it is here given\nfor what it is worth. In a general way the broken line follows the solid\nline with the exception of the year 1892 and the last five years. In the\nreview of the year 1881, the Tribune reported ninety-one legal\nexecutions but gave no record of lynchings. To indicate the direction of\nthe broken line previous to 1882 a short line has been drawn at the left\nof the chart.\n\nOn the whole, Chart I seems to indicate a relationship between legal\nexecutions and lynchings. There is an indication that the upward\ntendency in the broken line since 1887 may have contributed to the\ndownward tendency in the solid line since 1892\u2014the punishment of crimes\nby law may tend to make recourse to lynching less frequent. Another\nfactor is needed, however, to make this reasoning conclusive; some way\nof measuring the amount of crime in the country during these several\nyears is requisite. For this purpose the writer took the number of\nmurders reported by the Tribune and plotted them on a trial chart in\nconnection with the number lynched and the number legally executed. The\nresult was so unsatisfactory and inconclusive, however, that any attempt\nto make such a comparison was abandoned.[213]\n\nIn Chart II is shown the number of persons lynched according to months\nthroughout the twenty-two years, 1882\u20131903. Because of the difference in\nthe characteristics of lynchings in different sections of the United\nStates, and because of the differences in climate, the States have been\ndivided into three groups as follows: (1) The Southern Group, comprising\nMaryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,\nGeorgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri,\nArkansas, Louisiana, and Texas; (2) The Western Group, comprising all\nthe other States and Territories west of the Mississippi River; (3) The\nEastern Group, comprising all the other States east of the Mississippi\nRiver.\n\nIn the Southern Group the fewest are lynched in the months of January,\nFebruary, and November. The largest number are lynched in June, July,\nand December. By dividing the twenty-two years into three periods and\ndrawing lines to show the monthly fluctuations for each of these\nperiods, it can be shown that these same tendencies are characteristic\nof shorter periods of time, the tendency toward an increase in December\nbeing less marked, however, in the period 1896\u20131903. Several\nexplanations suggest themselves. Perhaps the best explanation of the\nfall in the line from the high point in June and July to a much lower\npoint in August is suggested by the fact that since most of the persons\nlynched in the Southern Group are negroes and their time is largely\noccupied with their camp-meetings and various religious exercises during\nthe month of August,\u2014a custom which originated in the time of\nslavery,[214]\u2014they commit a smaller number of crimes against the whites\nand thus there is less occasion for lynching during that month. During\nthe months of June and July, on the other hand, when there is work to be\ndone in tending the growing crops, disagreements and quarrels frequently\narise between the whites and the blacks, the latter often retaliating\nupon the former by some offense against property or person, thus giving\ngreater occasion for lynching. The increase in December is possibly due\nto indulgence in excesses and to the commission of a greater number of\noffenses by the negroes in connection with their celebration of\nChristmas. Idleness on the part of the negroes probably has much to do\nwith the whole matter. It has long been true that \u201cthe Devil finds work\nfor idle hands to do.\u201d\n\nIn the Western Group there is comparatively little variation in the\nnumber lynched in the different months. The drop in the line in the\nmonths of February and November is probably explained by the fact that\nthose two months are the busy seasons of the year for the cattlemen. The\n\u201cfall round-up\u201d takes place in November and the \u201cspring round-up\u201d about\nFebruary.\n\nIn the Eastern Group the line shows very little variation in the number\nlynched in the different months. A slight increase in the month of June\nis indicated.\n\nChart III shows the percentages lynched for various causes by months for\nthe entire period of twenty-two years and for the total number of\npersons lynched in the United States during that time.\n\nBefore proceeding to an analysis of this chart a word of explanation is\nnecessary concerning the classification of causes that has been adopted.\nThe various causes assigned for the lynchings in the Tribune record have\nbeen grouped into eight classes as follows: Murder, Rape, Assault, Minor\nOffenses, Desperadism,[215] Theft, Arson, Unknown.\n\nThe class Murder includes murder, attempted murder, accessory to murder,\nsuspected murder, alleged murder, conspiracy to murder, complicity in\nmurder.\n\nThe class Rape includes rape, attempted rape, alleged rape.\n\nThe class Minor Offenses includes race prejudice, miscegenation, and\nvarious minor offenses; such as (for whites) wife beating, cruelty,\nkidnapping, saloon keeping, turning state\u2019s evidence, refusing to turn\nstate\u2019s evidence, being obnoxious, swindling, political prejudice,\nseduction, giving information, frauds, informing, protecting a negro,\ngiving evidence, mob indignation, illicit distilling, disorderly\nconduct, incest, elopement, revenue informer, disreputable character,\narrest of a minor, aiding escape of murderer, suspected of killing\ncattle, prospective elopement; (for negroes) grave robbery, threatened\npolitical exposures, slander, self-defense, wife beating, cutting\nlevees, kidnapping, voodooism, poisoning horses, writing insulting\nletters, incendiary language, swindling, jilting a girl, colonizing\nnegroes, turning state\u2019s evidence, political troubles, gambling,\nquarreling, poisoning wells, throwing stones, unpopularity, making\nthreats, circulating scandals, being troublesome, bad reputation,\ndrunkenness, strike rioting, rioting, insults, supposed offense,\ninsulting women, fraud, criminal abortion, alleged stock poisoning,\nenticing servant away, writing letter to white woman, asking white woman\nin marriage, conspiracy, introducing smallpox, giving information,\nconjuring, to prevent evidence, being disreputable, informing,\nconcealing a criminal, slapping a child, shooting at officer, passing\ncounterfeit money, felony, elopement with white girl, refusing to give\nevidence, giving evidence, disobeying ferry regulations, running\nquarantine, violation of contract, paying attention to white girl,\nresisting assault, inflammatory language, resisting arrest, testifying\nfor one of his own race, keeping gambling-house, quarrel over profit\nsharing, forcing white boy to commit crime, lawlessness.\n\nThe cause \u201crace prejudice\u201d is given, almost without exception, only in\nthe case of the lynching of negroes by whites and does not appear at all\nin the earlier years of the period 1882\u20131903. The probable reason for\ngiving race prejudice as a cause for lynching is that no offense had\nbeen committed which was considered worthy of mention as a cause. This\nis borne out by the following instances. On February 22, 1898, a negro\nby the name of F. B. Baker was lynched at Lake City, South Carolina, for\naccepting the office of postmaster. In the Tribune record the cause is\ngiven as \u201crace prejudice.\u201d On February 10, 1894, a negro named Collins\nwas lynched in Georgia for \u201centicing servant away.\u201d One newspaper in\nreporting this occurrence gave \u201crace prejudice\u201d as the cause. The\ncolored victims credited to \u201crace prejudice\u201d in 1902 by the Tribune were\nlynched because they were supposed to have made some insulting remarks\nabout several white men. In December, 1903, Eli Hilson, colored, was\nkilled by \u201cWhitecaps\u201d in Lincoln County, Mississippi, because he refused\nto leave the county in response to their warning. In the Tribune record\n\u201crace prejudice\u201d is given as the cause for the lynching of Hilson. These\nfacts constitute the justification for placing \u201crace prejudice\u201d under\nMinor Offenses.\n\nThe class Theft includes theft, larceny, burglary, robbery, suspected\nrobbery, safe breaking, cattle stealing, horse stealing, mule stealing.\n\nThe class Desperadism includes the action of desperado, outlaw, highway\nrobber, train wrecker, train robber.\n\nThe class Arson includes arson, incendiarism, barn burning.\n\nThe class Assault includes assault, murderous assault.\n\nThe class Unknown includes unknown offense, no offense, without cause,\nmistaken identity, by accident, no cause given. There are in the lists\nonly a few cases of mistaken identity and only one by accident. They\nhave been put in this class merely because there was no other place to\nput them.\n\nWhere more than one cause was given the following principles of\nclassification have been observed: rape and murder under Rape, robbery\nand murder under Murder, arson and murder under Murder, assault and\nrobbery under Assault, robbery and arson under Arson.\n\nThroughout this chapter, whenever any one of the above eight classes is\nmeant the word for the class will be begun with a capital letter. This\nwill avoid the danger of confusing the present use of the terms with\ntheir ordinary and general use.\n\nIn an analysis of Chart III, it appears that smaller percentages of\npersons are lynched for Murder in the summer months than in the winter\nmonths, and that larger percentages are lynched for Rape in the summer\nmonths than in the winter months, but that if Murder and Rape be taken\ntogether larger percentages are lynched for those crimes in the summer\nthan in the winter. The percentage lynched for Assault shows little\nvariation throughout the year. The percentage lynched for Minor Offenses\nis also fairly uniform throughout the year.\n\nWith regard to Desperadism a marked difference is shown between the\nsummer months and the winter months. Only about one per cent of the\nlynchings in the summer are for Desperadism, there being none in the\nmonth of April, while in January 6.4 per cent, in February 10.5 per\ncent, in October 4.2 per cent, in November 4.5 per cent, and in December\n11.2 per cent are for that cause. The percentage lynched for Theft is\nrelatively high in May, June, and July, but especially high in October.\nNearly 20 per cent of the lynchings in October are for Theft. There is a\nrelatively small percentage for Arson in the summer. The larger\npercentage of lynchings for Arson are in March, September, October, and\nNovember.\n\nAs to the influence of the seasons on crime, Mayo-Smith states that it\nhas been pretty well determined that crimes against the person are more\nnumerous in summer than in winter, and that crimes against property are\nmore numerous in winter than in summer.[216] Chart III shows conformity\nto this law of crimes.[217] A larger percentage is lynched for Murder,\nRape, and Assault\u2014crimes against the person\u2014in summer than in winter. A\nlarger percentage is lynched for Desperadism, Theft, and Arson,\u2014crimes\nagainst property,\u2014in winter than in summer.\n\n[Illustration: III. PERCENTAGES LYNCHED FOR VARIOUS CAUSES BY MONTHS\n1882\u20131903]\n\n[Illustration: IV. NUMBER OF WHITES, NEGROES AND OTHERS LYNCHED\nACCORDING TO YEARS 1882\u20131903]\n\nChart IV shows the relative number of whites, negroes, and other persons\nlynched each year during the last twenty-two years. The largest number\nof whites were lynched in the year 1884, the majority of them being in\nthe Western Group of States. Since that year there has been a general\nbut irregular decline in the lynching of whites. If the tops of the\ncolumns representing the whites were joined together by a line, the line\nwould rise and fall with more or less regularity, suggesting the\nconclusion that lynchings tend to recur in groups from year to year, or,\nin other words, that the lynching mania spreads in successive waves over\nthe country. If the tops of the columns representing the negroes were\njoined together by a line, the same tendency would be noticeable, but\nthe waves would appear less regular and less marked. The waves for the\nwhites and the negroes do not correspond at all from year to year, but\nthis perhaps can be explained by the fact that the lynching of negroes\nis characteristic of the Southern States while the lynching of whites is\ncharacteristic of the Western States. There is no psychic connection\nbetween the lynching of a negro in the South and the lynching of a\nmurderer or cattle thief in the West.\n\nFor the lynching of negroes, 1892 and 1893 are the years in which the\nlargest number were lynched, the numbers being 156 and 155 respectively.\nThe chart shows a general increase in the lynching of negroes from 1882\nto 1892, and a general decline from 1893 to 1903. In 1903, however,\nnearly twice as many negroes were lynched as in 1882. The chart also\nshows an increase in the proportion of negroes lynched to whites lynched\nduring the period 1882\u20131903.\n\nThe total number of negroes lynched during the twenty-two years is\n2,060, an average of 93\u2077\u2044\u2081\u2081 per year. The total number of whites lynched\nduring the twenty-two years is 1,169, an average of 53\u00b3\u2044\u2082\u2082 per year.\n\nChart IV also shows, under the title of Others, the comparatively small\nnumber (108) of Indians, Mexicans, and foreigners that have been lynched\nduring the twenty-two years. In the years when the larger numbers were\nlynched they were distributed as follows: in 1883, seven Mexicans, four\nIndians, and one Chinaman; in 1884, six Mexicans, one Indian, one\nJapanese, and one Swiss; in 1885, six Chinese and two Indians; in 1891,\neleven Italians (at New Orleans), two Indians, and two Chinese; in 1893,\nfive Italians, two Indians, two Mexicans, and one Bohemian; in 1895,\nfive Italians (at Walsenburg, Colorado), two Indians, and two Mexicans.\nIn all, forty-five Indians, twenty-eight Italians, twenty Mexicans,\ntwelve Chinese, one Japanese, one Swiss, and one Bohemian were lynched\nduring the period 1882\u20131903.\n\nChart V shows the number of females, both white and colored, lynched\neach year during the twenty-two years. With the exception of the years\n1882, 1883, 1887, and 1899 one or more were lynched each year. In the\nyear 1895, thirteen were lynched, eight colored and five white women.\nThe majority of the colored females were lynched in the five years\n1891\u201395. In all, forty colored and twenty-three white females, or a\ntotal of sixty-three females were lynched during the period 1882\u20131903.\n\nThe lower half of Chart V shows the causes for which the females were\nlynched. Of the whites, nine were lynched for murder or complicity in\nmurder, one for being a disreputable character, one because of mob\nindignation, one for race prejudice, one for miscegenation, one for\narson, two for theft, and seven for unknown reasons.\n\nOf the colored, twenty were lynched for murder or complicity in murder,\ntwo for alleged well poisoning, eight for race prejudice, five for\narson, one for theft, and four for unknown reasons.\n\n[Illustration: V. NUMBER OF WOMEN (WHITES AND NEGROES) LYNCHED ACCORDING\nTO YEARS 1882\u20131903]\n\n[Illustration: PROPORTION LYNCHED FOR VARIOUS CAUSES 1882\u20131903 WOMEN\n(WHITES AND NEGROES)]\n\n[Illustration: VI. PERCENTAGES LYNCHED FOR VARIOUS CAUSES BY YEARS\n1882\u20131903 WHITES AND OTHERS]\n\nChart V really supplements Chart IV. In Chart IV, the 3,337 persons who\nhave been lynched during the twenty-two years are classified according\nto race only. In Chart V the number of females in Chart IV is shown and\nalso the causes for which they were lynched. In the further\ninvestigation sex will be disregarded and the whites, Indians, Mexicans,\nand foreigners will be grouped together under the head of Whites and\nOthers, this making a classification into negroes and those not negroes.\n\nChart VI shows the percentages lynched for various causes by years,\n1882\u20131903, for Whites and Others. The percentages lynched for the\nvarious causes vary greatly from year to year. The percentage lynched\nfor Murder varies from 24 per cent to 70 per cent. The percentage\nlynched for Theft varies from 3.9 per cent to 46.5 per cent. In the\nthree years 1898\u20131900, and in the year 1903, none were lynched for\nTheft. The percentage lynched for Rape varies from 1.8 per cent to 20\nper cent, none being lynched for that cause in 1902. Rape is not\nparticularly important as a cause. The chief value of Chart VI is seen\nby contrasting it with Chart VII.\n\nChart VII shows the percentages lynched for various causes by years,\n1882\u20131903, for Negroes. The percentage lynched for Murder does not vary\ngreatly from year to year, the extreme variation being from 28.2 per\ncent in the year 1882 to 53 per cent in the year 1898. Rape appears as\nan important cause, the percentage varying from 22.6 per cent in the\nyear 1901 to 56.5 per cent in the year 1882. The chart indicates in a\ngeneral way a decrease in the importance of Rape as a cause for the\nlynching of Negroes since 1882. Minor Offenses, on the contrary, have\nincreased in importance as a cause for the lynching of Negroes. In the\nlater years, also, a larger percentage has been for Assault.\n\nComparing Charts VI and VII it appears that there is greater uniformity\nin the percentages lynched for the different causes from year to year in\nthe case of the Negroes than in the case of the Whites and Others. A\nsmaller percentage is lynched for Murder and a much larger percentage is\nlynched for Rape in the case of the Negroes than in the case of the\nWhites and Others. For the Negroes, Theft is largely larceny and\nburglary while for the Whites and Others it is stealing live stock.\nDesperadism figures to a very limited extent as a cause for lynching\nNegroes. Assault figures to a very limited extent as a cause for\nlynching Whites and Others.\n\nChart VIII shows the proportion lynched for various causes, 1882\u20131903,\nfor Whites and Others. This chart, like Chart VI, covers the total\nnumber of Whites and Others that have been lynched during the period,\nwithout reference to particular sections of the country. Murder with 628\nstands highest, and Theft, with 264, second. Rape with 109 ranks third\nas a cause, and Desperadism, with 93, fourth. Minor Offenses is credited\nwith 52, Arson with 31, and Assault with 11. The number lynched which\nfall under the class Unknown is 89. Of the total number, 49.2 per cent\nwere lynched for Murder, 20.6 per cent for Theft, 8.5 per cent for Rape,\n7.3 per cent for Desperadism, 4 per cent for Minor Offenses, 2.4 per\ncent for Arson, .8 per cent for Assault, and 7 per cent is credited to\nUnknown. Of those lynched for Theft, nearly 90 per cent were lynched for\nthe crime of stealing live stock.\n\n[Illustration: VII PERCENTAGES LYNCHED FOR VARIOUS CAUSES BY YEARS\n1882\u20131903 NEGROES]\n\n[Illustration: VIII. PROPORTION LYNCHED FOR VARIOUS CAUSES 1882\u20131903\nWHITES AND OTHERS]\n\nChart IX shows the proportion lynched for various causes, 1882\u20131903, for\nNegroes. This chart, like the preceding chart, covers the total number\nof Negroes that have been lynched during the period, without reference\nto particular sections of the country. By far the greater number of\nNegroes have been lynched either for Murder or for Rape. Murder is\ncredited with 783 and Rape with 707. Minor Offenses with 208 ranks third\nas a cause for the lynching of Negroes, and Arson, with 104, fourth.\nTheft with 101 ranks fifth. Assault is credited with 47 and Desperadism\nwith 20. To the class Unknown 90 are credited. Of the total number, 38\nper cent were lynched for Murder, 34.3 per cent for Rape, 10.1 per cent\nfor Minor Offenses, 5 per cent for Arson, 4.9 per cent for Theft, 2.3\nper cent for Assault, .9 per cent for Desperadism, and 4.3 per cent is\ncredited to Unknown. Of the Negroes lynched for Theft only 14 per cent\nwere lynched for stealing live stock, the remaining 86 per cent being\nlynched for causes that may be fairly classed under petty larceny.\n\nBy comparing Charts VIII and IX the characteristic differences in the\nreasons assigned for the lynching of Negroes and for the lynching of\nWhites and Others are readily seen. The larger number in each case is\nunder Murder, but further than that the order of the arrangement of the\ncauses does not agree. Rape which occupies second place in the chart for\nthe Negroes and is nearly equal to Murder, drops to third place on the\nchart for the Whites and Others. Comparatively speaking, Theft,\nparticularly the stealing of live stock, and Desperadism are much more\nimportant as causes for the lynching of Whites and Others than for the\nlynching of Negroes. In the case of the Negroes, Rape, Minor Offenses,\nand Arson are much more important as causes than in the case of the\nWhites and Others. Assault is also more important as a cause for\nlynching Negroes than for lynching Whites and Others.\n\nChart X shows the proportion lynched for various causes in the Southern\nGroup of States, 1882\u20131903, for Whites and Others. The majority of the\nWhites and Others that have been lynched in this section of the country\nhave been lynched for Murder. The numbers lynched for the various causes\nare as follows: Murder 321, Rape 69, Theft 63, Minor Offenses 42,\nDesperadism 30, Arson 19, Assault 6, Unknown 50. The percentages lynched\nfor the various causes are as follows: Murder 53.5 per cent, Rape 11.5\nper cent, Theft 10.5 per cent, Minor Offenses 7 per cent, Desperadism 5\nper cent, Arson 3.2 per cent, Assault 1 per cent, Unknown 8.3 per cent.\n\nChart XI shows the proportion lynched for various causes in the Southern\nGroup of States, 1882\u20131903, for Negroes. As might be expected, the\ncauses arrange themselves in the same order as in Chart IX. The numbers\nlynched for the various causes are as follows: Murder 753, Rape 675,\nMinor Offenses 206, Arson 104, Theft 96, Assault 46, Desperadism 18,\nUnknown 87. The percentages lynched for the various causes are as\nfollows: Murder 38 per cent, Rape 34 per cent, Minor Offenses 10.3 per\ncent, Arson 5.2 per cent, Theft 4.8 per cent, Assault 2.3 per cent,\nDesperadism .9 per cent, Unknown 4.3 per cent.\n\n[Illustration: IX. PROPORTION LYNCHED FOR VARIOUS CAUSES 1882\u20131903\nNEGROES]\n\n[Illustration: X. PROPORTION LYNCHED FOR VARIOUS CAUSES IN SOUTHERN\nSTATES 1882\u20131903 WHITES AND OTHERS]\n\nA comparison of Charts X and XI shows how greatly the lynching of\nNegroes in the South predominates over the lynching of Whites and\nOthers. Against 600 Whites and Others lynched during the twenty-two\nyears, 1,985 Negroes were lynched. With regard to the causes assigned\nfor the lynchings a wide variation is observed. Only 38 per cent of the\nNegroes, against 53.5 per cent of the Whites and Others, were lynched\nfor Murder. Rape stands next to Murder in order of importance in both\ncases, but while 34 per cent of the Negroes were lynched for Rape, only\n11.5 per cent of the Whites and Others were lynched for that cause.\nMinor Offenses, Arson, Theft, and Assault appear as of much more\nimportance as causes for the lynching of Negroes than for the lynching\nof Whites and Others.\n\nThose who assume that the majority of the negroes lynched in the South\nare lynched for the crime of rape against white women, and that the\nlynching of negroes is therefore justifiable, will find very little\nsatisfaction in an examination of Chart XI. In the classification of the\ncases the writer has put every case where both rape and murder were\nassigned as the cause, under Rape. It is possible that if a careful\ninvestigation were made of all the cases credited to Murder, it might be\nfound that the motive in some cases was rape but that the actual crime\ncommitted was murder, and that it was for rape as well as for murder\nthat the negroes in such cases were lynched. The lynchers may have\nconsidered themselves the avengers of the crime of rape as well as of\nthe crime of murder. The statistics, however, cannot be made to show\nthat more than thirty-four per cent of the negroes lynched in the South\nduring the last twenty-two years have been lynched for the crime of\nrape, either attempted, alleged, or actually committed; and it is safe\nto say that if rape were connected with the offense in any case, that\nfact would ordinarily be stated in the report.\n\nChart XII shows the proportion lynched for various causes in the Western\nGroup of States, 1882\u20131903. This chart covers the total number of\npersons lynched in that section of the country during the twenty-two\nyears, no distinction being made either as to race or nationality. The\nnumbers lynched for the various causes are as follows: Murder 279, Theft\n199, Desperadism 64, Rape 34, Arson 12, Minor Offenses 9, Assault 4,\nUnknown 31. The total number lynched for all causes is 632. The\npercentages lynched for the various causes are as follows: Murder 44.1\nper cent, Theft 31.5 per cent, Desperadism 10.1 per cent, Rape 5.4 per\ncent, Arson 1.9 per cent, Minor Offenses 1.4 per cent, Assault .6 per\ncent, Unknown 4.9 per cent. Lynchings for Theft and Desperadism are\nparticularly characteristic of the Western States. Of the 199 lynched\nfor Theft, 189 or 95 per cent were lynched for stealing live stock.\n\nChart XIII shows the proportion lynched for various causes in the\nEastern Group of States, 1882\u20131903. The chart covers the total number of\npersons, without distinction as to race or nationality, who have been\nlynched in that section of the country during the twenty-two years. The\nmajority have been lynched for Murder and Rape. The numbers lynched for\nthe various causes are as follows: Murder 58, Rape 38, Theft 7, Minor\nOffenses 3, Assault 2, Desperadism 1, Unknown 11. None were lynched for\nArson. The percentages lynched for the various causes are as follows:\nMurder 48.3 per cent, Rape 31.7 per cent, Theft 5.8 per cent, Minor\nOffenses 2.5 per cent, Assault 1.7 per cent, Desperadism .8 per cent,\nUnknown 9.1 per cent.\n\n[Illustration: XI. PROPORTION LYNCHED FOR VARIOUS CAUSES IN SOUTHERN\nSTATES 1882\u20131903 NEGROES]\n\n[Illustration: XII. PROPORTION LYNCHED FOR VARIOUS CAUSES IN WESTERN\nSTATES 1882\u20131903]\n\nThus far in this investigation the question of the distribution of\nlynchings has only entered to the extent of dividing the United States\ninto three sections, the Southern Group of States, the Western Group,\nand the Eastern Group.[218] The following tables show the distribution\nof lynchings by States on the basis of the number of persons lynched,\nthese persons being classified into Whites, Negroes and Others.\n\n NUMBER OF PERSONS LYNCHED IN SOUTHERN STATES, 1882\u20131903\n\n WHITES NEGROES OTHERS TOTAL\n\n Mississippi 39 294 1 334\n Texas 114 199 11 324\n Louisiana 34 232 19 285\n Georgia 28 241 269\n Alabama 46 198 244\n Arkansas 60 139 1 200\n Tennessee 49 150 199\n Kentucky 64 103 167\n Florida 19 115 134\n South Carolina 8 109 117\n Missouri 49 42 91\n Virginia 21 70 91\n North Carolina 15 48 1 64\n West Virginia 19 27 46\n Maryland 2 18 20\n \u2014\u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n Total 567 1985 33 2585\n\n NUMBER OF PERSONS LYNCHED IN WESTERN STATES, 1882\u20131903\n\n WHITES NEGROES OTHERS TOTAL\n\n Indian Territory (Oklahoma) 73 7 15 95\n Montana 80 1 4 85\n Colorado 55 3 6 64\n Nebraska 52 2 2 56\n Kansas 34 17 51\n California 29 12 41\n Wyoming 37 37\n Dakota (North and South) 28 1 6 35\n New Mexico 30 1 3 34\n Arizona 25 3 28\n Washington 20 6 26\n Idaho 14 5 19\n Oregon 15 1 3 19\n Iowa 15 1 16\n Alaska 4 4 8\n Utah 4 1 2 7\n Minnesota 5 1 6\n Nevada 3 2 5\n \u2014\u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014\u2014\n Total 523 34 75 632\n\n NUMBER OF PERSONS LYNCHED IN EASTERN STATES, 1882\u20131903\n\n WHITES NEGROES OTHERS TOTAL\n\n Indiana 41 11 52\n Ohio 10 11 21\n Illinois 11 10 21\n Michigan 7 1 8\n Pennsylvania 2 5 7\n Wisconsin 6 6\n New York 1 1 2\n New Jersey 1 1\n Connecticut 1 1\n Delaware 1 1\n \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 \u2014 \u2014\u2014\u2014\n Total 79 41 120\n\n TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONS LYNCHED, 1882\u20131903\n\n WHITES NEGROES OTHERS TOTAL\n\n Southern 567 1985 33 2585\n Western 523 34 75 632\n Eastern 79 41 120\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n Total 1169 2060 108 3337\n\n[Illustration: XIII. PROPORTION LYNCHED FOR VARIOUS CAUSES IN EASTERN\nSTATES 1882\u20131903]\n\nExcluding the New England States there are no States in the Union in\nwhich lynchings have not taken place during the last twenty-two years.\nIn forty-five of the States and Territories, as they are at present\norganized, one or more persons have been lynched during this period. In\nthe Southern Group of States more than three times as many negroes as\nwhites have been lynched. In Texas the \u201cOthers\u201d were Mexicans, with the\nexception of one Indian; in Louisiana the \u201cOthers\u201d were all Italians. In\nthe Western Group of States only about five per cent of the persons\nlynched were negroes while nearly twelve per cent were \u201cOthers,\u201d the\nmajority of whom were Indians, but there were also Chinamen, Mexicans,\nItalians, a Japanese, a Swiss, and a Bohemian. In the Eastern Group of\nStates about thirty-four per cent of the persons lynched were negroes\nand the rest were whites, there being no \u201cOthers.\u201d\n\nOnly one lynching with one person lynched is credited to the New England\nStates. In July, 1886, in Litchfield County, Connecticut, Charles\nLockwood, a farm-hand, was found early one morning hanging from the limb\nof a tree, evidently having been dead for several hours. According to\nthe New York Times,[219] public opinion was divided as to whether he had\nbeen lynched or had committed suicide. The coroner\u2019s verdict said that\nit was a case of suicide. To a disinterested party, however, the\nevidence appears very strong in favor of the former view. Lockwood had\nbrutally murdered \u201cpretty Mattie Randell,\u201d of Morris, Connecticut, and\nescaped. Searching parties were organized and were scouring the country,\nand feeling ran high in the community against him. Threats were\nrepeatedly made against his life. His body was found one morning\ndangling from the limb of a tree. In the writer\u2019s opinion, formed from\nreading various newspaper accounts of the occurrence, the Chicago\nTribune rightly included Charles Lockwood in the list of persons lynched\nin the year 1886.\n\nFor the purpose of studying the distribution of lynchings with a view to\ndetermining what particular characteristics of the population, if any,\npromote and foster the practice of lynching, it is the number of\nlynchings that have occurred in specified districts which should be\nconsidered rather than the number of persons who have been lynched in\nthose districts. Not infrequently several persons have been lynched at\none time and such cases would tend to vitiate any conclusions drawn from\nan investigation made on the basis of the number of persons lynched. The\ncircumstances which surround lynchings do not vary in any respect\naccording to the number of victims at particular lynchings. The\nfollowing tables have therefore been prepared to show the distribution\nof lynchings by States on the basis of the number of lynchings. In\nmaking up these figures it was found necessary to establish some\nstandard length of time for a lynching. There were a number of cases\nwhere persons were lynched on succeeding or subsequent days at or near\nthe same place, and the question arose as to whether there was one\nlynching or more than one lynching in such cases. It would seem that\nordinarily, if one whole day intervened between the lynching of one\nperson and the lynching of another person, sufficient time had elapsed\nfor the excitement over the lynching of the first person to abate\nsomewhat and that the lynching of the second person in such a case could\nnot rightfully be considered a part of the preceding act of mob\nviolence. Using this as a criterion, all cases in which persons were\nlynched on two succeeding days at or near the same place have been\nclassified as one lynching, but all cases in which at least a day\nintervened in the lynching of two or more persons at or near the same\nplace have been classified as two or more lynchings.\n\n NUMBER OF LYNCHINGS BY YEARS IN SOUTHERN STATES, 1882\u20131903\n\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\n \u2502\u201982\u2502\u201983\u2502\u201984\u2502\u201985\u2502\u201986\u2502\u201987\u2502\u201988\u2502\u201989\u2502\u201990\u2502\u201991\u2502\u201992\u2502\u201993\u2502\u201994\u2502\u201995\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Mississippi\u2502 3\u2502 10\u2502 10\u2502 12\u2502 12\u2502 10\u2502 10\u2502 22\u2502 11\u2502 20\u2502 11\u2502 12\u2502 14\u2502 13\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Georgia \u2502 3\u2502 5\u2502 5\u2502 9\u2502 6\u2502 4\u2502 12\u2502 9\u2502 17\u2502 11\u2502 13\u2502 11\u2502 16\u2502 14\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Texas \u2502 10\u2502 13\u2502 15\u2502 20\u2502 14\u2502 6\u2502 10\u2502 10\u2502 22\u2502 13\u2502 8\u2502 8\u2502 10\u2502 17\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Louisiana \u2502 5\u2502 3\u2502 5\u2502 2\u2502 6\u2502 9\u2502 7\u2502 8\u2502 8\u2502 14\u2502 18\u2502 12\u2502 11\u2502 4\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Alabama \u2502 5\u2502 4\u2502 3\u2502 4\u2502 4\u2502 4\u2502 9\u2502 6\u2502 8\u2502 14\u2502 14\u2502 17\u2502 12\u2502 10\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Tennessee \u2502 2\u2502 6\u2502 \u2502 9\u2502 6\u2502 4\u2502 6\u2502 5\u2502 8\u2502 12\u2502 20\u2502 14\u2502 12\u2502 11\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Arkansas \u2502 2\u2502 7\u2502 6\u2502 7\u2502 3\u2502 8\u2502 2\u2502 5\u2502 6\u2502 10\u2502 20\u2502 9\u2502 6\u2502 7\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Kentucky \u2502 6\u2502 4\u2502 6\u2502 3\u2502 5\u2502 6\u2502 6\u2502 8\u2502 5\u2502 7\u2502 9\u2502 11\u2502 16\u2502 12\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Florida \u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 2\u2502 3\u2502 4\u2502 3\u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 3\u2502 8\u2502 7\u2502 6\u2502 7\u2502 8\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n South \u2502 6\u2502 3\u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 4\u2502 2\u2502 2\u2502 5\u2502 4\u2502 1\u2502 5\u2502 11\u2502 5\u2502 5\n Carolina \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Missouri \u2502 3\u2502 2\u2502 3\u2502 6\u2502 4\u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 7\u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 5\u2502 4\u2502 5\u2502 4\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Virginia \u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 5\u2502 4\u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 3\u2502 7\u2502 3\u2502 4\u2502 5\u2502 8\u2502 5\u2502 2\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n North \u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 3\u2502 6\u2502 2\u2502 3\u2502 6\u2502 3\u2502 2\u2502 2\u2502 5\u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 1\n Carolina \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n West \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 3\u2502 3\u2502 2\u2502 4\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 5\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502\n Virginia \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Maryland \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 3\u2502 1\u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 3\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Total \u2502 50\u2502 61\u2502 68\u2502 90\u2502 76\u2502 66\u2502 78\u2502100\u2502 98\u2502120\u2502146\u2502125\u2502123\u2502111\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\n\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n \u2502\u201996\u2502\u201997\u2502\u201998\u2502\u201999\u2502\u201900\u2502\u201901\u2502\u201902\u2502\u201903\u2502Total\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Mississippi\u2502 6\u2502 15\u2502 12\u2502 11\u2502 15\u2502 11\u2502 9\u2502 14\u2502 263\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Georgia \u2502 8\u2502 13\u2502 12\u2502 17\u2502 14\u2502 13\u2502 9\u2502 10\u2502 231\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Texas \u2502 4\u2502 14\u2502 3\u2502 6\u2502 2\u2502 7\u2502 5\u2502 6\u2502 223\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Louisiana \u2502 21\u2502 10\u2502 8\u2502 9\u2502 9\u2502 14\u2502 10\u2502 11\u2502 204\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Alabama \u2502 13\u2502 16\u2502 8\u2502 5\u2502 8\u2502 12\u2502 4\u2502 2\u2502 182\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Tennessee \u2502 12\u2502 5\u2502 7\u2502 2\u2502 6\u2502 9\u2502 4\u2502 4\u2502 164\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Arkansas \u2502 4\u2502 10\u2502 10\u2502 5\u2502 6\u2502 5\u2502 6\u2502 10\u2502 154\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Kentucky \u2502 6\u2502 7\u2502 5\u2502 3\u2502 1\u2502 4\u2502 8\u2502 2\u2502 140\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Florida \u2502 7\u2502 6\u2502 1\u2502 4\u2502 7\u2502 5\u2502 3\u2502 6\u2502 95\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n South \u2502 4\u2502 6\u2502 5\u2502 1\u2502 2\u2502 5\u2502 2\u2502 5\u2502 85\n Carolina \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Missouri \u2502 5\u2502 3\u2502 5\u2502 3\u2502 2\u2502 4\u2502 4\u2502 3\u2502 76\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Virginia \u2502 \u2502 5\u2502 4\u2502 1\u2502 5\u2502 2\u2502 4\u2502 \u2502 73\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n North \u2502 1\u2502 2\u2502 2\u2502 2\u2502 3\u2502 1\u2502 3\u2502 1\u2502 53\n Carolina \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n West \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 34\n Virginia \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Maryland \u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 20\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Total \u2502 93\u2502113\u2502 85\u2502 70\u2502 83\u2502 93\u2502 73\u2502 75\u2502 1997\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n NUMBER OF LYNCHINGS BY YEARS IN WESTERN STATES, 1882\u20131903\n\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\n \u2502\u201982\u2502\u201983\u2502\u201984\u2502\u201985\u2502\u201986\u2502\u201987\u2502\u201988\u2502\u201989\u2502\u201990\u2502\u201991\u2502\u201992\u2502\u201993\u2502\u201994\u2502\u201995\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Indian \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 3\u2502 3\u2502 2\u2502 3\u2502 4\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 5\u2502 6\u2502 5\n Territory \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n (Oklahoma)\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Kansas \u2502 2\u2502 2\u2502 2\u2502 5\u2502 5\u2502 1\u2502 3\u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 3\u2502 3\u2502 3\u2502 1\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Nebraska \u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 6\u2502 1\u2502 3\u2502 4\u2502 4\u2502 6\u2502 2\u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 3\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Colorado \u2502 6\u2502 1\u2502 3\u2502 1\u2502 3\u2502 \u2502 4\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 2\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Montana \u2502 \u2502 5\u2502 9\u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 3\u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 3\u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n California \u2502 \u2502 3\u2502 2\u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 3\u2502 3\u2502 1\u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 4\u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 4\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n New Mexico \u2502 5\u2502 2\u2502 4\u2502 3\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 4\u2502 \u2502 1\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Dakota \u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 3\u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 3\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 1\n (North & \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n South) \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Washington \u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 2\u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 3\u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 1\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Arizona \u2502 4\u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Wyoming \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 3\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 4\u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Iowa \u2502 \u2502 3\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 2\u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Oregon \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 4\u2502 3\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Idaho \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Alaska \u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Minnesota \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Utah \u2502 \u2502 3\u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Nevada \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Total \u2502 25\u2502 27\u2502 40\u2502 29\u2502 16\u2502 16\u2502 28\u2502 22\u2502 12\u2502 16\u2502 18\u2502 22\u2502 17\u2502 18\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\n\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n \u2502\u201996\u2502\u201997\u2502\u201998\u2502\u201999\u2502\u201900\u2502\u201901\u2502\u201902\u2502\u201903\u2502Total\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Indian \u2502 4\u2502 1\u2502 3\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 3\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 47\n Territory \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n (Oklahoma)\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Kansas \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 3\u2502 1\u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 40\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Nebraska \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 35\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Colorado \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 3\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 32\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Montana \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 3\u2502 32\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n California \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 31\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n New Mexico \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 23\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Dakota \u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 20\n (North & \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n South) \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Washington \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 18\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Arizona \u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 17\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Wyoming \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 2\u2502 16\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Iowa \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 12\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Oregon \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 11\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Idaho \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 8\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Alaska \u2502 \u2502 3\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 6\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Minnesota \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 5\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Utah \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 5\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Nevada \u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 5\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Total \u2502 7\u2502 11\u2502 8\u2502 4\u2502 4\u2502 10\u2502 5\u2502 8\u2502 363\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n NUMBER OF LYNCHINGS BY YEARS IN EASTERN STATES, 1882\u20131903\n\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\n \u2502\u201982\u2502\u201983\u2502\u201984\u2502\u201985\u2502\u201986\u2502\u201987\u2502\u201988\u2502\u201989\u2502\u201990\u2502\u201991\u2502\u201992\u2502\u201993\u2502\u201994\u2502\u201995\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Indiana \u2502 4\u2502 3\u2502 3\u2502 \u2502 5\u2502 5\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 4\u2502 3\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 2\u2502\n Ohio \u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 3\u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 4\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 2\n Illinois \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 1\n Michigan \u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502\n Pennsylvania\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502\n Wisconsin \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502\n New York \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Connecticut \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Delaware \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n New Jersey \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Total \u2502 7\u2502 7\u2502 6\u2502 5\u2502 10\u2502 6\u2502 5\u2502 4\u2502 4\u2502 10\u2502 6\u2502 5\u2502 7\u2502 3\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\n\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n \u2502\u201996\u2502\u201997\u2502\u201998\u2502\u201999\u2502\u201900\u2502\u201901\u2502\u201902\u2502\u201903\u2502Total\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Indiana \u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 40\n Ohio \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 20\n Illinois \u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 2\u2502 3\u2502 20\n Michigan \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 7\n Pennsylvania\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 7\n Wisconsin \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 6\n New York \u2502 1\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 2\n Connecticut \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\n Delaware \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\u2502 1\n New Jersey \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Total \u2502 3\u2502 3\u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 4\u2502 4\u2502 105\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n TOTAL NUMBER OF LYNCHINGS BY YEARS, 1882\u20131903\n\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\n \u2502\u201982\u2502\u201983\u2502\u201984\u2502\u201985\u2502\u201986\u2502\u201987\u2502\u201988\u2502\u201989\u2502\u201990\u2502\u201991\u2502\u201992\u2502\u201993\u2502\u201994\u2502\u201995\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Southern \u2502 50\u2502 61\u2502 68\u2502 90\u2502 76\u2502 66\u2502 78\u2502100\u2502 98\u2502120\u2502146\u2502125\u2502123\u2502111\n States \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Western \u2502 25\u2502 27\u2502 40\u2502 29\u2502 16\u2502 16\u2502 28\u2502 22\u2502 12\u2502 16\u2502 18\u2502 22\u2502 17\u2502 18\n States \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Eastern \u2502 7\u2502 7\u2502 6\u2502 5\u2502 10\u2502 6\u2502 5\u2502 4\u2502 4\u2502 10\u2502 6\u2502 5\u2502 7\u2502 3\n States \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Total \u2502 82\u2502 95\u2502114\u2502124\u2502102\u2502 88\u2502101\u2502126\u2502114\u2502146\u2502170\u2502152\u2502147\u2502132\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\n\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n \u2502\u201996\u2502\u201997\u2502\u201998\u2502\u201999\u2502\u201900\u2502\u201901\u2502\u201902\u2502\u201903\u2502Total\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Southern \u2502 93\u2502113\u2502 85\u2502 70\u2502 83\u2502 93\u2502 73\u2502 75\u2502 1997\n States \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Western \u2502 7\u2502 11\u2502 8\u2502 4\u2502 4\u2502 10\u2502 5\u2502 8\u2502 363\n States \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Eastern \u2502 3\u2502 3\u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 2\u2502 1\u2502 4\u2502 4\u2502 105\n States \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Total \u2502103\u2502127\u2502 95\u2502 75\u2502 89\u2502104\u2502 82\u2502 87\u2502 2465\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n\nIf much that has been said and written in recent years on the subject of\nlynching is true; if the presence of the colored race, because of the\ncharacter of the crimes which negroes commit, is largely responsible for\nthe practice of lynching; if the immigration into this country of \u201cthe\nscum of Europe\u201d is also responsible for the practice; if lynching is, in\naddition, a relic of barbarism and a sign of degeneracy in American\ncivilization,\u2014then there ought to be some correlation between the\ndistribution of lynchings and the proportion of the white element to the\ncolored and the foreign elements in the population, and also between the\ndistribution of lynchings and the degree of illiteracy in the\npopulation. With this idea in mind an attempt has been made to find out\nwhether any such correlations exist with reference to the lynchings that\nhave occurred during the last twenty-two years in the Southern Group of\nStates and in the three States of the Eastern Group in which lynchings\nhave been most numerous. In the following table the percentage which the\ntotal number of lynchings bears to the total population of these several\nStates has been placed alongside the percentage of the negroes in the\npopulation, the percentage of foreign born in the population, and the\npercentage of illiterates in the population. In the same table also\nthere have been given the percentage of the persons lynched in these\nseveral States who were whites, and the percentage of the persons\nlynched who were negroes.\n\nFrom this table there appears to be no distinct correlation between the\ndistribution of lynchings and the percentage of negroes in the\npopulation. In a general way the percentage of lynchings to the\npopulation is highest in the States where the negro element is largest,\nbut Virginia, North Carolina, and notably South Carolina, are\nexceptions. So far as any correlation at all can be traced between the\npercentage of lynchings and the percentage of foreign born, the latter\nvaries inversely to the former. The percentage of illiterates varies\nfrom State to State in about the same way that the percentage of negroes\ndoes; and hence there is the same general conclusion to be drawn with\nreference to the correlation of lynchings to illiteracy as with\nreference to the correlation of lynchings to the percentage of negroes,\nnamely, that there is no distinct correlation. When the percentage of\nthe persons lynched who were negroes is compared with the percentage of\nnegroes in the population, however, it is at once apparent that there is\na correlation between them. If plotted graphically the lines\nrepresenting the two percentages would rise and fall in almost perfect\nuniformity, only Georgia and Tennessee presenting slight exceptions to\nthe general tendency.\n\n\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n \u2502 PER CENT \u2502 PER CENT \u2502 PER CENT\n \u2502 OF \u2502OF WHITES \u2502OF NEGROES\n \u2502LYNCHINGS \u2502 IN \u2502 IN\n \u2502 TO \u2502POPULATION\u2502POPULATION\n \u2502POPULATION\u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 1900 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n \u2502 \u25021890\u25021900 \u25021890\u25021900\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Mississippi\u2502 .0169\u250242.2\u2502 41.3\u250257.6\u2502 58.5\n Georgia \u2502 .0104\u250253.2\u2502 53.3\u250246.7\u2502 46.7\n Texas \u2502 .0073\u250278.1\u2502 79.6\u250221.8\u2502 20.4\n Louisiana \u2502 .0147\u250249.9\u2502 52.8\u250250.0\u2502 47.1\n Alabama \u2502 .0099\u250255.1\u2502 54.7\u250244.8\u2502 45.2\n Tennessee \u2502 .0081\u250275.6\u2502 76.2\u250224.4\u2502 23.8\n Arkansas \u2502 .0117\u250272.6\u2502 72.0\u250227.4\u2502 28.0\n Kentucky \u2502 .0065\u250285.6\u2502 86.7\u250214.4\u2502 13.3\n Florida \u2502 .0179\u250257.5\u2502 56.3\u250242.5\u2502 43.7\n South \u2502 .0063\u250240.1\u2502 41.6\u250259.8\u2502 58.4\n Carolina \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Missouri \u2502 .0024\u250294.4\u2502 94.8\u2502 5.6\u2502 5.2\n Virginia \u2502 .0039\u250261.6\u2502 64.3\u250238.4\u2502 35.6\n North \u2502 .0027\u250265.2\u2502 66.7\u250234.7\u2502 33.0\n Carolina \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n West \u2502 .0035\u250295.7\u2502 95.5\u2502 4.3\u2502 4.5\n Virginia \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Maryland \u2502 .0016\u250279.3\u2502 80.2\u250220.7\u2502 19.8\n Indiana \u2502 .0015\u250297.9\u2502 97.7\u2502 2.1\u2502 2.3\n Ohio \u2502 .0004\u250297.6\u2502 97.7\u2502 2.4\u2502 2.3\n Illinois \u2502 .0004\u250298.5\u2502 98.2\u2502 1.5\u2502 1.8\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n \u2502 PER \u2502 PER \u2502 PER CENT \u2502 PER CENT OF\n \u2502CENT OF\u2502CENT OF\u2502OF FOREIGN\u2502ILLITERATES IN\n \u2502LYNCHED\u2502LYNCHED\u2502 BORN IN \u2502 POPULATION\n \u2502 WHO \u2502 WHO \u2502POPULATION\u2502\n \u2502 WERE \u2502 WERE \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502WHITES \u2502NEGROES\u2502 \u2502\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n \u2502 \u2502 \u25021890\u25021900 \u25021800\u25021900[220]\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Mississippi\u2502 11.67\u2502 88.02\u2502 0.6\u2502 0.5\u250240.0\u2502 32.0\n Georgia \u2502 10.40\u2502 89.59\u2502 0.7\u2502 0.6\u250239.8\u2502 30.5\n Texas \u2502 35.18\u2502 61.41\u2502 6.8\u2502 5.9\u250219.7\u2502 14.5\n Louisiana \u2502 11.92\u2502 81.40\u2502 4.4\u2502 3.8\u250245.8\u2502 38.5\n Alabama \u2502 18.85\u2502 81.14\u2502 1.0\u2502 0.8\u250241.0\u2502 34.0\n Tennessee \u2502 24.62\u2502 75.37\u2502 1.1\u2502 0.9\u250226.6\u2502 20.7\n Arkansas \u2502 30.0\u2502 69.5\u2502 1.3\u2502 1.1\u250226.6\u2502 20.4\n Kentucky \u2502 38.32\u2502 61.67\u2502 3.2\u2502 2.3\u250221.6\u2502 16.5\n Florida \u2502 14.17\u2502 85.82\u2502 5.9\u2502 4.5\u250227.8\u2502 21.9\n South \u2502 6.83\u2502 93.16\u2502 0.5\u2502 0.4\u250245.0\u2502 35.9\n Carolina \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Missouri \u2502 53.84\u2502 46.15\u2502 8.8\u2502 7.0\u2502 9.1\u2502 6.4\n Virginia \u2502 23.07\u2502 76.92\u2502 1.1\u2502 1.0\u250230.2\u2502 22.9\n North \u2502 23.43\u2502 75.0\u2502 0.2\u2502 0.2\u250235.7\u2502 28.7\n Carolina \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n West \u2502 41.30\u2502 58.69\u2502 2.5\u2502 2.3\u250211.4\u2502 2.5\n Virginia \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Maryland \u2502 10.0\u2502 90.0\u2502 9.0\u2502 7.9\u250215.7\u2502 11.1\n Indiana \u2502 78.8\u2502 21.1\u2502 6.7\u2502 5.6\u2502 6.3\u2502 4.6\n Ohio \u2502 47.6\u2502 52.3\u250212.5\u2502 11.0\u2502 5.2\u2502 4.0\n Illinois \u2502 52.3\u2502 47.6\u250222.0\u2502 20.1\u2502 5.2\u2502 4.2\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2567\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n\nFor the purpose of further investigating the subject of the distribution\nof lynchings in relation to particular characteristics of the\npopulation, the lynchings which have occurred during the last twenty-two\nyears in the Southern Group of States and in the three States of the\nEastern Group in which lynchings have been most numerous were classified\naccording to the counties in which they occurred in these several\nStates. On the basis of this classification a careful study was made of\nthe same characteristics of the population by counties as were\nconsidered above with reference to the population by States. The\npercentage of lynchings to the population in the several counties where\nlynchings have taken place was compared with the percentage of negroes,\nthe percentage of foreign born, and the percentage of illiterates in\nthose several counties.[221] To facilitate comparison, trial charts were\ndrawn on which the percentages were plotted in graphic form, and the\nresults were carefully noted.\n\nIn the comparison of the percentage of lynchings with the percentage of\nnegroes in the population by counties no correlation can be clearly\ndistinguished. In many counties where the negroes constitute between\nsixty per cent and eighty per cent of the population the percentage of\nlynchings is high, but there are also numerous exceptions.\n\nIn the comparison of the percentage of lynchings with the percentage of\nforeign born in the population by counties there appears to be no\ndistinguishable correlation. It is shown pretty conclusively, however,\nthat there is no tendency for the percentage of lynchings to increase\nwhere the percentage of foreign born in the population is large.\n\nIn the comparison of the percentage of lynchings with the percentage of\nilliterates in the population by counties there appears to be not the\nslightest correlation.\n\nThe net result of this investigation into some characteristics of the\npopulation in relation to the distribution of lynchings is negative\nrather than positive. The proportion between the white and colored\nelements in the population does not seem to affect the prevalence of\nlynchings. It is only the proportion of whites lynched to negroes\nlynched that seems to bear any relation to the proportion between the\nwhite and colored elements in the population. The percentage of foreign\nborn in the population does not seem to influence the prevalence of\nlynchings and there is not the slightest indication that the practice of\nlynching is anything else than a thoroughly American practice. So far as\nthe percentage of illiterates in the population is an indication of the\ndegree of culture and civilization possessed by a community, it does not\nappear that lynchings are confined to backward communities. The\ndeductions which may be drawn as a result of this investigation afford\nno explanation why, for instance, a greater number of lynchings occurred\nin Decatur County, Georgia, than in any other county in that State, or\nwhy there were ten lynchings in Dallas County, Alabama, but only one\nlynching in Lowndes, an adjoining county. It is probably true that the\ndistribution of lynchings is largely affected by entirely local\nconditions, conditions which cannot be represented by statistics.[222]\n\nIn this chapter nothing has been said about the methods adopted for\nlynching during the twenty-two-year period. In the record of lynchings\npublished by the Chicago Tribune no mention is made of the manner of\ndeath which the victims suffered. It is probably true that most of the\nlynchings were either by hanging or by shooting, or by both hanging and\nshooting. Additional indignities and cruelties have not infrequently\nbeen inflicted, however, and there have been a number of cases where the\nvictims have been burned alive. The following cases of lynching by\nburning alive have come to the writer\u2019s notice: in 1884, one in Texas;\nin 1891, one in Texas, one in Louisiana; in 1892, one in Arkansas; in\n1893, one in Texas; in 1894, one in Kentucky; in 1895, one in Texas; in\n1897, one in North Carolina; in 1899, one in Georgia, one in\nMississippi, one in Kentucky; in 1901, one in Kansas; in 1902, three in\nMississippi, one in Arkansas, one in Texas, one in Colorado; in 1903,\none in Illinois, one in Delaware; in 1904, one in Mississippi, one in\nGeorgia, at each of which two persons were burned at the stake, in the\nformer instance one of them being a woman. In all these cases the\nvictims were negroes and they were believed to be either guilty of\nseveral crimes or of a single atrocious crime. The majority were lynched\nfor the double crime of rape, or attempted rape, and murder.\n\nIf these cases of burning alive form a list that is at all complete,\nthere is ground for believing that as the practice of lynching continues\nthe punishments inflicted tend to increase in severity and the victims\nare tortured more and more before death comes to their relief.\n\nWhile the exact figures have been given in this investigation of\nlynchings in recent years based on the Chicago Tribune record, it is to\nbe remembered that these figures are probably only approximations. It is\nextremely doubtful whether exactly 3,337 persons have been lynched in\nthe United States during the last twenty-two years, or whether there\nhave been exactly 2,465 lynchings. It is probable, however, that these\napproximations are as nearly correct and as reliable as any that we\nshall ever get, and there seems to be no reason why they should not form\na sound basis for the statistical study attempted in this chapter.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII\n LYNCH-LAW AND ITS JUSTIFICATION\n\n\nFor more than a century the principle laid down by the legislature of\nVirginia has been appealed to as a justification for recourse to\nlynch-law. In Revolutionary times it was held that the immediate urgency\nand imminent danger of the situation justified the summary and\nextra-legal measures that were taken to suppress conspiracies against\nAmerican patriots. On the frontier it was urged that the imminence of\nthe danger warranted summary procedure against desperadoes and\nmarauders, at first merely whipping and banishment, later hanging and\nsummary execution. In the time of the anti-slavery agitation\ncircumstances had arisen under which measures, though not strictly\nwarranted by law, were held to be justifiable from the nature of the\noffense. In the opinion of the slave-holder summary treatment in the\nform of flogging, tarring and feathering, and banishing the abolitionist\nwas wholly justifiable. The doctrine that \u201cwhen the law is inefficient\nto take hold of a man the people should\u201d was again and again referred to\nin support of the summary punishment of the abolitionists.\n\nHidden away in Judge Lawless\u2019s charge to the St. Louis grand jury is the\nsame principle.[223] If the lawless violence was the work of the \u201cmany,\u201d\nif it was committed by a representative number of the citizens while in\na state of frenzy and excitement, it must be considered beyond the reach\nof human law. In 1839, W. E. Channing stated the principle in the\nfollowing words: \u201cUndoubtedly there may be crimes, so unnatural, so\nterrible to a community, that a people may be forgiven, if, deeming the\nusual forms of justice too slow, they assume the perilous office of\ninflicting speedy punishment.... There is, indeed, as I have intimated,\none case where popular commotion does comparatively little harm, I mean\nthat which is excited by some daring crime, which the laws sternly\nforbid, and which sends an electric thrill of horror through a virtuous\ncommunity. In such a case, the public without law do the work of law,\nand enforce those natural, eternal principles of right, on which all\nlegislation should rest.\u201d[224]\n\nGovernor Lynch, of Mississippi, in his message to the State legislature\nin 1836, used the following language with reference to the hanging of\nthe Vicksburg gamblers: \u201cHowever we may regret the occasion, we are\nconstrained to admit that necessity will sometimes prompt a summary mode\nof trial and punishment unknown to the law.\u201d[225]\n\nA few years later Captain Marryat wrote:\n\n \u201cEnglishmen express their surprise that in a moral community such a\n monstrosity as Lynch law should exist; but although the present\n system, which has been derived from the original Lynch law, cannot be\n too severely condemned, it must, in justice to the Americans, be\n considered that the original custom of Lynch law was forced upon them\n by circumstances.... In its origin the practice was no more blameable\n than were the laws established by the Pilgrim fathers on their first\n landing at Plymouth, or any law enacted amongst a community left to\n themselves, their own resources, and their own guidance and\n government. Lynch law, as at first constituted, was nothing more than\n punishment awarded to offenders by a community who had been injured,\n and who had no law to refer to, and could have no redress if they did\n not take the law into their own hands; the _present_ system of Lynch\n law is, on the contrary, an illegal exercise of the power of the\n majority in opposition to and defiance of the laws of the country, and\n the measure of justice administered and awarded by those laws.\n\n \u201cIt must be remembered that fifty years ago, there were but few white\n men to the westward of the Alleghany Mountains; that the States of\n Kentucky and Tennessee were at that time as scanty in population as\n even now are the districts of Ioway and Columbia; that by the\n institutions of the Union a district required a certain number of\n inhabitants before it could be acknowledged as even a district; and\n that previous to such acknowledgment, the people who had _squatted_ on\n the land had no claim to protection or law. It must also be borne in\n mind, that these distant territories offered an asylum to many who\n fled from the vengeance of the laws, men without principle, thieves,\n rogues, and vagabonds, who escaping there, would often interfere with\n the happiness and peace of some small yet well-conducted community,\n which had migrated and settled on these fertile regions. These\n communities had no appeal against personal violence, no protection\n from rapacity and injustice. They were not yet within the pale of the\n Union....\n\n \u201cIt was, therefore, to remedy the defect of there being no established\n law, that Lynch law, as it is termed, was applied to; without it, all\n security, all social happiness would have been in a state of abeyance.\n By degrees, all disturbers of the public peace, all offenders against\n justice met with their deserts; and it is a query, whether on its\n first institution, any law from the bench was more honestly and\n impartially administered than this very Lynch law, which has now had\n its name prostituted by the most barbarous excesses and contemptuous\n violation of all law whatever. The examples I am able to bring forward\n of Lynch law, in its primitive state, will all be found to have been\n based upon necessity, and a due regard to morals and to justice.\u201d[226]\n\nIn 1843 the practice of employing lynch-law in frontier settlements was\njustified in the following way: \u201cUntil the law ... is completely\nestablished the Lynch tribunals assert a concurrent jurisdiction, so to\nspeak, with the ordinary courts; and this jurisdiction they preserve\nuntil the population loses the habit of resorting thereto, and acquires\nthat of confiding in the protection afforded by the legal tribunals; a\nchange of habit which takes place, we believe, as soon as those\ntribunals have power to protect. In a new and thinly peopled country\nevery man feels that he may at any time be called upon to act as his own\nprotector. A habit of self-reliance is thus generated which time alone\ncan convert into a habit of relying upon the law.\u201d[227]\n\nIn a book descriptive of border life in Texas, which was published in\n1852, the frontier type of lynch-law received the following\njustification:\n\n \u201cIt is the stern primary law of self-preservation\u2014this border custom\n of bringing criminals before the whole body of citizens for\n judgment\u2014from which men sitting beside law-guarded hearths recoil in\n dismay, and hearing only its cruel side, stigmatize as the utterly\n unpardonable Lynch Law. Most true it is, that nothing but urgent and\n deplorable necessity will drive a just and merciful man to participate\n in its tribunals, but it is not less true that in frontier\n settlements, if the fear of its quick vengeance did not overawe the\n wicked, the innocent and peaceful would be in hourly danger of wrong\n and outrage....\n\n \u201cThe wild verdicts borderers sometimes enact, in the faith that they\n are just and needful, sound uncouthly to those fenced round with\n regular courts, and must seem dreadful to Christian men accustomed to\n the solemn decorum with which constituted courts deal out their legal\n awards of chains, lashes, and hangings; yet, seen close at hand, with\n a knowledge of the situation of the community, and of the life and\n deeds of the evil-doer, many of Judge Lynch\u2019s verdicts will appear\n more just and necessary than half of the sentences of the regular\n courts....\n\n \u201cStatute law is but the formal expression of what the larger community\n deems wisest and most just for the general welfare, the small, crude,\n remote settlement does the same for itself; only without writing down\n its enactments, and in the more summary way enforced by its peculiar\n situation. It has no prison houses in which to detain a criminal, no\n courts in which to try him, no funds wherewith to support him in long\n duress. If a crime is committed the accused has the whole community\n for judges and jury, and if he is found guilty by common suffrage they\n proceed to execute the verdict.\u201d[228]\n\nAnother writer carries the vindication of the frontiersmen and pioneers\nstill further by attributing culpability to the United States government\nfor not providing remote settlements with legal tribunals, so that\nrecourse to lynch-law would have been unnecessary. He writes: \u201cThe\ngreater share of the sin and disgrace falls upon the government, which\nleaves to its citizens a heavy and responsible office, that ought to be\nguarded by all the solemnities and securities of law.\u201d[229]\n\nSuch are the arguments and the lines of reasoning by which the operation\nof lynch-law previous to the Civil War was generally justified.[230]\nVindication was urged on grounds of necessity or self-preservation and\nthe nature of the offense, and it was lynch-law as applied to whites\nthat was thus vindicated.\n\nThe anti-slavery agitation and the emancipation of the slaves brought to\nthe support of lynch-law procedure another factor\u2014that of race\nprejudice. The number of negroes lynched in recent years as compared\nwith the number of whites lynched has indicated so clearly the existence\nof race prejudice that many writers have given to it the chief place\namong the causes of lynchings. It is a mistake, however, to consider\nthis race prejudice as of recent origin in the United States.\n\nRace prejudice between the whites and the negroes in this country began\nwith the landing of the first ship-load of slaves in Virginia. In\ndescribing the condition of the negroes in the colony of Virginia,\nGeorge W. Williams says: \u201cIt was not a mitigating circumstance that the\nwhite servants of the colony who came into natural contact with the\nNegroes were \u2018disorderly persons,\u2019 or convicts sent to Virginia by an\norder of the King of England. It was fixed by public sentiment and law\nthat there should be no relation between the races. The first\nprohibition was made September 17, 1630. Hugh Davis, a white servant,\nwas publicly flogged \u2018before an assembly of Negroes and others,\u2019 for\ndefiling himself with a Negro. It was also required that he should\nconfess as much on the following Sabbath.... All intercourse was cut off\nbetween the races. Intermarrying of whites and blacks was prohibited by\nsevere laws. And the most common civilities and amenities were frowned\ndown when intended for a Negro. The plantation was as religious as the\nChurch, and the Church was as secular as the plantation. The \u2018white\nChristians\u2019 hated the Negro, and the Church bestowed upon him a most\nbountiful amount of neglect.\u201d[231]\n\nThe importation of negroes from Africa into this country brought a\nstream of racial heredity from the torrid zone to mingle with a similar\nstream which had its origin and development in the north temperate zone.\nWhen these two streams met, the chief characteristics of the former\nwere: civilization of a very low level; no letters or art or science,\nlanguage in the agglutinative state; industries confined to a very\nelementary agriculture, fishing, a little hunting, and some simple\nhandicrafts; no religion except that which explains all natural\nphenomena by reference to spirits, mostly ill-disposed towards man;\nphysical and psychic characteristics substantially uniform, only trained\nobservers being able to detect differences here and there. The stream\nfrom the north temperate zone, on the contrary, was characterized by an\nhereditary endowment delicately adjusted to the highest civilization\nrecorded in history. A difference and contrast better adapted to\nbringing about racial antagonism can scarcely be conceived.[232]\n\nOn both physical and psychic grounds there is reason for an antagonistic\nfeeling between the white race and the black race. Physically there is\ngreat diversity between the racial types of the two races. The color of\nthe negro\u2019s skin, his kinky hair, and his general physiognomy,\nespecially his flat nose and protruding lips with receding (actual or\napparent) forehead,\u2014all are widely diverse from the white man\u2019s standard\nof beauty and symmetry. Measured by the Caucasian ideal the features of\nthe negro are coarse and animal-like. To most white persons, also, the\nodor arising from an assemblage of negroes is extremely disagreeable,\nand some negroes say that they find the odor of white persons similarly\ndistasteful.[233] With reference to the psychic characteristics of the\ntwo races, their intellectual and moral traits, there is even greater\ndiversity. In their religion, and essential manners, customs, and habits\nof thought, the differences are so great as to constitute almost\nopposite extremes. There is a total lack of anything like a community of\ninterest between the two races. Members of the white race and of the\nblack race do not find satisfaction in intermarriage and mingling\ntogether around the hearthstone. The whites and the blacks never have\nassociated and do not to-day associate together in public and in private\nas one people.[234]\n\nWhen two races, occupying the same territory and living side by side,\ndiffer so widely in their physical features, in their interests and in\ntheir attainments, as do the white and colored races in this country, it\nis most natural and indeed almost inevitable that prejudice should arise\nbetween them. The institution of slavery has no doubt created a caste\nfeeling on the part of the master race, and yet this is but the\nstrengthening and deepening of a natural race antipathy, the causes for\nwhich are evident. Slavery merely intensified a feeling that was due to\nother causes. It is an error to say that slavery has been the cause of\nall the prejudice against the negro.[235] It is true that the black race\nlong wore the chain of slavery and was regarded as an inferior race, and\nthis was true in the United States as well as elsewhere; but the reason\nfor the antagonistic feeling lies deeper than that fact.[236]\n\nAn indication of the existence of racial prejudice during the period of\nslavery is found in a report adopted at the \u201cSecond Annual Convention of\nthe People of Color\u201d which met at Philadelphia in June, 1832. This\nconvention, composed of free negroes, adopted a resolution in which the\nfollowing passage occurs: \u201cThe recent occurrences at the South have\nswelled the tide of prejudice until it has almost revolutionized public\nsentiment, which has given birth to severe legislative enactments in\nsome of the States, and almost ruined our interests and prospects in\nothers, in which, in the opinion of your Committee, our situation is\nmore precarious than it has been at any other period since the\nDeclaration of Independence. The events of the past year have been more\nfruitful in persecution, and have presented more inducements than any\nother period of the history of our country, for the men of color to fly\nfrom the graves of their fathers, and seek new homes in a land where the\nroaring billows of prejudice are less injurious to their rights and\nprivileges.\u201d[237]\n\nTo this view of the matter there is an apparent objection. It would seem\nthat if race prejudice existed during the time of slavery, it should\nhave manifested itself in the form of summary treatment of the negroes\nmore frequently than it did. In general, however, there was no occasion\nfor its manifestation. So long as the blacks were valuable as slaves and\naccepted their inferior position without protest, no one wanted to get\nrid of them or put them to death. The fact that slaves were property,\nand in that capacity were amenable to the laws, made recourse to\nunlawful procedure against them both unwise and unnecessary. It was only\nin cases of insurrection among the slaves, or when some especially\nbrutal and barbarous crime was committed by a negro, that summary\nmeasures were adopted prior to the Civil War. At such times negroes were\nkilled without mercy, sometimes they were tortured and their bodies\nmutilated while still alive, and occasionally they were burned to death.\nBut these were extraordinary occasions; ordinarily the law was allowed\nto take its course.[238]\n\nA careful study of the relations which existed between the two races\nfrom 1619 to 1860 will reveal the presence of more or less racial\nantipathy. The institution of slavery, however, acted as a check to the\nmanifestation of this antagonistic feeling as regards the manner of\nprocedure for the punishment of negroes accused of serious offenses.\n\u201cSlavery was, in its way, a thoroughgoing school; the negro race was\neducated in the cotton-fields and cabins of the South. In the Old South\nthere was very little negro crime and no negro idleness. The negro\nworked under direction; he was taught how to work; he cheerfully\naccepted his work, and he was the soul of fidelity, as the history of\nthe war proved.\u201d[239] Restraints were placed around him; he received\nprotection and guardianship; and, above all, he received an industrial\ntraining which gave him some degree of control over his own impulses and\nactions. He was looked upon and governed as a child, and he was punished\nas a child when he committed a breach of the peace or some serious\noffense against person or property. The legal procedure for the\npunishment of negroes, based upon the property right in slaves, was in\nperfect accord with the order of society that had been established\nduring two hundred years or more of slavery.\n\nWhen the institution of slavery was attacked in the early thirties and\nduring the years of controversy which followed, and still more when it\nwas finally overthrown in the sixties, race prejudice began to manifest\nitself in the manner of treatment accorded negro criminals. By the\nemancipation of the slaves in 1863, under the existing conditions,\nabsolutely no restriction was left upon its manifestation, for the\nproperty right in the negro had been swept away and the great mass of\nthe negroes, finding all the old restraints suddenly removed, naturally\nmistook liberty for license and committed many excesses. Large numbers\nof negroes ceased to work. \u201cThe worst instincts of the negro came to the\nfront; the percentage of criminals among negroes increased to an\nalarming extent; many were guilty of crimes of violence of the most\nheinous and repulsive kind.\u201d[240] The result of emancipation had not\nbeen fully anticipated and no adequate legal provision was made for the\ncontrol of the freedmen. The foundation had been removed from the old\nlegal system and no new system was established in the place of the old\none which to any degree could cope with the condition of affairs.\n\nFurther, not only did the emancipation of the slaves leave no\nrestriction upon the manifestation of race prejudice in the form of\nsummary procedure against negro criminals, but the sudden elevation of\nthe negroes to political equality with the whites directly encouraged\nits display. \u201cTwo hundred years or more of slavery educated both the\nwhite and the black to a fixed order of society, in which the negro was\nthe servant and the white man the master. In one generation, through as\ndevastating a war as any country ever experienced, slavery was\nabolished, the vast property interests in the slave destroyed, the\nstructure of society reversed, the master put at the bottom and the\nslave at the top.\u201d[241] In the light of subsequent history a greater\nmistake could scarcely have been made than that of giving the elective\nfranchise to the newly emancipated slave. He was far from being a fully\ndeveloped man capable of exercising the duties of citizenship in a\ndemocratic government, but in the legal institutions which were\nestablished in the South during the period of Reconstruction it was\nassumed that he was entitled to an equal share in the government with\nhis former master. A legal system was established which had no basis in\nthe order of society then existing. The result was enmity and bitterness\nbetween whites and blacks at a time when there should have been sympathy\nand forbearance, and summary and illegal measures were adopted by the\nwhites to prevent negro domination.\n\nAny one who would deal intelligently with the questions presenting\nthemselves in the South to-day must recognize the existence of a racial\nprejudice. In some respects it is an unreasoning prejudice, a prejudice\nin the extreme sense of the word, but there is also a real and\nsubstantial basis for such racial antipathy, and it is a feeling which\nis not likely to disappear for generations to come. It must be taken\ninto account in the consideration of all remedies proposed for existing\nevils in the South. It is something that cannot be removed by\nlegislative enactments; neither can it be destroyed by constant crying\nout against it. While it does not justify the lynching of negroes, it\ndoes furnish a standpoint from which justification is easy, and it is a\nfact which makes the prevention of such lynchings extremely difficult,\nparticularly where brutal crimes are committed upon whites by negroes.\n\nThe commonest justification for lynching negroes in recent years, the\nplausibility of which rests very largely on race prejudice, is the crime\nof rape as directed against white women. According to Tillinghast this\ncrime has come into existence since the Civil War, and its perpetrators\nare overcome in many cases by primitive passions which master the\ncriminal\u2019s whole being, a great fear being present also which impels to\nmurder.[242] Strictly speaking, this crime has not come into existence\nsince the Civil War. It is not a new crime to the negro. It has merely\nincreased and become more common along with the general increase in\ncriminality manifest in the negro race since emancipation.[243]\n\nIn colonial times laws were in force in a number of the colonies\nproviding for the punishment of rape committed by negroes on white\nwomen, and there were numerous instances of the perpetration of this\ncrime.[244]\n\nIn the year 1705 the Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania enacted\nthat \u201cWHEREAS some Difficulties have arisen within this Province, about\nthe Manner of Trial and Punishment of _Negroes_ committing Murder,\nManslaughter, Buggery, Burglary, Rapes, Attempts of Rapes ... it shall\nand may be lawful for two justices of the Peace of this Province, who\nshall be particularly commissionated by the Governor for that Service,\nwithin the respective Counties thereof, and Six of the most substantial\nFreeholders of the Neighbourhood to hear, examine, try and determine ...\nand shall be punished by Death. And for an Attempt of Rape or Ravishment\non any white Woman or Maid, and for robbing, stealing, or fraudulently\ntaking and carrying away any Goods, living or dead, above the Value of\n_Five Pounds_, every _Negroe_, upon Conviction of any of said Crimes,\nshall be whipped Thirty-nine Lashes, and branded on the Forehead with\nthe Letter R or T, and exported out of this Province by the Master or\nOwner, within Six Months after Conviction, never to return into the\nsame, upon Pain of Death, and shall be kept in Prison till Exportation\nat their Masters or Owners or their own Charge.\u201d[245]\n\nBy an act passed December 10, 1712, the colony of New York provided that\n\u201call and every Negro Indian or other Slave, who ... shall murder or\notherwise kill ... or conspire or attempt the Death of any of Her\nMajesty\u2019s liege people, not being Slaves, or shall commit or attempt any\nrape on any of said Subjects, or shall wilfully burn any dwelling-house,\nbarn, etc. ... or shall wilfully mutilate, mayhem or dismember any of\nthe said Subjects not being Slaves as aforesaid, or shall wilfully\nmurder any Negro, Indian or Mallatto Slave within this Colony, and shall\nthereof be convicted before three or more of Her Majesty\u2019s Justices of\nthe Peace ... in Conjunction with five of the principal ffreeholders of\nthe County wherein such fact shall be committed, ... or before any Court\nof Oyer and Terminer or General Gaole Delivery ... shall suffer the\npains of Death in such manner and with such circumstances as the\naggravation or enormity of their Crimes in the Judgment of the Justices\nof those Courts aforesaid, or as in the judgment of Seven of the said\nJustices and ffreeholders they shall merit and require.\u201d[246]\n\nBy an act passed March 11, 1713\u201314, the General Assembly of the Province\nof New Jersey made the above enactment the law of New Jersey, and added\nthe provision that \u201cif any Negro, Indian or Mulatto Slave shall attempt\nto ravish any white Woman or Maid ... any two Justices of the Peace are\nhereby authorized to inflict such corporal Punishment, not extending to\nLife or Limb, upon such Slave or Slaves so offending, as to the said\nJustices shall seem meet.\u201d\n\nIn 1721 Delaware passed \u201cAn Act for the Trial of Negroes\u201d the provisions\nof which were similar to those of the law of Pennsylvania enacted in\n1705. Two justices of the peace, \u201cparticularly commissionated by the\nGovernor for that service within the respective counties thereof,\u201d and\nsix of the most substantial freeholders of the neighborhood, were to\nhear, examine, try and determine offenses committed by negro or mulatto\nslaves, and it was provided that \u201cif any Negro or Mulatto slave ...\nshall attempt to commit a rape on a white woman or maid, they shall be\ntried in manner aforesaid, and shall be punished by standing four hours\nin the pillory at the Court-House on some court day, with both ears\nnailed to the pillory, and before he be taken down from the same shall\nhave both his ears cut off close to his head.\u201d[247]\n\nBy an act of June 8, 1751, it became the law of Maryland \u201cthat if any\nslave or slaves shall at any time consult, advise, conspire or attempt\nto raise any insurrection within this province, or to murder or poison\nany person or persons whatsoever, or to commit a rape upon any white\nwoman, or to burn any house or houses, and be thereof convict by\nconfession or verdict ... shall suffer death, as in cases of felony,\nwithout benefit of clergy.\u201d[248]\n\nIn North Carolina, in 1758, the Assembly resolved to try \u201ca plan which\nwould save the lives of the slaves and still act as a deterrent from\nfurther crimes.\u201d It was enacted \u201cthat except for rape or murder no male\nslave who had committed a crime which was ordinarily punished by death\nshould suffer death for the first offence; but that on due conviction\nsuch an offender should be castrated, the sheriff to be allowed for the\noperation twenty shillings to be paid by the public. The court must fix\nthe value of the slave before the execution of this sentence, so that if\nit should be the cause of his death there might be no dispute as to the\nvalue to be paid his master. Three pounds were allowed by the public for\nthe curing of the slave\u2019s wounds. For the second offence death might be\nthe penalty.\u201d[249]\n\nForegoing further quotation and reference, the statement may be made\nthat in the colonial period, when laws were enacted for the trial and\npunishment of offenses committed by negroes upon whites, rape was\nusually one of the offenses for which capital punishment was provided,\nand considerable discretion was generally allowed the judicial\nauthorities as to the manner in which the penalty should be inflicted,\nthe methods of hanging and burning alive both being employed.\n\nIn Massachusetts, in the year 1676, Basto, a negro slave, was sentenced\nto be hanged for rape on the daughter of his master.[250]\n\nIn New Jersey, in the year 1731, \u201ca negro slave called Harry, ravished\nAnnatye Pryers, but, apparently without exercising much force; sentenced\nto receive forty-one lashes and to be branded on the right shoulder with\nthe letter \u2018B.\u2019\u201d[251]\n\nIn Maryland, in 1739, \u201ctwo slaves of Anne Arundel were executed, one for\nburglary, the other for rape on a white woman; and the body of the\nsecond, who had been a notorious offender, was hung in chains at some\ndistance from the gallows.\u201d[252]\n\nIn Somerset County, New Jersey, in the year 1744, a young negro was\nburnt alive for ravishing a white child about nine years old.[253]\n\nThe punishment of burning alive, which was sometimes applied to negroes\nby the courts during the colonial period, was, however, usually\ninflicted for other offenses than rape, such as murder or conspiracy to\nmurder (particularly by the use of poison), insurrection, and\narson.[254] But this punishment was never applied to negroes during the\ncolonial period except by judicial decree. Indeed, with the possible\nexception of the slave insurrection in South Carolina in 1740,[255]\nthere are no instances recorded in colonial history where slaves were\npublicly executed without trial.[256] Both by law and by public\nsentiment slaves were recognized as chattels, and when they were\nexecuted for crimes for the commission of which the owners could in no\nway be held responsible, such owners were entitled to indemnification\nand could enter suit at law for damages. It was customary for the courts\nwhen passing sentence of death upon a slave to fix the valuation of the\nslave, and this sum was then paid to the owner.\n\nThere is evidence to show that this crime directed against white women\ncontinued to be perpetrated down to the time of the Civil War. The Salem\n(Mass.) Gazette for October 5, 1813, contained this item: \u201cAt the late\nterm of the Supreme Judicial Court, holden at Northampton, Peter Pyner,\na black man, was convicted of a Rape, committed on the body of a _white\nfemale_. The circumstances of the case were of a very distressing\nnature, and the evidence of his guilt clear beyond a question. Sentence\nof Death was pronounced by his Honor Chief Justice Parsons, in a solemn\nand affecting manner.\u201d\n\nThe Richmond Enquirer of December 14, 1813, gives an account of the\nkilling of a negro slave by a white woman in defense of her virtue.[257]\n\nThe following passages are taken from Niles\u2019 Register in the years 1821\nand 1822. \u201c_A Monster._ A negro fellow, armed with a gun, seized upon a\nrespectable married lady, near Cartersville, Va., and attempted to\ncommit a rape on her. After a long contest, she succeeded in getting out\nof his clutches, when he fired at her, but missed his aim. About an hour\nafterwards, he in like manner attacked another married lady\u2014not\nsucceeding, after a desperate struggle, he attempted to kill her with a\nknife, but she wrested it from him, and getting released, ran away, when\nhe fired at her and lodged many shot in the back of her neck and\nhead\u2014and yet, thus wounded, she escaped. The fellow declared his\nintention of thus serving all the white women he could meet with. A\nreward is offered for his apprehension.\u201d[258]\n\n\u201c_A negro_, near Winchester, in Virginia, lately assailed two young\nladies, tied them to trees and compelled them to endure his loathsome\ncaresses; but was happily frustrated as to his ultimate design.\u201d[259]\n\n\u201c_Trial of Ned._ A negro fellow so named, was tried and condemned at\nNorfolk on the 19th inst. for the crime of committing a rape on the\nperson of a respectable white woman. He was found guilty, and the\ndecision of the court was received with a burst of applause.\u201d[260]\n\n\u201cThese remarks were chiefly induced by reflecting on the late conspiracy\nat Charleston, and certain shocking enormities committed near Norfolk\nand in North Carolina on the persons of white women, for which the\nperpetrators were put to death, the relation of which is too disgusting\nfor our pages. Thirty-five have been hung and others remain for\nexecution at Charleston, and many were sentenced to transportation, &c.\nyet it appears that the trials are not yet over. The plot seems to have\nbeen well devised, its operation was extensive, and its intent\nterrific.... When the plan was nearly ripe, the conspiracy was made\nknown, and a large number of the supposed principals were\narrested\u2014twenty-two of whom were executed in one day!... The system of\nslavery involves in itself a state of dreadful severity, for it is\nsustained only by force\u2014and about 60 years ago, thirteen blacks were\nburnt alive in the then colony of New York for insurrectionary\nmovements.\u201d[261]\n\nThe following item appeared in Niles\u2019 Register for July 16, 1831 (40:\n345): \u201cA young lady, in Duplin County, North Carolina, about fourteen\nyears old, while proceeding to pay a visit to a neighbor between eleven\nand twelve o\u2019clock, noon, was violated and murdered close to the road,\nafter an apparently severe struggle, the ground at the place being much\ntrodden. The _Infernal_, after accomplishing his first purpose, cut her\nthroat! No clue had been discovered by which to trace the villain.\u201d\n\nNiles\u2019 Register for August 24, 1833 (44: 423) contained the following:\n\u201cA free negro calling himself James Warfield, has been committed to the\njail of Harford county, Maryland, charged with the commission of a rape\nupon a little girl aged nine years, the daughter of Mr. William Adams, a\nrespectable resident of that county.\u201d\n\nSuch evidence shows that the crime of rape directed against white women\nwas not unknown prior to 1860.[262] As regards other crimes frequently\ncommitted by negroes during the period of slavery, apparently it formed\na rather small proportion. It was far from being a crime that was more\nfrequently committed than any other, and yet it was one for the\nperpetration of which the negroes showed a marked propensity whenever an\nopportunity presented itself. Under the institution of slavery, however,\nsuch opportunities were few. From the nature of slavery, the negro\nseldom had an opportunity to ravish a white woman. The strong, burly\nnegro who was considered dangerous and likely to commit violence was\nordinarily put at hard labor in the fields and kept under strict\nsurveillance. Also, the discipline to which the negro was subjected when\na slave gave him a mastery over himself which it has been extremely\ndifficult for him to obtain by his own efforts. Habits of obedience and\nindustry, however inculcated, go very far toward restraining criminal\nimpulses. The good effects of the discipline of the slave r\u00e9gime were\nparticularly manifest during the progress of the Civil War, when the\nSouthern planters were obliged to leave their families with no other\nprotectors than the slaves, and these slaves discharged their trust with\nuniform faithfulness and loyalty.\n\nFrom the colonial period to the beginning of the anti-slavery agitation\nin the early thirties, the law was regularly allowed to take its course\nin dealing with negro criminals. Very little inclination was shown on\nthe part of the people to inflict punishment otherwise than as was then\nprovided by law. With regard to the crime of rape two instances may be\ncited where summary measures were employed.\n\nNiles\u2019 Register for November 15, 1823 (25: 176) contained this item:\n\u201c_Negro Frank_ was lately tried at Frederick, Maryland, for having\ndefloured a young white female. That the fact had taken place, and as\nstated, in the most brutal manner, was admitted; but Frank was acquitted\nfor the want of sufficient proof of his person. Some of the people,\nhowever, thought he was guilty\u2014and, after his release, he was beaten so\nseverely, as almost to deprive him of life.\u201d\n\nThe following item appeared in Niles\u2019 Register for March 10, 1832 (42:\n22): \u201cA negro fellow lately committed a horrid outrage on the body of a\ngirl twelve or thirteen years old, the daughter of a respectable\ngentleman in Dinwiddie county, Virginia, who was almost killed by his\nbrutality. The ravisher was caught by the father, and instantly punished\nwith 150 lashes, of which it was believed that he would die\u2014if not he\nwould be brought to trial.\u201d\n\nThat there was an increasing disposition to resort to summary methods\nfor the punishment of negroes during the period 1830\u20131860 has been shown\nin the evidence cited in Chapter IV; but so far as the infliction of\nsummary capital punishment was concerned, that did not become a serious\nevil until the time of the Reconstruction of the Southern States.\nComparatively few negroes were lynched until after the close of the War.\nIt may be said, therefore, that while race prejudice and the crime of\nrape against white women both existed as causes for the summary\ntreatment of negroes prior to the Civil War, both were held in check by\nthe institution of slavery.\n\nIt thus appears that throughout the period of slavery there was a\ngreater reliance on legal procedure for the treatment of negroes accused\nof heinous offenses than has been manifest since that time; and not only\ndid the institution of slavery directly bring about this greater\nreliance on legal procedure, by the suppression of the strongest\nincentives toward adopting summary and illegal procedure, but it made\npossible the enactment of special laws providing for a more expeditious\ntrial and execution of sentence in the case of negro offenders.\n\nIn the year 1740, South Carolina made the following provision for the\ntrial of slaves:\n\n \u201cAnd _whereas_, natural justice forbids that any person, of what\n condition soever, should be condemned unheard, and the order of civil\n government requires that for the due and equal administration of\n justice, some convenient method and form of trial should be\n established; _Be it therefore enacted_ by the authority aforesaid,\n That all crimes and offences which shall be committed by slaves in\n this Province, and for which capital punishment shall or lawfully may\n be inflicted, shall be heard, examined, tried, adjudged and finally\n determined by any two justices assigned to keep the peace, and any\n number of freeholders not less than three or more than five, in the\n county where the offences shall be committed, and who lives in the\n parts adjacent, and can be most conveniently assembled; either of\n which justices, on complaint made or information received of any such\n offence committed by a slave, shall commit the offender to the safe\n custody of the constable of the parish where such offence shall be\n committed, and shall without delay, by warrant under his hand and\n seal, call to his assistance and request any one of the nearest\n justices of the peace to associate with him, and shall, by the same\n warrant, summon such a number of the neighboring freeholders as\n aforesaid, to assemble and meet together with the said justices, at a\n certain day and place, not exceeding three days after the apprehending\n of such slave or slaves[263]; and the justices and freeholders being\n so assembled, shall cause the slave accused or charged, to be brought\n before them, and shall hear the accusation which shall be brought\n against such slave, and his or her defence, and shall proceed to the\n examination of witnesses and other evidences, and finally to hear and\n determine the matter brought before them, in the most summary and\n expeditious manner; and in case the offender shall be convicted of any\n crime for which by law the offender ought to suffer death, the said\n justices shall give judgment, and award and cause execution of their\n sentence to be done, by inflicting such manner of death and at such\n time, as the said justices, by and with the consent of the\n freeholders, shall direct, and which they shall judge will be most\n effectual to deter others from offending in the like manner.\n\n \u201c_And be it further enacted_ by the authority aforesaid, That if any\n crime or offence not capital, shall be committed by any slave, such\n slave shall be proceeded against and tried for such offence in the\n manner hereinbefore directed, by any one justice of the peace and any\n two freeholders of the country where the offence shall be committed,\n and can be most conveniently assembled; and the said justice and\n freeholders shall be assembled, summoned and called together, and\n shall proceed upon the trial of any slave who shall commit any offence\n not capital, in like manner as is hereinbefore directed for trying of\n causes capital. And in case any slave shall be convicted before them\n of any offence not capital, the said one justice, by and with the\n consent of the said freeholders, shall give judgment for the\n inflicting any corporal punishment, not extending to the taking away\n life or member, as he and they in their discretion shall think fit,\n and shall award and cause execution to be done accordingly. _Provided\n always_, that if the said one justice and two freeholders, upon\n examination of any slave charged or accused before them for an offence\n not capital, shall find the same to be a greater offence, and may\n deserve death, they shall, with all convenient speed, summons and\n request the assistance of another justice and one or more freeholders,\n not exceeding three, which said justice and freeholders newly\n assembled, shall join with the justice and freeholders first\n assembled, and shall proceed in the trial, and unto final judgment and\n execution, if the case shall so require, in manner as is hereinbefore\n directed for the trial of capital offences.\n\n \u201c_And be it further enacted_ by the authority aforesaid, That two\n justices and one freeholder, or one justice and two freeholders, of\n the said two justices and three freeholders, shall make a quorum, and\n the conviction or acquittal of any slave or slaves by such a quorum of\n them shall be final in all capital cases; but on the trial of slaves\n for offences not capital, it shall and may be sufficient if before\n sentence or judgment shall be given for inflicting a corporal\n punishment, not extending to life or member, that one justice and any\n one of the freeholders shall agree that the slave accused is guilty of\n the offence with which he shall be charged....\n\n \u201cAnd _whereas_, slaves may be harbored and encouraged to commit\n offences, and concealed and received by free negroes, and such free\n negroes may escape the punishment due to their crimes, for want of\n sufficient and legal evidence against them; _Be it therefore further\n enacted_ by the authority aforesaid, That the evidence of any free\n Indian or slave, without oath, shall in like manner be allowed and\n admitted in all cases against any free negroes, Indians (free Indians\n in amity with this government, only excepted,) mulattoe or mustizoe;\n and all crimes and offences committed by free negroes, Indians,\n (except as before excepted,) mulattoes or mustizoes, shall be\n proceeded in, heard, tried, adjudged and determined by the justices\n and freeholders appointed by this Act for the trial of slaves, in like\n manner, order and form, as is hereby directed and appointed for the\n proceedings and trial of crimes and offences committed by slaves; any\n law, statute, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.\u201d[264]\n\nFew of the other colonies made such careful and comprehensive provision\nfor expediting the trial of slaves, whether accused of minor or of\ncapital offenses. A number of the other colonies, however, made similar\nprovision for the prompt trial of slaves and followed the same general\nprinciples in their legislation affecting the punishment of offenses\ncommitted by slaves.[265] Indeed, it was generally true throughout the\nperiod of slavery that a special form of trial was provided in the case\nof slaves accused of serious offenses, and that special penalties were\nimposed upon such offenders. It is to be noted in the South Carolina Act\nof 1740 that free negroes were given the same form of trial as the\nslaves, and that the whole purport and spirit of the statute was merely\nthat justice might be done.\n\nSo long as the negro race was in bondage to the white race, then, not\nonly were the inciting causes of negro lynching largely held in check,\nbut such provisions were made for the trial and punishment of miscreant\nslaves that resort to lynching was wholly without justification. Even\nafter the anti-slavery agitation had begun in the early thirties and\nsummary measures were occasionally taken against negro offenders,\njustification was claimed on the ground of the incendiary publications\nand utterances of the abolitionists rather than the specific crimes\ncommitted by the blacks. The fact that during the period of slavery, in\nthe case of the raping of white women, as well as of other crimes, the\nlaw was generally allowed to take its course, goes far toward refuting\nthe argument that lynching is necessary to repress crime among the\nnegroes in the South to-day.\n\nHistory has shown it to be a fundamental mistake to assume that illegal\nand summary procedure against a particular offense will deter from that\noffense. As one writer has very forcibly said, if an argument based on\nthis assumption were put into plain language, it would read: \u201cLet past\ncrime be met with present crime in order that future crime may be\nprevented.\u201d[266] All revengeful dealing with crime has increased crime\nrather than lessened it. The only deterrent from crime that men have\nfound is the prompt and certain and solemn punishment by law, sustained\nand supported by a confident, unyielding body of public opinion.[267]\n\nThe attempt to justify the lynching of negroes on the plea that lynching\nfor rape committed upon white women is necessary to repress that crime\nis without support in any respect. Frederick Douglass lessened the force\nof this plea very considerably when he pointed out that there have been\nthree distinct excuses offered for the persecution of negroes in the\nUnited States. First, it was because of insurrections; then, it was the\nfear of negro domination and supremacy; then, when neither of these was\nany longer defensible as an excuse, the crime of assault upon white\nwomen was put forward to justify their persecution.[268] The fact that\nnot more than thirty-four per cent of the negroes lynched in the last\ntwenty-two years have been lynched for that crime likewise vitiates such\na plea of justification. The facts as known indicate that lynching for\nthat crime, instead of having a repressive influence, has directly\nstimulated its perpetration. Assaults on white women have occurred again\nand again immediately following a lynching for such crime, and they have\nso occurred in the same neighborhood where the lynching took place.[269]\nIt has been publicly stated that in one instance a negro who had\nwitnessed a lynching for this crime actually committed an assault on his\nway home.[270]\n\nThe lynching of negroes in recent years can be justified on no other\nground than that the law as formulated and administered has proved\ninadequate to deal with the situation\u2014that there has been governmental\ninefficiency. Not that guilty negroes frequently escape conviction in\nthe Southern courts, or that they fail to receive punishment to the full\nextent of the law, but rather that the law and its administration seem\nutterly unsuited to the function of dealing with negro criminals. A\njudicial system adapted to a highly civilized and cultured race is not\nequally applicable to a race of inferior civilization, and the failure\nto realize this fact and act upon it, by making special provision for\nthe control of the negro population in the Southern States since slavery\nwas abolished, is a fundamental reason for the disrepute into which\nlegal procedure has fallen as regards negroes accused of offenses\nagainst the whites.[271]\n\nThe mistakes of Reconstruction times are not yet blotted out in the\nSouth. Abstractions still control where racial characteristics,\ncircumstances, and conditions should be the determining factors. Ever\nsince the Civil War the Southern people have been blindly groping after\nsome system other than slavery whereby two races of widely different\ninterests and attainments can live together in peace and harmony under a\nrepublican form of government, and at the same time a vast number of\nNorthern people have been misinterpreting their motives and watching\nevery move with a critical and suspicious eye, ready at any moment to\nshout across Mason and Dixon\u2019s line that the negroes must have their\nrights under the Constitution of the United States and the amendments\nthereto.[272] Under such conditions it has been practically impossible\nfor the South to find a satisfactory solution of its problem, and herein\nlies all the justification that can be found for the use of summary\nmeasures in dealing with the increasing criminality which has manifested\nitself in the younger generations of the colored race.\n\nIn the last analysis lynch-law in this country is without any\njustification whatsoever. In a government founded on the idea that\nultimate power and authority shall rest with the people, and in which\nsufficient facility has been given to the expression of the collective\nwill of the people so that the acts of the government, the formulation\nof the law, and the administration of justice, ought adequately to\nrepresent this collective will, there is no tenable ground on which to\nvindicate the practice of punishing criminals other than by the\nregularly constituted courts and the officers of the law. But if\ncircumstances and conditions be taken into consideration and the history\nof the practice carefully noted, it is possible to see how justification\nhas come about through the different points of view that have been\ntaken. From the standpoint of the frontiersmen and pioneers summary\nprocedure in certain cases was wholly justifiable. From the standpoint\nof the Southerners during the period of Reconstruction summary procedure\nwas likewise wholly justifiable. To men living in a community where a\nparticularly brutal and barbarous crime is committed upon a white person\nby a negro, the prompt lynching of the negro, even with some torture and\ncruelty, seems entirely defensible. Thus, while we cannot justify the\npractice of lynching on any ground whatever, yet the fact remains that\nit has been repeatedly justified in one way or another.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n REMEDIES\n\n\nIn the consideration of remedies for lynching it is to the type of\nlynch-law procedure which prevails in well settled communities that\nattention is to be directed. The type of lynch-law procedure which is\ncharacteristic of a frontier society naturally ceases to exist with the\ndisappearance of that unorganized form of society. The changed social\nconditions incident to an increasing density of the population in a\nfrontier region, and the establishment of a regular and adequate\njudiciary, remove every cause for the existence of the frontier type of\nlynch-law. The rapid colonization of the western section of the United\nStates has thus made that phase of the lynching question no longer a\nserious matter. But how to put an end to the practice of lynching in\nolder communities possessing well established civil regulations is a\nproblem for which the people of the United States have not yet found a\nsatisfactory solution.\n\nAs has been pointed out in the preceding chapter, there has been a\nstrong popular sentiment in the United States, even down to the present\nday, excusing and apologizing for lynch-law procedure. On the other\nhand, however, there has not been wanting at the same time a spirit of\ndenunciation and disapprobation[273]; although it was not until the\nearly nineties, when public attention was directed to the subject by\nreason of the occurrence of a number of flagrant cases of lynching, that\ndetermined efforts were put forth to check the practice. Previous to\nthat time such discussion as there was of the subject brought no\neffective restraint to bear on the continuance of the practice, either\nbecause of the intensely partizan character of the discussion as between\nthe North and the South, or because, while the practice in general was\ndenounced, particular instances of lynching were excused.[274] The\nnewspapers and magazines took comparatively little notice of lynchings\nuntil after the year 1890. The newspapers printed accounts of such\noccurrences, but the editorial protests were few, and the magazine\nliterature is almost barren on the subject.\n\nOn March 14, 1891, the eleven Italians who were accused of complicity in\nthe murder of the chief of police of New Orleans were summarily put to\ndeath by a mob. On May 30, 1891, Tump Hampton, colored, was burned at\nthe stake in the parish of St. Tammany, Louisiana. On January 31, 1893,\na negro by the name of Henry Smith was publicly burned at the stake with\nextreme torture at Paris, Texas.[275] Excursion trains were run for the\noccasion and there were many women and children in the throng which\nwatched the sufferings of the victim. These and other instances of a\nsimilar character, together with the increased number of lynchings in\nthe years 1891, 1892, 1893 (See charts I and IV), focused the attention\nof the world upon the American practice of lynching. Italy demanded from\nthe United States an indemnity for the lynching of the Italians at New\nOrleans. Foreign newspapers and periodicals united in heaping abusive\ncensure upon the United States. Repeated and insistent demands were\nmade, in America as well as in Europe, that lynchers be brought to\njustice and be punished as other murderers are punished.\n\nAn effort was also made at this time to so organize foreign public\nopinion that it would be directly effective in putting an end to the\npractice of lynching. Miss Ida B. Wells, colored, who was editor of the\nFree Speech published at Memphis, Tennessee, and whose paper was\nsuppressed because she so fiercely denounced the lynching of some\ncolored young men and arraigned the authorities for failing to punish\nthe lynchers,[276] gave a series of lectures in England in 1893\u201394, and\nstarted a crusade against lynching by organizing anti-lynching\nsocieties, enrolling as members several men of international\nprominence.[277] These bodies proposed to send a committee to this\ncountry \u201cto collect statistics and quietly to investigate the subject of\nlynchings in the United States.\u201d The South rose _en masse_ against such\na visit and the governors of the Southern States with one or two\nexceptions vehemently denounced the whole project. The statement of\nGovernor O\u2019Ferrall of Virginia, himself an anti-lynching man, is typical\nof the Southern sentiment. \u201cThings have come to a pretty pass in this\ncountry,\u201d he said in the New York World, \u201cwhen we are to have a lot of\nEnglish moralists sticking their noses into our internal affairs. It is\nthe quintessence of brass and impudence.\u201d[278] The English committee\nnever came to this country, and Miss Wells at length recognized the\nfutility of further work in England and returned home. She has since\norganized anti-lynching societies in various parts of the North,[279]\nand more recently, as chairman of the Anti-lynching Bureau of the\nNational Afro-American Council, has to all appearance been working\nprincipally among her own people, urging them to take steps to prevent\nlynching.[280]\n\nOut of all this discussion, agitation, and censure there came proposals\nfor various remedies for lynching. Various reasons were assigned for the\nprevalence of the practice and consequently there was little agreement\nin the measures which were proposed for its prevention or suppression,\nbut most of the proposed measures were of the nature of new or\nadditional laws directed specifically against lynching or mob violence.\n\nEarly in the year 1894 a number of the citizens of Louisiana petitioned\nthe legislature of that State to enact stringent laws against lynching,\nbut the legislature adjourned without fulfilling the request. A number\nof governors at about this time, in messages to the State legislatures,\ncalled attention to the subject and recommended immediate legislation.\nGovernor Hogg of Texas made the matter of lynching the subject of a\nspecial message, denouncing the practice and strongly urging the\nenactment of laws to prevent it. Governor O\u2019Ferrall, in a message to the\nlegislature of Virginia, recommended that the county in which a lynching\noccurs should be required to pay to the State treasury a sum not\nexceeding ten thousand dollars for the benefit of the public school\nfund. Recommendations of a similar character were subsequently made by\nthe governors of Maryland and Georgia. Governor Atkinson of Georgia made\nthe unique recommendation that if an officer in charge of a prisoner is\nnot required to protect his charge at the hazard of his own life, he\nshould be required to unshackle the prisoner, arm him, and give him an\nopportunity to defend himself. On the assumption that the law\u2019s delay or\nslowness is the principal cause for lynching, the governors of a number\nof States offered suggestions for a more expeditious judicial procedure.\nOf the many measures proposed, however, and of the numerous\nrecommendations that special legislation be enacted against lynching,\ncomparatively few have received from the various legislatures sufficient\nconsideration to lead to the enactment of laws on the subject.[281]\n\nThe legislature of Georgia, in the year 1893, passed an act which\nauthorized \u201cany officer, charged with the duty of preserving the peace\nand executing the lawful warrants\u201d of the State, who should have\n\u201cknowledge of any violence attempted to be perpetrated upon any\ncitizen ... by mob violence and without authority of law,\u201d to summon a\nposse of citizens, who must respond or be punished for a misdemeanor,\nwhose duty it should be to use every means in their power, even to the\nextent of taking human life, to prevent such violence. It was made a\nmisdemeanor for said officer to fail to call together a posse in such an\nemergency, and citizens who responded were authorized to carry weapons\nin the performance of their duties. Any person engaged in \u201cmobbing or\nlynching any citizen ... without due process of law\u201d should be arrested\nand punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than one\nnor longer than twenty years; and if death resulted from such mob\nviolence the person causing said death should be subject to indictment\nand trial for the offense of murder.[282]\n\nThe legislature of North Carolina in the year 1893 passed an act which\nprovided that every person who should conspire to break or enter, or who\nshould engage in breaking or entering, any jail or place of confinement\nof prisoners for the purpose of killing or injuring any person confined\ntherein would be guilty of a felony and be punishable by a fine of not\nless than five hundred dollars and by imprisonment for not less than two\nnor more than fifteen years. It was made the duty of the prosecuting\nofficer of the judicial district in which such a crime had been\ncommitted to take immediate proceedings against the guilty parties, and\njurisdiction of the offense was conferred upon the superior court of any\ncounty adjoining that in which the violence was committed. It was also\nmade a misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment, one or both, at\nthe discretion of the court, for a witness wilfully to fail to comply\nwith the process served on him, or, after being sworn, to refuse to\nanswer questions pertinent to the matter being investigated; nor was any\nperson to be excused from testifying on the ground that his evidence\nmight tend to criminate himself, for when he should be thus examined as\na witness for the State he became altogether pardoned of any and all\nparticipation in the crime concerning which he was required to testify.\nThe entire cost incurred in the prosecution was to be paid by the county\nin which the crime was committed, and in case the commissioners of the\ncounty failed to provide a sufficient guard for a jail in response to\nthe request of the sheriff, and the jail should be entered and a\nprisoner killed, the county became responsible in damages to be\nrecovered by the personal representatives of the prisoner killed.[283]\n\nIn the year 1895 the General Assembly of Georgia enacted additional\nlegislation on the subject of lynching by passing an act which made\npenal the offense of hindering, obstructing, or interfering with\nsheriffs or their deputies or constables in the execution of any order\nor sentence of court after trial in criminal cases, and requiring\nsheriffs and constables to present to the grand jury any and all persons\nso interfering. Penalties were provided for the offense and for failure\nto comply with the provisions of the act, power being given the governor\nto suspend a derelict sheriff or constable and to declare his office\nvacant.[284]\n\nIn the constitution which South Carolina adopted in 1895, it was\nprovided that \u201cin case of any prisoner lawfully in the charge, custody\nor control of any officer, State, County or municipal, being seized and\ntaken from said officer through his negligence, permission or\nconnivance, by a mob or other unlawful assemblage of persons, and at\ntheir hands suffering bodily violence or death,\u201d the said officer should\nbe deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon true bill found should be\ndeposed from office pending trial, and upon conviction should forfeit\nhis office, and, unless pardoned by the governor, should be ineligible\nto hold any office of trust or profit within the State. It was made the\nduty of the prosecuting attorney within whose circuit or county the\noffense might be committed to forthwith institute a prosecution against\nsaid officer, who should be tried in such county in the same circuit,\nother than the one in which the offense was committed, as the\nattorney-general might elect. The fees and mileage of all material\nwitnesses both for the State and the defense were to be paid by the\nState treasurer. It was also provided that \u201cin all cases of lynching\nwhen death ensues, the county where such lynching takes place shall,\nwithout regard to the conduct of the officers, be liable in exemplary\ndamages of not less than $2,000 to the legal representatives of the\nperson lynched,\u201d and that \u201cany county against which a judgment has been\nobtained for damages in any case of lynching shall have the right to\nrecover the amount of said judgment from the parties engaged in said\nlynching in any court of competent jurisdiction.\u201d[285]\n\nIn 1896 Ohio entered the list of States that have adopted anti-lynching\nlaws. This Ohio act gave to lynching its first legal definition. A\n_lynching_ and a _mob_ are defined as follows: \u201cThat any collection of\nindividuals, assembled for any unlawful purpose, intending to do damage\nor injury to any one or pretending to exercise correctional power over\nother persons by violence, and without authority of law, shall for the\npurpose of this act be regarded as a \u2018mob,\u2019 and any act of violence\nexercised by them upon the body of any person, shall constitute a\n\u2018lynching.\u2019\u201d Under this act any person who is taken from the hands of\nthe officers of justice in any county by a mob, and is assaulted by the\nsame with whips, clubs, missiles, or in any other manner, may recover\ndamages from the county to the amount of one thousand dollars; any\nperson assaulted by a mob and suffering lynching at their hands may\nrecover from the county in which the assault is made five hundred\ndollars, or, if the injury is serious, one thousand dollars, or, if it\nresult in permanent disability to earn a livelihood by manual labor,\nfive thousand dollars; and the legal representative of any person\nsuffering death by lynching at the hands of a mob may recover from the\ncounty in which such lynching occurs the sum of five thousand dollars,\nprovision being made for the disposition of the recovery in such\ninstances. Any person suffering death or injury at the hands of a mob\nengaged in an attempt to lynch another person is to be deemed within the\nprovisions of the act, he or his legal representatives having the same\nright of action thereunder as one purposely injured or killed by such\nmob. An order to the commissioners of a county against which such\nrecovery may be made, to include the same with costs of action in the\nnext succeeding tax levy of said county, forms a part of the judgment in\nevery such case. The county, however, has a right of action to recover\nthe amount of any judgment against it, including costs, against any of\nthe parties composing such mob, and any person present with hostile\nintent at such lynching is to be deemed a member of the mob and is\nliable to such action. In case a mob shall carry a prisoner into another\ncounty, or shall come from another county to commit violence on a\nprisoner brought from such county for safe keeping, the county in which\nthe lynching was committed may recover the amount of the judgment and\ncosts against the county from which the mob came, unless there was\ncontributory negligence on the part of the officials of said county in\nfailing to protect the prisoner or disperse said mob. It is also\nprovided that nothing in the act shall be held to relieve any person\nconcerned in such lynching from prosecution for homicide or assault for\nengaging therein.[286]\n\nBy an act of April 25, 1898, it is further provided in the law of Ohio\nthat whoever shall break into or attempt to break into a jail or any\nprison, or to attack an officer, with intent to seize a prisoner for the\npurpose of lynching, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and shall be\nconfined in the penitentiary for not more than ten years nor less than\none year.[287]\n\nIn 1897, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Texas enacted laws directed against\nlynching. By the Tennessee act it was made a felony punishable by from\nthree to twenty-one years\u2019 imprisonment, and by full judgment of infamy\nand disqualification, for two or more persons to form or remain in any\nconspiracy or combination, under any name, or upon any pretext\nwhatsoever, to take human life, or engage in any act reasonably\ncalculated to cause the loss of life; or to inflict corporal punishment\nor injury; or to burn or otherwise destroy property or to feloniously\ntake the same. It was likewise made a felony punishable in like manner\nfor any person either directly or indirectly to procure or encourage any\none to become or remain a member of any such unlawful conspiracy or\ncombination; or for any person either directly or indirectly to aid,\nabet, or encourage any person to engage or remain in such conspiracies\nor combinations, or to aid or abet in the accomplishment of any purpose\nor end of such conspiracies or combinations. Any person guilty of any of\nthese offenses was declared to be incompetent to sit or serve on any\ngrand or traverse jury, and it was made the duty of the court to\ncarefully exclude all such persons from the juries, both grand and\npetit. It was provided that indictments framed under the act were not to\nbe held insufficient by reason of the general nature of the charges\npreferred, or for embracing more than one of said offenses in the same\nindictment, and the act was to \u201ctake effect from and after its passage,\nthe public welfare demanding it.\u201d[288]\n\nBy the Kentucky \u201cAct to prevent lynching, &c.,\u201d which was amended by the\nomission of three sections and thus re-enacted in 1902, it was provided\nthat if any two or more persons should confederate or band themselves\ntogether for the purpose of intimidating, alarming, disturbing, or\ninjuring any persons, or to rescue any person or persons charged with a\npublic offense from any officer with the view of inflicting any kind of\npunishment on them, or with the view of preventing their lawful\nprosecution for any such offense or to do any felonious act, they, or\neither of them, should be deemed guilty of felony, and upon conviction\nshould be confined in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than\nfive years. If any two or more persons should confederate or band\ntogether and go forth for the purpose of molesting, injuring, or\ndestroying any property, real or personal, of another person, persons or\ncorporation, whether the same be injured, molested or damaged or not,\nthey should be guilty of a felony punishable by a like penalty; and if\nany injury should result to the person or property of any person or\npersons, by reason of any such unlawful acts, any one participating in,\nor aiding or abetting, such unlawful acts should be guilty of a felony,\nand upon conviction should be confined in the State penitentiary not\nless than one nor more than fifteen years, unless death should result,\nin which case the penalty for such offense should be that prescribed by\nlaw for murder. It was made no mitigation of the offense for any one\nupon his trial, that he may have acted through heat or passion, or that\nhe may have acted without malice, and the judge trying the case should\nso instruct the jury in writing. It was provided, also, that any officer\nor person having the custody of a prisoner should have the power and it\nshould be his duty to summon to his aid as many of the able-bodied male\ncitizens of his county as might be necessary to protect such prisoner,\nany person who should fail or refuse to respond to such summons being\nliable to a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five\nhundred dollars; and when any officer in charge of a jail had reasonable\ngrounds to believe that said jail would be attacked by a mob or persons\nconfederated or banded together for the purpose of inflicting violence\nupon any inmate of said jail, he was authorized, in his discretion, to\narm said threatened inmates, with a view to their own protection.\nAuthority was given the governor to offer a reward for the apprehension\nand conviction of any offender of this law in any sum not exceeding five\nhundred dollars, and also to employ detectives, in his discretion, not\nexceeding two at any one time, provided the cost thereof should not\nexceed three thousand dollars in any one year. The judge of the county\ncourt of any county in which this law should be violated was also given\npower to offer a reward not exceeding two hundred dollars, or supplement\nthe governor\u2019s reward, for the arrest and conviction of any person\nviolating the act. It was also provided that any person who should send,\ncirculate, exhibit or put up any threatening notice or letter, should\nupon conviction thereof be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor\nmore than five hundred dollars, and be imprisoned in the county jail not\nless than three nor more than twelve months. In any prosecution under\nthe act it should be no exemption for a witness that his testimony might\nincriminate himself; but no such testimony should be used against him in\nany prosecution except for perjury, and he should be discharged from all\nliability for any violation of the act so necessarily disclosed in his\ntestimony.[289]\n\nBy the Texas law, which was enacted at a special session of the\nlegislature, it was provided that whenever two or more persons should\ncombine together for the purpose of mob violence, and in pursuance of\nsaid combination should \u201cunlawfully and wilfully take the life of any\nreasonable creature in being by such violence,\u201d such person should be\ndeemed guilty of murder by mob violence, and upon conviction thereof\nshould be punished by death or confinement in the penitentiary for life,\nor according to the degree of murder, to be found by the jury. It was\nmade the duty of the district judges to give this law specially in\ncharge to the grand jury at the beginning of each term of court, and\nprosecution for murder under the act might be commenced and carried on\nin any county of the judicial district in which the offense should be\ncommitted, except the county of the offense. It was also provided that\nif any sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable, chief of police, city marshal\nor other officer in the State should permit or suffer any person in his\ncustody charged with crime to be killed by one or more persons, or\nshould permit or suffer any such person to be taken from his custody and\nkilled by one or more persons, he should be deemed guilty of official\nmisconduct, and be removed from office, proceedings for removal to be\nconducted by the attorney-general in accordance with the provisions of\nthe act, such cases taking precedence in all courts of all other cases.\nPending trial such officer should be temporarily suspended from his\noffice and should judgment be rendered against him he should not\nthereafter be elected or appointed to that office. The final section of\nthe act reads as follows: \u201cThe fact that there is no adequate law in\nthis State for the suppression of mob violence, creates an emergency and\nan imperative public necessity that the constitutional rule requiring\nall bills to be read on three several days be suspended, and that this\nact take effect and be in force from and after its passage, and it is so\nenacted.\u201d[290]\n\nIn 1899 an act dealing with the subject of lynching and violence by mobs\nwas passed by the legislature of Indiana. In this act a _mob_ and a\n_lynching_ are defined as follows: \u201cAny collection of individuals\nassembled for any unlawful purpose intending to injure any person by\nviolence and without authority of law shall, for the purpose of this\nact, be regarded as a \u2018mob,\u2019 and any act of violence exercised by such\nmob upon the body of any person shall constitute the crime of\n\u2018lynching,\u2019 when such act or acts of violence result in death.\u201d It is\nprovided that any person who actively participates in or actively aids\nor abets such lynching, upon conviction thereof, shall suffer death or\nbe imprisoned during life, in the discretion of the jury, and any person\nwho, being a member of any such mob and present at any such lynching,\nshall not actively participate in the lynching, shall be guilty of\nabetting such lynching, and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned\nnot less than two nor more than twenty-one years. Every person who\nshall, after the commission of the crime of lynching, harbor, conceal or\nassist any member of such mob, with the intent that he shall escape\ndetention, arrest, capture, or punishment, shall be deemed an accessory\nafter the fact, and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned not more\nthan twenty-one years nor less than two years. Provision is made for the\nmanner in which prosecutions shall be instituted under the act, and in\ncase any persons shall come together in any county for the purpose of\nproceeding to another county, with the view of lynching any person, or\nin case any person or persons shall purchase or procure any rope,\nweapon, or other instrument in one county for the purpose of being used\nin lynching any person in another county, such crime of lynching, if\ncommitted, shall constitute a continuous offense from the time of its\noriginal inception, and the courts of any county in which such overt act\nhas been committed shall have jurisdiction over the person of any member\nof the mob committing such overt act. Power is given the sheriff to call\nbystanders and others to his assistance and arm them for the protection\nof a prisoner, it being a misdemeanor for such persons to refuse\nassistance, punishable by a fine in any sum not less than one hundred\ndollars nor more than one thousand dollars, and imprisonment in the\ncounty jail for a period not exceeding six months. If at any time a\nsheriff has reason to believe that a prisoner in his custody is in\ndanger of being lynched, and that he, with his deputies and assistants,\nis not able to protect the life of such prisoner, it shall be his duty\nat once to notify the governor of such facts; whereupon, the governor\nshall be authorized to furnish such militia as shall be necessary to\npreserve order and defend such prisoner.[291]\n\nIn 1901 the Indiana act received the following important amendment: \u201cIf\nany person shall be taken from the hands of a sheriff or his deputy\nhaving such person in custody, and shall be lynched, it shall be\nconclusive evidence of failure on the part of such sheriff to do his\nduty, and his office shall thereby and thereat immediately be vacated,\nand the coroner shall immediately succeed to and perform the duties of\nsheriff until the successor of such sheriff shall have been duly\nappointed, pursuant to existing law providing for the filling vacancies\nin such office, and such sheriff shall not thereafter be eligible to\neither election or reappointment to the office of sheriff: _Provided,\nhowever_, That such former sheriff may, within ten days after such\nlynching occurs, file with the governor his petition for reinstatement\nto the office of sheriff, and shall give ten days\u2019 notice of the filing\nof such petition to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which such\nlynching occurred and also to the attorney general. If the governor,\nupon hearing the evidence and argument, if any, presented, shall find\nthat such sheriff has done all in his power to protect the life of such\nprisoner and performed the duties required of him by existing laws\nrespecting the protection of prisoners, then such governor may reinstate\nsuch sheriff in office....\u201d[292]\n\nIn 1899 the legislature of Michigan enacted a law against lynching\nmodelled on the Ohio act of 1896, but in 1903 this law was\nrepealed.[293]\n\nIn the constitution which was adopted by Alabama in 1901 this provision\nwas made in regard to the responsibility of sheriffs: \u201cWhenever any\nprisoner is taken from jail or from the custody of the sheriff or his\ndeputy, and put to death, or suffers grievous bodily harm, owing to the\nneglect, connivance, cowardice or other grave fault of the sheriff, such\nsheriff may be impeached under Section 174 of this Constitution. If the\nsheriff be impeached and thereupon convicted, he shall not be eligible\nto hold any office in this State during the time for which he had been\nelected to serve as sheriff.\u201d[294]\n\nIn response to a general and a special message from the governor of West\nVirginia calling attention to the fact that within a year several\npersons had been \u201cbrutally murdered at the hands of riotous and lawless\nmobs,\u201d the legislature of that State adopted a joint resolution on\nFebruary 3, 1903, condemning \u201csuch riotous and lawless acts\u201d and\nempowering the governor, by and with the aid and advice of the\nattorney-general, to investigate and place on foot such means as in his\njudgment were necessary to bring the guilty parties to justice.[295]\n\nPrompted by the flagrant case of lynching which occurred at Pittsburg,\nKansas, on December 25, 1902,[296] the legislature of Kansas early in\n1903 authorized county commissioners to offer and pay a reward in any\nsum not exceeding five hundred dollars for the discovery, arrest, and\nconviction of the perpetrator or perpetrators of the \u201cmurder or lynching\nof a human being committed in their county,\u201d[297] and also enacted a\nstatute against lynching modelled on the Indiana act of 1899 and the\namendment of 1901.[298]\n\nFrom this review of the legislation that has been enacted against\nlynching it appears that an application of the following remedies has\nbeen sought: first, an increase of the power of sheriffs and of their\nresponsibility for the proper discharge of the duties of their office;\nsecond, heavier penalties for sheriffs and other officers who fail to\nprotect from mob violence any person lawfully in their custody; third,\nheavier penalties for citizens who break into jails, or attack officers,\nor hinder or obstruct legal procedure; fourth, adequate provision in the\nlaw for the discovery, prosecution, and punishment of lynchers; fifth,\nfixing responsibility upon a community by making the county in which a\nlynching occurs liable for damages,[299] and giving a right of recovery\nto the legal representatives of the person lynched.\n\nDirect and definite information as to the effectiveness of these\nmeasures in particular instances is somewhat meager, but the few cases\nthat have arisen in the courts afford a basis for argument.[300]\n\nOn January 6, 1897, Lawrence Brown, colored, was lynched in Orangeburg\nCounty, South Carolina, for suspected arson. Isaac Brown, administrator\nof the estate of Lawrence Brown, deceased, entered suit against\nOrangeburg County in the common pleas circuit court of that county for\nthe recovery of damages under Section 6, Article 6, of the constitution,\nand the act to prevent lynching which was passed in 1896.[301] Judgment\nwas rendered for the defendant, the presiding judge directing the jury\nto find a verdict in his favor, on the ground that the provision in the\nconstitution and the act of the legislature conferred upon the plaintiff\nno right to recover damages against the defendant, as the person lynched\nwas not a prisoner. An appeal from this decision was taken to the\nsupreme court where the judgment of the lower court was reversed and the\ncase was remanded for trial. The supreme court, construing the\nconstitutional provision broadly and in connection with the act of the\nlegislature, ruled that the judge had been in error in his directions to\nthe jury, that the correct construction of the constitutional provision\nmade a county liable for damages when the person lynched was not in the\ncustody of the law as a prisoner. While the court declared a\nconsideration of the question of the power of the legislature to pass\nsuch an act, independently of the constitutional provision, to be\nunnecessary in the case in hand, an opinion in regard to the matter was\nexpressed in the following words: \u201cIt has been held that statutes making\na community liable for damages in cases of lynchings, and giving a right\nof recovery to the legal representatives of the person lynched, are\nvalid, on the ground that the main purpose is to impose a penalty on the\ncommunity, which is given to the legal representatives, not because they\nhave been damaged, but because the legislature sees fit thus to dispose\nof the penalty. Such statutes are salutary, as their effect is to render\nprotection to human life, and make communities law-abiding.\u201d[302]\n\nAt the January term of the supreme court of Ohio in the year 1900 a\ndecision was rendered on the constitutionality of the \u201cAct for the\nSuppression of Mob Violence\u201d which was passed April 10, 1896.[303] Two\ncases were before the court. Benjamin F. Church, as the administrator of\nCharles W. Mitchell, deceased, filed a petition against the board of\ncommissioners of Champaign County to recover five thousand dollars for\nthe lynching of said Mitchell, at Urbana, in said county.[304] Defendant\ndemurred to the petition and the demurrer was sustained by the court of\ncommon pleas and the petition dismissed. The circuit court reversed the\njudgment of the court of common pleas and the case then came before the\nsupreme court. In the other case, J. W. Caldwell brought action, under\nthe same statute, against the board of commissioners of Cuyahoga County,\nto recover the sum of one thousand dollars for an injury which he\nalleged that he had received at the hands of a mob in that county. A\ndemurrer to the petition, on the ground that the petition did not state\nfacts sufficient to constitute a cause for action and that said act was\nunconstitutional, was sustained by the court of common pleas, and the\njudgment of the court of common pleas was affirmed by the circuit court.\nBoth cases came up to the supreme court on petitions in error to reverse\nthe respective judgments of the circuit court.\n\nIn the opinion delivered on April 10, 1900, the supreme court fully\ndiscussed and upheld the principle involved in the act, affirming the\njudgment of the circuit court in Commissioners _v._ Church,\nadministrator of Mitchell, and reversing the judgment of the circuit\ncourt and the judgment of the court of common pleas in Caldwell _v._\nCommissioners. Church recovered from Champaign County five thousand\ndollars with interest and costs for the lynching of Mitchell, and\nCaldwell\u2019s action was sustained for the recovery of one thousand dollars\nfor injuries received at the hands of a mob in Cuyahoga County.[305] The\ncourt in its opinion stated specifically that the act was\nconstitutional; that the recovery authorized by said act was penal in\nits nature, and it was within the legislative power to provide therefor;\nthat such legislation was not an exercise of judicial power, nor was it\na violation of the right of trial by jury[306]; that such recovery, and\nthe tax levy authorized and required by said act, were within the\ngeneral powers of the legislature.[307]\n\nOne case has arisen under the Indiana act as amended in 1901. On\nNovember 20, 1902, James Dillard, a negro who had committed the crime of\nrape, was taken from the custody of John S. Dudley, the sheriff of\nSullivan County, Indiana, and \u201clynched by hanging until dead.\u201d Dudley\nhad been elected sheriff at the general election held in November, 1900,\nand William P. Maxwell had been elected coroner of Sullivan County. At\nthe general election held in November, 1902, each had been elected as\nhis own successor. On the day following the lynching of Dillard,\nGovernor Durbin notified Maxwell that the office of sheriff of Sullivan\nCounty was vacant, and that he, as coroner, under the law succeeded to\nthe duties of the office. Maxwell thereupon demanded of Dudley the\npossession of the office. This Dudley refused to give, and within ten\ndays after the lynching occurred, as provided for in the statute, filed\nwith the governor a petition for reinstatement in the office. After\nhearing the petition and the evidence in support of it, Governor Durbin\ndenied the petition and refused to reinstate him. Governor Durbin then\nnotified the board of commissioners of Sullivan County of the vacancy in\nthe office of sheriff and suggested that the board appoint a successor\nto Dudley. The board of commissioners took no action, however, and\nMaxwell brought suit under a _quo warranto_ statute, to oust Dudley from\nthe office. In the circuit court of Sullivan County a judgment for the\ndefendant was rendered, and on an appeal to the supreme court of Indiana\nthe judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. The issues in the case\nwere purely questions of law, it being held that Maxwell did not have\nground for action under the _quo warranto_ statute, and the supreme\ncourt expressed no opinion on the constitutionality of the amendatory\nact of 1901.[308]\n\nThus, the outcome of this case was, in effect, to nullify the operation\nof the statute which removes a sheriff from office when he allows a\nprisoner to be taken from his custody and lynched. The fact that Dudley\ncontinued to exercise the duties of his office after the lynching\noccurred, and successfully refused to vacate the office in response to\nthe demands of the coroner, indicates that public sentiment in the\ncommunity did not support the execution of the provisions of the law.\nNewspaper reports of the case intimate, however, that politics entered\ninto the question to some extent.\n\nPerhaps the present situation with reference to remedial legislation on\nthe subject of lynching can be summed up in these few words:\nComparatively few States have enacted laws defining and punishing\nlynching, or have enacted any statutes the specific purpose of which is\nto prevent lynching. Where such statutes exist very few attempts have\nbeen made to enforce them, and the validity of some is still in doubt.\nFrom the supreme court decisions in South Carolina and Ohio it would\nseem that the courts are likely to uphold statutes giving recovery of\ndamages from counties in cases of lynching. The constitutionality of\nstatutes fixing upon sheriffs the penalty of removal from office for\nfailure to protect prisoners is open to considerable doubt, however, and\nno such measure has yet been enforced. In both South Carolina and\nAlabama provision has been made in the body of the constitution for the\nremoval of a sheriff from office under such circumstances, but neglect,\nconnivance, or other grave fault must be proved against the sheriff.\n\nAs to the effect that this remedial legislation has had on the practice\nof lynching, opinions may differ, but it is difficult to point out in\nwhat way these laws have brought about a decrease in the number of\nlynchings.[309] It is true that not nearly so many lynchings occurred in\nthe years 1901, 1902, 1903, as occurred in the years 1891, 1892, 1893,\nbut it is also true that a marked decline in the number of lynchings per\nyear began several years before the greater number of the anti-lynching\nlaws were enacted. It is likewise true that the number of lynchings per\nyear, in States other than those possessing anti-lynching statutes has\ndeclined in recent years. The truth would seem to be, therefore, if it\nbe assumed that the number of crimes or offenses which occasion\nlynchings has been fairly uniform from year to year, that the same\ncauses which led to the enactment of the laws also brought about the\ndecline in the number of lynchings, namely, public discussion and\ncondemnation of the practice of lynching, a stronger public sentiment\nagainst it, a deeper realization of the seriousness of the lynching\nproblem in the United States.\n\nThat the measures adopted in South Carolina for the prevention of\nlynching, even though upheld and strongly indorsed by the supreme court,\nhave not been altogether effective becomes apparent from a special\nmessage sent to the General Assembly of South Carolina, on January 20,\n1904. Governor Heyward wrote as follows: \u201cIn my annual message to your\nhonorable body reference was made to lawlessness in our State, the\nfrequent occurrence of lynchings being dealt with particularly. You, the\nlawmakers, had not been assembled here a week when another evidence of\nthis lawless spirit is given in the lynching at Reevesville. The\nGovernor is popularly credited with the power to prevent or punish these\noutrages against the State. In reality he is practically powerless. When\nthe crime has been committed his hands are practically tied. The meager\nrewards he has been empowered to offer out of his contingent fund have\nproved ineffectual, and this is as far as he is permitted to go. In the\nmeantime the spirit of lawlessness is unchecked.\n\n\u201cAny band of men may feel secure in taking the life of a fellow-being on\nalmost any pretext. This deplorable condition ought to be remedied. To\ncompel the proper respect for the majesty of the law I recommend the\nenactment of special legislation in reference to lynching, that the\ngreat responsibility of officials directly charged with enforcing the\nlaw be brought home to them, and that more effectual measures be taken\nfor the apprehension of persons who take the law in their own hands. In\nlieu of some such legislation, I suggest that the Governor be provided\nwith an adequate fund for the purpose of suppressing lynching.\u201d[310]\n\nOn March 7, 1904, Richard Dixon, a negro, was taken from the jail and\nlynched at Springfield, Ohio. This occurred in Clark County which\nadjoins Champaign County on the south. In at least two other instances\nlynchings would have taken place in Ohio, since the decision of the\nsupreme court which established the validity of the law holding counties\nliable in damages, had it not been for the vigilance and prompt action\nof the sheriffs. The possibility of an increase in the rate of taxation\ndoes not seem as yet to have had any restraining influence on the\nactions of people in Ohio when occasion has arisen for a lynching.\n\nIt is only within the last three or four years that determined efforts\nhave been put forth to arrest and punish persons who have participated\nin lynchings, but these efforts have not been confined to the States\nwhich have special laws against lynching. Lynchers may be punished\nthrough statutory provisions defining homicide, manslaughter, murder,\nconspiracy, riot, malicious mischief, assault, and the like.\n\nIn November, 1903, eleven persons were indicted in St. Clair County,\nIllinois, for participating in the lynching of a negro school teacher\nthe preceding June.[311]\n\nMore than twenty persons were indicted in Vermilion County, Illinois,\nfor participation in the lynching of a negro at Danville on July 25,\n1903, and verdicts of guilty of engaging in an attack on the county jail\nwere found against eleven men and one woman, the penalty being an\nindeterminate sentence in the penitentiary.[312]\n\nIn January, 1903, twenty-eight white citizens of Attala County,\nMississippi, were indicted for the lynching of two negroes.[313]\n\nIn Alabama, in 1902, some men were given a term in the penitentiary for\nlynching a negro, they being \u201cthe first like offenders,\u201d according to\nGovernor Jelks, \u201cto serve the state since the great war. No man had\nheretofore gone to the penitentiary for lynching a negro.\u201d[314]\n\nOn June 4, 1903, Samuel Mitchell, white, who led the mob that lynched\nThomas Gilyard, a negro, at Joplin, Missouri, on April 15, preceding,\nwas sentenced to ten years\u2019 imprisonment in the penitentiary, and two\nother men were still to be tried for their part in the burning of negro\nhouses following the lynching.[315]\n\nIn California nineteen indictments were returned against persons who\nengaged in the lynching of four men and a boy on May 31, 1901, at\nLookout, in Modoc County, and it was said that the State\u2019s attorney\nworked up the case against great opposition.[316]\n\nThere were several persons under indictment in Wyoming in February,\n1904, for connection with a lynching which occurred in Big Horn County\non July 19, 1903.[317]\n\nNo convictions of persons participating in lynchings in either\nTennessee, Kentucky, or Texas have been brought about under the\nanti-lynching laws which were enacted by those States in 1897.[318] The\ncase of the State _vs._ Hughes, charged with participating in a\nlynching, came up in DeKalb County, Tennessee, in July, 1902, but it was\nfound impossible to get a jury to try the case. The court exhausted a\nvenire of three hundred and fifty, and \u201cfound every man in the lot\ndisqualified\u2014probably having themselves aided in the affair.\u201d[319] On\nNovember 13, 1902, John Davis, colored, was lynched in Marshall County,\nTennessee. Two men, W. P. Hopwood and W. H. L. Johnson, were later\narrested on the charge of participating in the lynching. On January 7,\n1903, thirty masked men appeared at the jail where the prisoners were\nconfined, obtained the keys to the jail, and released the\nprisoners.[320]\n\nThe measures adopted by Georgia and North Carolina for the suppression\nof lynchings have likewise remained inoperative. Numerous lynchings have\ntaken place in both of these States since 1893, but no lyncher has yet\nsuffered any of the penalties prescribed by law. A resident of North\nCarolina recently made this statement with reference to the punishment\nof lynchers in his State: \u201cJudges have charged juries against the crime,\nand Governor Aycock\u2014risking his political fortunes for his\nconvictions\u2014recently offered a reward of $400 each for the conviction of\na party of seventy-five who lynched a negro near Salisbury. But never\nyet has the law punished a North Carolina lyncher.\u201d[321]\n\nIn general it may be said that the laws proposed far outnumber the laws\nenacted against lynching, and that wherever such laws have been enacted\ntheir enforcement has not as yet been such as to warrant any great\nreliance on their effectiveness to prevent lynching. It can scarcely be\nsaid that the remedy for lynching lies at present in the direction of\nadditional State legislation specifically directed against it.\n\nBy many it is thought that a federal law on the subject would be most\neffective in the suppression of lynchings, and several bills have been\nintroduced in Congress with this end in view.[322] On January 13, 1902,\nMr. Crumpacker of Indiana introduced a bill in the House of\nRepresentatives for the punishment of persons taking part in the\nlynching of aliens. The bill was designed to cover cases similar to the\nlynching of the Italians at New Orleans, and jurisdiction over such\noffenses was given to the federal courts, persons who had taken part in\nlynchings being disqualified from serving as jurors.[323]\n\nOthers would have Congress enact a law making all who lynch, whether the\nvictims be citizens or aliens, and all who instigate, aid, abet, or\nshield lynchers, guilty of a crime against the United States. In support\nof such a law it is urged that a lyncher could be as easily discovered\nand punished as a moonshiner, or a counterfeiter, or a mail robber; that\nif the object of our constitution is to insure domestic tranquility,\npromote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to\nourselves and our posterity, it ought to include the power to punish\nthose who defy the government established by the constitution and take\nlife without due process of law; and that if it was worth while to amend\nthe constitution to prevent the denial of the electoral franchise, it is\nalso worth while to amend the constitution to prevent and punish the\ndenial of justice.[324]\n\nA further ground for bringing lynching within the jurisdiction of\nfederal courts and federal law is the fact that the lynching of an alien\nmay involve the United States in international complications, although\nthe federal government can take no action in the premises. Diplomatic\nintercourse was actually broken off between Italy and the United States\nduring the controversy over the matter of an indemnity for the lynching\nof Italian citizens at New Orleans in 1891.[325] In a number of other\ninstances foreign countries have successfully demanded indemnities from\nthe United States through the Department of State for injuries done\ntheir citizens by mob violence. The following table gives the sums of\nmoney that have been paid to foreign countries since 1880 in the\nsettlement of such claims.\n\n INDEMNITIES PAID FOR INJURIES TO ALIENS.[326]\n\n YEAR WHEN COUNTRY TO LOCALITY WHERE INJURIES AMOUNT OF INDEMNITY\n PAID WHICH PAID WERE INFLICTED\n 1887 China Wyoming $147,748.74\n 1888 China Pacific Coast 276,619.75\n 1892 Italy Louisiana 24,330.90\n 1896 Italy Colorado 10,000.00\n 1896 Great Britain Louisiana 1,000.00\n 1896 Great Britain Nebraska 1,800.00\n 1897 Italy Louisiana 6,000.00\n 1898 Mexico California 2,000.00\n 1901 Mexico Texas 2,000.00\n 1901 Italy Louisiana 4,000.00\n 1903 Italy Mississippi 5,000.00\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014-\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n Total $480,499.39[327]\n\nWith the exception of the payment to China in 1887, \u201cin consideration of\nthe losses unhappily sustained by certain Chinese subjects by mob\nviolence at Rock Springs, in the Territory of Wyoming, September 2,\n1885,\u201d these indemnities have been paid \u201cout of humane consideration,\nwithout reference to the question of liability therefor.\u201d While they\nhave thus not been paid in discharge of an express obligation recognized\nby the United States, there has been a moral obligation recognized and\nthe federal government has felt it to be incumbent upon itself to\nredress grievances of this nature.[328]\n\nIt is a peculiar situation when the United States can thus be called\nupon to pay indemnities for lynchings and yet cannot take steps in the\nseveral States to prevent their occurrence and cannot in any way hold\nthe State governments responsible. That this defect in the federal\nconstitution should be remedied seems, from this standpoint, wholly\ndesirable. It is very doubtful, however, whether such an object could be\naccomplished at the present time, and still more doubtful whether a\nfederal law could be enacted and enforced against lynching at the\npresent time, without reviving the sectionalism and many of the evils of\nthe Reconstruction Period. When Senator Gallinger of New Hampshire\noffered a resolution in the 57th Congress that the Committee on the\nJudiciary be directed to make an inquiry into the subject of lynchings\nand to report whether there be any remedy for the evil, his reference to\na recent lynching in a Southern State was instantly resented by the\nsenators from that State, and the course which the debate took upon the\nresolution made it apparent at once that an attempt to make such an\ninvestigation would be an unwise step. The matter was dropped by Senator\nGallinger\u2019s making the request that the resolution lie on the table\nsubject to his call.[329]\n\nOf the numerous proposals that have been made for reform in the system\nof legal procedure in the United States, as a remedy for lynching, none\nis more noteworthy or fundamental than that put forward by Justice\nBrewer of the United States Supreme Court. He argues that men are afraid\nof the law\u2019s delays and the uncertainty of its results; that if all were\nsure that the guilty ones would be promptly tried and punished, the\ninducement to lynch would be largely taken away. He suggests, therefore,\nthe taking away of the right of appeal in criminal cases as one means of\nchecking lynching.[330]\n\nWhile the law\u2019s delays in criminal cases are probably not so great as\nthey are popularly believed to be, the popular impression being due to\nover-emphasis of flagrant cases,[331] still the fact that such an\nimpression is a prevalent one makes it extremely easy for a community to\ncountenance the summary and illegal punishment of the perpetrator of a\ncrime which has been particularly shocking to the community, a crime for\nwhich many persons in the community really feel that no punishment can\nbe quite adequate. A case in point is that of the lynching of George\nWhite, colored, at Wilmington, Delaware, on June 22, 1903. A refusal by\nthe judges to grant an immediate trial on the ground that the accused\ncould not then have a fair and impartial trial because of the excited\nstate of public feeling, was publicly urged as a reason for the people\ntaking the law into their own hands and \u201cupholding the majesty of the\nlaw.\u201d The outcome was that White was burned at the stake and those who\nparticipated in the lynching were allowed to go free, the coroner\u2019s jury\nreturning a verdict that the deceased came to his death at the hands of\npersons unknown.\n\nIt is in this way that the popular idea that the law\u2019s delays are so\ngreat as frequently to defeat the ends of justice, whether it have much\nor little basis in fact,[332] contributes to the continuance of the\npractice of lynching. If to abolish the right of appeal in criminal\ncases, or to limit it to a considerable extent, will further the ends of\njustice, as there seems to be good reason for believing that it will,\nsuch a step will have a tendency to check lynching by making void one of\nthe excuses most frequently urged in extenuation of the practice.\nLynching is a phenomenon in American society too deeply rooted to be\ndestroyed by merely taking away the right of appeal in criminal cases,\nbut that a measure will render less plausible a prominent excuse for its\nexistence and continuance makes such a measure worthy of serious\nconsideration.\n\nThe governors of several States have recently asked that they be given\nmore power, and that more resources be placed at their command, in order\nthat they may take the initiative both in preventing lynchings and in\npunishing lynchers. Something may be accomplished by granting their\nrequests. During the fourteen years immediately preceding Governor\nO\u2019Ferrall\u2019s inauguration there were sixty-two lynchings within the\nbounds of the State of Virginia, but during the four years of his\nadministration there were but three, and in neither case was the chief\nexecutive in a position either to prevent the crime or punish the\noffenders.[333] The most hopeful sign at the present time is the stand\nwhich the governors and minor officers in a number of States, in the\nSouth as well as in the North, have taken against lynching.[334]\nGovernor Vardaman, of Mississippi, in his recent rather sensational\nrescue of a negro murderer from a mob,[335] has at least demonstrated\nthe possibility of preventing lynchings and enforcing the law. Governor\nJelks, of Alabama, and Governor Durbin, of Indiana, have not only been\noutspoken in their denunciation of lynchings but have taken active\nmeasures to prevent them. A number of sheriffs in various States have\nwithin the last two years prevented lynchings by courageously facing\nmobs and making it clear that they would defend their prisoners at the\nhazard of their own lives.[336]\n\nSo long, however, as coroner\u2019s juries empanelled to inquire into the\ndeath of victims of lynching continue to render the verdict that \u201cthe\ndeceased came to his death at the hands of persons unknown to the jury,\u201d\nand so long as it is true that the coroner\u2019s verdict commonly marks the\nend of all legal procedure with reference to the occurrence, it is not\nto be expected that sheriffs and jailers will hazard their lives in the\nprotection of prisoners.[337] Prisoners are taken from officers of the\nlaw and lynched, not because the officers are cowards, but because they\nare in sympathy with the sentiment in the community which demands\nimmediate punishment. The public sentiment revealed in the following\ncitations is not found in isolated instances, but is typical, although\nequal frankness of statement cannot always be secured.\n\nA verdict rendered by a coroner\u2019s jury in Wayne County, North Carolina,\nin August, 1902, over the body of a negro rapist, read as follows: \u201cWe\nthe undersigned, empanelled as a jury to inquire into the cause of the\ndeath of Tom Jones, find that he came to his death by gun shot wounds,\ninflicted by parties unknown to jury, obviously by an outraged public\nacting in defense of their homes, wives, daughters and children. In view\nof the enormity of the crime committed by said Tom Jones, alias Frank\nHill, we think they would have been recreant to their duty as good\ncitizens had they acted otherwise.\u201d[338]\n\nIn December, 1899, Richard Coleman, a negro ravisher and murderer, was\nburned at the stake at Maysville, Kentucky. In response to a letter from\nthe governor of the State, asking for particulars, a Maysville lawyer\nwrote as follows: \u201cThe whole thing took place in broad daylight and in\nthe presence of thousands. The parties to it are known, Mr. Lashbrook\n(husband of Coleman\u2019s victim) himself being the leader, but it will be\nfruitless to attempt any prosecution of them. The people of this\ncommunity are as good as the people of any other community in the State,\nor, for that matter, elsewhere, and they are shocked, and, I may say,\nwell-nigh paralyzed by this gruesome happening in their midst, but I am\nsatisfied they will not take kindly to any attempt to hold the parties\nto the transaction to any responsibilities therefor.\u201d[339]\n\nThe only ultimate remedy for lynching is a strong public sentiment\nagainst it. It is necessary, in the United States particularly, to\ndepend very largely upon public sentiment for the enforcement of law,\nand until there is a sentiment, in every community where a lynching\noccurs, which will demand the punishment of those who take part in such\nlynching, it can scarcely be expected that sheriffs will risk their\nlives to protect prisoners, or that prosecuting attorneys, judges, and\njuries will co-operate to secure the conviction of lynchers and to make\nthem feel the full penalty of the law. A member of the Maryland Bar\nwriting in 1900 said that less than a dozen lynchers had ever been tried\nfor their crime, and only one or two had been punished. The present\nwriter has been able to obtain no information which would warrant the\nstatement that as many as twenty-five persons have been convicted of a\ncrime and punished for participating in the lynching of over three\nthousand persons in the last twenty-two years.[340]\n\nFrom the greater number of indictments that have been secured against\nlynchers during the last two years it would seem that the practice of\nlynching is receiving stronger public condemnation now than formerly,\nbut it must be remembered that the creation of a public sentiment on any\nsubject is a slow process, particularly with reference to lynching.\nLynching as a crime against society is not yet distinguished from\nlynching as the justifiable infliction of a deserved punishment by\nprivate citizens. Furthermore, it is difficult to create a public\nsentiment against lynching because of the racial antipathy which\naggravates the evil in certain sections of the United States. Time will\nbe required for the effectual application of a remedy for lynching. Any\nanti-lynching measures that may be adopted must be considered as\npalliatives rather than as remedies.\n\nNo single statute can be enacted which will put an end to the practice\nof lynching; nor is it likely that any single measure can be adopted\nwhich will effectually suppress lynching. Every measure which will tend\nto invalidate the excuses offered for the adoption of lynch-law\nprocedure, every measure which will tend to prevent the commission of\ncrimes provoking resort to lynch-law procedure, every measure which will\ntend to strengthen and maintain a popular reliance on legal procedure,\nevery measure which will in any way tend to create a strong,\nuncompromising public sentiment against lynching, all of these must be\nadopted if the practice of lynching is to be made a thing of the past in\nthe United States.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX\n SOME CONCLUSIONS\n\n\nThe question naturally arises, what is the peculiarity about American\nsociety which fosters and tolerates lynching? Why is lynching a\npeculiarly American institution? It has been suggested that the\nexplanation lies along racial lines. Some have said that the\nScotch-Irish are responsible for the introduction into this country of\nthe practice of illegally punishing public offenders. Others say that it\nis race prejudice, a result of the coming together of many races in one\ncountry, and particularly that it is the racial antagonism between the\nwhite race and the negro race, which explains the matter. Looking at the\nhistory of the practice in the United States from colonial times down to\nthe present day, one can scarcely regard such an explanation as either\nadequate or conclusive. The real explanation lies along a somewhat\ndifferent line, and it can be pointed out best by drawing some contrasts\nbetween the administration of the law in the United States and its\nadministration in the older countries of Europe.\n\nThe American people are not any more disposed toward lawlessness\u2014they\nare not less law-abiding\u2014than European peoples; it is rather that they\nmaintain a wholly different attitude toward the law. Social and\npolitical conditions are different, and the law, instead of being\nsomething in itself to reverence and respect, is little more than a\ndevice for securing freedom. The value of laws as rules of conduct is\nnot minimized but there is no sense of sanctity pertaining to them. To\noutwit, avoid, defy, or forget the laws is not a serious offense so long\nas an appeal can be made to the individual sense of justice in support\nof such courses of action.\n\nIn Europe, where the statutes have grown up from tradition and ancient\ncustom, the law is regarded as a more sacred institution; in a very real\nsense it is the product of a superior authority. Law in its\ninstitutional sense is as much a predetermined factor in daily affairs\nas is one of the laws of nature. Social and political conditions are\nfixed. Politics do not enter into the enforcement of law. Civilization\nis distributed in a more nearly equal measure and the law is enforced\nwith equal vigor over the whole country.[341] The judicial and\nadministrative officers are persons socially and politically distinct\nfrom the masses, and their individuality is so completely subordinated\nto their representative capacity that the law thus comes to have a\nmajesty and dignity which can be given it in no other way.\n\nIn the United States, on the contrary, the body of the law lacks the\nsupport of long tradition and ancient practice. The early immigrants\nbrought with them the European conception of law, but in the midst of\nnew conditions, with no strong government to enforce it with an\nimpartial and an iron hand, along with the growth of the democratic\nspirit, a new _esprit des lois_, as Montesquieu would call it, has been\ndeveloped. Where the people, either directly or through their\nrepresentatives, make the laws and then elect the officers who are to\nenforce them, it is inevitable that the legal machinery will prove\npowerless to control popular excitements. Politics also enter very\nlargely into the whole question. In remote districts, too, the people\nseldom have occasion to meet any other officers of the law than their\nown neighbors and friends whom they have elected to minor civil offices.\nIt is for this reason that the execution of the law varies so greatly in\ndifferent parts of the United States, being either vigorous or lax, in\naccordance with the moral sentiment of the community.\n\nIn a monarchy or a highly centralized form of government, the law is\nmade for the people and enforced against them by officials who are in no\nsense responsible to them.\n\nIn a democracy with a republican form of government, like the United\nStates, such is not the case. The people consider themselves a law unto\nthemselves. They make the laws; therefore they can unmake them. Since\nthey say what a judge can do, they entertain the idea that they may do\nthis thing themselves. To execute a criminal deserving of death is to\nact merely in their sovereign capacity, temporarily dispensing with\ntheir agents, the legal administrators of the law. While not always\nexpressed in language so unmistakable in meaning, yet this is the spirit\nexhibited, the vague and perhaps unconscious attitude toward the law,\nwhich seems particularly to pervade the United States.\n\nThe tendency toward public disorder has existed in this country from its\nearliest settlement, and as the line of the frontier has slowly moved\nwestward there has always been a region on the border where the forces\nof law were unorganized. There has thus been a constant opportunity for\na plea of necessity in certain cases for resorting to the popular\nexecution of justice. In recent years the customary explanations of\nlynchings attribute them to mob rule, emotional insanity of the crowd,\nrace prejudice, contempt for the \u201cniggers,\u201d intense community feeling,\nvivid hatred of crime, _lex talionis_ and the like. It is often asserted\nthat lynchings occur because the courts are slow, uncertain, and unduly\nsympathetic with the rights of the accused, because corrupt jurymen,\nshrewd lawyers, the technicalities of the law or the undue sympathies of\nthe pardoning powers frequently prolong and save a guilty person\u2019s life.\nWhile it is true on psychological grounds that punishment to be\neffective must be prompt and certain, and while such explanations have\nvalidity in particular cases, the fundamental explanation lies deeper.\nIt is to be found in the peculiar and distinctively American attitude\ntoward those institutions connoted by the term \u201cthe law.\u201d[342] There is\na readiness on the part of the people in the United States to take the\nlaw into their own hands which is not found in other countries, and the\nconsequent immunity from punishment which is generally accorded to\nlynchers renders an American mob exceedingly open to the suggestion of\nlynching.\n\nIt is on such grounds that the existence of lynching as a peculiarly\nAmerican institution is to be explained. Such are the conditions and\nsuch has been the conception of the law which has fostered a public\nsentiment in the United States excusing and apologizing for lynchings.\nThe writer of a book published in London in 1837 was not far wrong when\nhe wrote: \u201cThe Lynch law, is not, properly speaking, an opposition to\nthe established laws of the country, or, is at least, not contemplated\nas such by its adherents; but rather as a supplement to them,\u2014a species\nof _common_ law, which is as old as the country.\u201d[343]\n\nTo the same effect is this \u201cScotch View of Lynch law\u201d which was\noccasioned by the lynching of the Italians at New Orleans in 1891. After\nreviewing the facts and circumstances connected with that lynching, the\nfollowing comments were made: \u201cThis is crude and it is primitive. It is\nto be deplored and condemned. But it is not without a foundation of\nreason and justice. The people have committed the administration of\njustice to a certain machinery; so long as that machinery works without\nflagrant injustice, it will be left to do the work; but when it utterly\nbreaks down, or goes in the teeth of what is right according to the\nrough-and-ready ideas of the Americans, the people will resume the\nfunction of dealing out punishment direct. The ultimate sanction is\nbrought in. That is the American method. The Briton, when he thinks the\nordinary tribunals have failed, writes to the _Times_, or gets up a\nmonster petition to the Home Secretary, or asks a question of the Houses\nof Parliament.\u201d[344]\n\nIn certain sections of the United States this readiness on the part of\nthe people to take the law into their own hands receives constant\nsupport and encouragement from the racial antipathy which exists between\nthe whites and the negroes. It cannot be said that the lynching of\nnegroes is due to \u201crace prejudice\u201d alone, but it is true that the\nantagonistic feeling between the two races aggravates the tendency to\nlynch, when offenses are committed against white persons by negroes.\nOther racial contrasts in the population have likewise promoted the\nadoption of extra-legal methods of punishment. From colonial times down\nto the present day the contemptuous attitude of the whites toward the\nIndians has undoubtedly been a potent factor in the not infrequent\nfailure to observe due process of law in the treatment of Indians. In\nthe summary treatment of Italians, Mexicans, Chinese, and other aliens,\ndifferences in racial characteristics have also played an important\npart. In very many cases of lynching a racial antipathy has acted as the\nmost prominent contributory cause, and it is this fact that has induced\nmany writers to find in \u201crace prejudice\u201d the ultimate explanation of\nlynching as an American institution.\n\nThe lynching of negroes is now so distinctively an American practice\nlargely because of the racial contrast in the population which is\npeculiar to this country. Nowhere else in the temperate zone does a\ncolored race of tropical origin come into contact in such numbers with a\nhighly civilized race of European stock. The \u201cnative question\u201d of\ntropical regions has here been transplanted, as it were, to the\ntemperate zone.[345] Furthermore, the difficulties arising from ethnic\ncontact within the tropics have been intensified rather than lessened by\nthis change of environment. There are the same fundamental differences\nin racial characteristics and in racial heredity, but these become\naccentuated and seem even more adverse in a climate where the struggle\nfor existence is of necessity much more vigorous and exacting. In\naddition, there has developed between the white race and the colored\nrace in the United States an intolerant, inconsiderate spirit directly\npromoted by an unwise and short-sighted political policy. A great many\nyears will doubtless be required for the effacement of the unfortunate\nresults of past errors, involving as it does a very general\nunderstanding and recognition of the ethnic and \u201csocietal\u201d factors which\nenter vitally into the \u201crace question.\u201d Only in so far as this comes\nabout, however, will it be possible to establish a new order of society\nwith an appropriate legal system in the place of that which formerly\nexisted on the basis of the institution of slavery.\n\nThe assumption made by many writers that more negroes are lynched for\nthe crime of rape against white women than for any other crime is\nwithout foundation in fact. Statistics show that not more than\nthirty-four per cent of the negroes summarily put to death during the\nlast twenty-two years have been lynched for that crime, either alleged,\nattempted, or actually committed. Lynching for that crime, however,\nleads to lynching for other crimes and also furnishes a ground for an\nappeal to public sentiment to condone the practice of lynching.\n\nSince the negroes were made free American citizens a large class of the\nyounger generation has become utterly shiftless and worthless, many of\nthem being vicious and dangerous individuals in a community. Professor\nDuBois, than whom there is probably no man better qualified to make a\ncareful and conservative estimate, says that at least nine per cent of\nthe county black population in the Black Belt are thoroughly lewd and\nvicious.[346] Lynching has been resorted to by the whites not merely to\nwreak vengeance, but to terrorize and restrain this lawless element in\nthe negro population. Among the Southern people the conviction is\ngeneral that terror is the only restraining influence that can be\nbrought to bear upon vicious negroes. The negroes fear nothing so much\nas force, and should they once get the notion that there is a reasonable\nhope of escape from punishment, the whites in many parts of the South\nwould be at their mercy.[347] There is no evidence, however, to show\nthat the punishment of negroes by mob violence tends to decrease\nlawlessness among the negroes, or even tends to restrain the vicious\nelement from committing offenses against the whites. On the contrary,\nlawlessness seems to beget lawlessness and the publicity given to\nrevolting crimes by lynching the perpetrators of them seems really to\nincite others to commit similar crimes, or at least suggests to others\nlike crimes when opportunity offers.\n\nThe frightful tortures and the burnings which have taken place in the\nlast few years in connection with the lynching of negroes is partly to\nbe accounted for by the fact that lynchings are now carried on by a\nlower class of whites than formerly.[348] The power of suggestion as an\nincentive to crime is also evident in this barbarous conduct of lynching\nmobs. The publicity given in the newspapers, particularly the\nsensational ones, to the details of such tragic scenes has undoubtedly\nbeen largely responsible for the frequency of their recurrence.[349] The\nrelations between the younger generations of the two races are, besides,\nmuch less cordial and amicable than were those which existed between the\ngenerations immediately preceding; there is less of a mutual\nunderstanding. The relation of master and slave has been destroyed and\nno new relation has yet been firmly established in its place. In the\nprocess of adjustment to a new order of things there has been constant\nfriction between the two races, and when an offense has been committed\nupon a white person by a negro, particularly if an assault has been made\nupon the person of a white woman or child, the exasperation of the\nwhites has known scarcely any bounds.\n\nWhile the decrease in the number of lynchings per year since the early\nnineties affords some hope for the future with reference to the\nsuppression of lynchings, still the number of burnings and the number of\ncases in which the victims are subjected to extreme torture indicate\nthat too much reliance cannot be placed upon any apparent decline in the\ntendency to lynch. The fact also that lynchings frequently occur in\ncommunities where such summary and illegal procedure had not previously\nbeen permitted forebodes more lynchings in the future. The seriousness\nof the situation with reference to the practice of lynching in the\nUnited States is not yet fully realized. There is no little ground for\napprehension in the fact that it is becoming common for cries of \u201cLynch\nhim,\u201d \u201cHang him,\u201d \u201cGet a rope and string him up,\u201d &c., to be heard, even\non the streets of New York City, whenever a crowd gathers in response to\na feeling of popular excitement and indignation over the perpetration of\nsome atrocious crime.\n\nIn the course of this investigation into the history of lynching it has\nbecome evident that there is usually more or less public approval, or\nsupposed favorable public sentiment, behind a lynching. Indeed, it is\nnot too much to say that popular justification is the _sine qua non_ of\nlynching. It is this fact that distinguishes lynching, on the one hand,\nfrom assassination and murder, and, on the other hand, from insurrection\nand open warfare. A lynching may be defined as an illegal and summary\nexecution at the hands of a mob, or a number of persons, who have in\nsome degree the public opinion of the community behind them. When the\nterm first came into use it meant the infliction of corporal punishment,\nparticularly whipping. The term is now used exclusively to signify the\ninfliction of the death penalty in a summary fashion, usually by\nhanging. But whatever the penalty imposed or the manner of its\nimposition, the sentiment frequently expressed in a community where a\nlynching has occurred is to the effect that the victim or victims got no\nmore than was deserved.\n\nIt further appears from this investigation that no one cause or crime\ncan be assigned for lynching. Lynchings take place for various causes.\nAt one time there may be a lack of ordinary tribunals of justice, at\nanother time there may be doubt as to the efficiency of the legal\nmachinery. Lynchings may take place because the offense is outside the\nlaw but is deemed serious enough to merit severe punishment. They may\noccur because of the barbarity and fiendish nature of the crime\ncommitted. They may occur for one reason or for another; the only factor\nthat is always present is a disorganized state of society or a condition\nof popular excitement and resentment when reliance on ordinary legal\nprocedure is at a minimum.\n\nOf the legal remedies for lynching which have been proposed, few have\nbeen enacted into laws, and where such measures have been placed upon\nthe statute-books they have not as yet been so effectively administered\nas to inspire confidence in them as an ultimate means of suppressing the\npractice. The problem of finding a remedy for lynching is really a\nproblem of increasing and maintaining a popular reliance on the\nformulation and the administration of the law. Every measure which will\nin any way promote such a reliance, either by invalidating the excuses\noffered in justification of the practice or by developing a strong\npublic sentiment against it, deserves serious consideration, and every\nsuch measure, unless likely to be productive of other evils possibly\ngreater, should be immediately adopted and put into operation.\n\nThe existence of the practice of lynching in the United States is a\nnational disgrace and should be so considered by every citizen no matter\nin what part of the country his home may be. This, however, does not\njustify citizens of the Northern section in violently attacking citizens\nof the Southern section every time that a lynching occurs in that\nsection, or _vice versa_. Each section and indeed each community must\nhold itself responsible for the prevention of lynchings. Neither\nEuropean philanthropists nor the Northern press or pulpit can do very\nmuch toward preventing such occurrences in the South. It is a question\nwith which the South alone can properly deal and it is a problem which\nthe intelligent men of the South are best able to solve. The efforts of\nthe Southern Education Board and the General Education Board to educate\nboth the whites and the blacks and lift them to a higher plane of living\nwill do much toward preventing lynchings. The work done by such schools\nas the Hampton Institute and the Tuskegee Normal and Industrial\nInstitute, and the principles advocated by such men as Booker T.\nWashington, also lead in the same direction.\n\nIt has been well suggested that the Northern papers and the Southern\npapers should exchange texts\u2014the Northern press should preach against\nnegro crime, the Southern press should preach against lawlessness and\nrace prejudice. That this has been done in a few instances gives hope\nfor the future.\n\nTo the extent that the colored race increases its industrial efficiency\nand becomes economically strong in the South will there be a decrease in\nnegro lawlessness and viciousness, and likewise will it merit respect\nand confidence on the part of the white race. More than anything else\nthe colored race needs wise and able leaders at the present time. The\nfalse notions and ideals of the Reconstruction Period have now been\nlargely eradicated. The race is in a position to make substantial and\nmaterial progress, if under able leadership, and such progress will tend\nto eliminate the conditions which foster lynching in the South.\n\nIf the United States had a monarchical form of government the most\npracticable means for the suppression of lynchings would consist merely\nin the publication of an edict by the monarch for the better enforcement\nof the law. Most lynching mobs could be easily dispersed were the\nofficers of the law resolute and determined men intent upon protecting\ntheir prisoners and letting the law take its course; if they were\nresponsible only to their superior officers and not more or less\ndirectly responsible to the people, and if they were not in sympathy\nwith the mob to a greater or less degree. Our system of government,\nhowever, is in form representative and popular, and all our traditions\nare against a highly centralized form of government. In the United\nStates it is therefore necessary to depend very largely upon public\nsentiment for a strict enforcement of the law. Lynch-law will not cease\nto exist in this country until there is a strong and uncompromising\npublic sentiment against it in every community, a public sentiment\nwhich, with a full recognition of the ethnic and \u201csocietal\u201d factors\ninvolved in the \u201crace question,\u201d and of the necessity for a legal system\nconsistent with these factors instead of one based on abstract\nprinciples concerning the rights of all men, will invariably condemn\nlynchings because they are a crime against society, if for no other\nreason, and will under no circumstances countenance them because they\nmay be the administration of deserved and well-merited punishments.\n\n\n\n\n LIST OF PERIODICALS CITED\n\n\n American Journal of Social Science.\n American Law Review.\n American Whig Review.\n Annals of the American Academy of Science.\n Annual Reports of the American Historical Association.\n Atlantic Monthly.\n Boston Chronicle.\n Boston Daily Advertiser.\n Boston Evening Post.\n Boston Evening Transcript.\n Boston Gazette.\n Boston News-Letter.\n British and Foreign Review.\n Brooklyn Standard Union.\n Chambers\u2019 Journal.\n Chattanooga Times.\n Chicago Tribune.\n Congressional Record.\n Cyclopedic Review of Current History.\n Denver Republican.\n Essex Gazette.\n Fortnightly Review.\n Forum.\n Green Bag.\n Harper\u2019s Magazine.\n Harvard Law Review.\n Houston Post.\n Howitt\u2019s Journal.\n Independent.\n International Monthly.\n Johns Hopkins Historical Studies.\n Journal of Proceedings of American Social Science Association.\n Leisure Hour.\n Leslie\u2019s Weekly.\n Liberator.\n Literary Digest.\n London Gazette.\n London Gazetteer.\n Massachusetts Spy.\n Modern Philology.\n Nation.\n New England Gazette.\n New England Magazine.\n New York Commercial Advertiser.\n New York Evening Post.\n New York Evening Sun.\n New York Evening Telegraph.\n New York Gazette.\n New York Times.\n New York Tribune.\n New York World.\n Niles\u2019 Register.\n North American Review.\n Notes and Queries.\n Our Day.\n Outlook.\n Publications of the American Economic Association.\n Publications of the Southern Historical Association.\n Public Opinion.\n Raleigh News-Observer.\n Review of Reviews.\n Richmond Planet.\n Salem Gazette.\n Saturday Review.\n Southern Literary Messenger.\n Spectator.\n Washington Times.\n Yale Review.\n\nCitations are made also to statutes, historical records, colonial\narchives, encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc. Full references are given in\nthe foot-notes. For authors quoted see index.\n\n\n\n\n INDEX\n\n\n Abolitionism, 91, 107, 121.\n\n Abolitionists, 105, 106, 113, 120, 122.\n\n Act of indemnity, 29, 72, 73.\n\n Agreement to take extra-legal measures, 49, 73, 83.\n\n Alabama, burning alive, 108, 126;\n lynch-law adopted, 151, 179, 183, 188;\n responsibility of sheriffs, 244;\n punishment of lynchers, 255, 263.\n\n Alaska, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.\n\n Aliens, lynching of, 171, 181.\n\n Anti-slavery agitation, 198.\n\n Arizona, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.\n\n Arkansas, burning alive, 109, 126, 191;\n lynch-law adopted, 179, 183, 188.\n\n Arnold, S. G., 66.\n\n Atkinson, Governor, 231.\n\n Austria-Hungary, mob violence, 4.\n\n Aycock, Governor, 256.\n\n\n Bancroft, H. H., 132, 198.\n\n Bassett, John S., 48, 211.\n\n Beard, J. M., 139.\n\n Birkbeck, Morris, 77.\n\n Blanchard, Governor, 262.\n\n Blane, W. N., 38, 78.\n\n Boag, Rev. John, 10.\n\n Bohemian lynched, 172, 181.\n\n Boies, Henry M., 164.\n\n Brackett, J. R., 212.\n\n Brande, 5, 8.\n\n Brewer, Justice, on right of appeal, 260\u2013262.\n\n Bristed, C. A., 16.\n\n Brown, W. G., 140.\n\n Brown, William Wells, 202.\n\n Brown _v._ Orangeburg Co., 246 ff.\n\n Bryce, James, 140.\n\n Burning alive, 108, 109, 126, 127, 191, 274, 275;\n as legal punishment, 212 ff.\n\n\n Cabell, Julia Mayo, 23, 33, 75.\n\n California, vigilance committee movement, 132 ff.;\n lynch-law adopted, 151, 180, 184;\n punishment of lynchers, 255.\n\n Canada, practice of lynching does not exist, 3.\n\n Carpet-baggers, 138.\n\n Castration, form of punishment, 211.\n\n Cattle thieves, 163 (see horse thieves).\n\n Causes of lynchings, classification of, 166 ff.;\n conclusion in regard to, 276.\n\n Cazneau, Jane M., 197.\n\n Channing, W. E., 194.\n\n China, secret societies in, 4.\n\n Chinese lynched, 172, 181.\n\n Civil War, social disruption at close of, 137 ff.\n\n Club law, 38.\n\n Colonies, punishment of rape in, 208 ff.\n\n Colorado, lynch-law adopted, 152, 163, 180, 184;\n burning alive, 191.\n\n Colored element in population, influence on lynching, 186 ff.\n\n Commissioners _v._ Church, 248 ff.\n\n Connecticut, tarring and feathering, 63;\n perpetrators of outrage\n fined, 115;\n lynching of Charles Lockwood, 180, 181, 185.\n\n Corporal punishment (see whipping, tar and feathers, riding on rail).\n\n County liable for damages, 246 ff.\n\n Cowper justice, 8.\n\n Craig, John, 10.\n\n Criminality among negroes, 274.\n\n Crockett, David, 196.\n\n\n Damages, suits for, 114, 115, 125.\n\n Defensor, 105.\n\n Delaware, burning alive, 180, 185, 191, 261.\n\n Desjardins, Arthur, 24.\n\n Desperadism, 166.\n\n Desperadoes, 128 ff., 150.\n\n Dewees, F. P., 150.\n\n Douglass, Frederick, 223.\n\n Doyle, A. Conan, 140.\n\n Drake family of South Carolina, tradition in, 17 ff.\n\n Draper, Lyman C., 26, 34, 73.\n\n Drayton, John, 61, 69.\n\n Drewry, W. S., 92 ff., 165.\n\n DuBois, W. E. B., 274.\n\n Durbin, Governor, 263.\n\n\n England, practice of lynching does not exist, 3, 7, 9.\n\n Emancipation proclamation, 137.\n\n\n Fallows, Samuel, 10.\n\n Farmer, John S., 10.\n\n Faux, W., 38, 76.\n\n Featherston, H. C., 15, 23, 30.\n\n Featherstonhaugh, G. W., 36.\n\n Federal anti-lynching law proposed, 257.\n\n Fiske, John, 212.\n\n Flogging (see whipping).\n\n Florida, lynch-law adopted, 119, 179, 183, 188.\n\n Ford, Paul Leicester, 60.\n\n Foreign element in population, effect on lynching, 186 ff.\n\n France, practice of lynching does not exist, 3.\n\n Franchise given to negroes, effect of, 205 ff.\n\n Frontier conditions, lynch-law under, 1, 78 ff., 129 ff., 150, 194 ff.\n\n\n Gag law, 37.\n\n Galway story, 13 ff.\n\n Gamblers, lynch-law adopted against, 98, 99, 108.\n\n Garner, J. W., 138.\n\n Garrison, W. L., 91, 96.\n\n Georgia, lynch-law adopted, 92, 168, 179, 183, 185;\n burning alive, 191;\n anti-lynching laws, 231 ff., 233;\n punishment of lynchers, 256.\n\n Germany, practice of lynching does not exist, 3.\n\n Gregg, Alexander, 20, 51 ff.\n\n Grose, 7.\n\n Grund, F. J., 114, 271.\n\n Guinea Coast, secret societies of, 4.\n\n\n Hakluyt, 61.\n\n Halifax law, 8.\n\n Hall, Judge James, 39, 81.\n\n Hanna, C. A., 42.\n\n Hardiman, 15.\n\n Hawkes, Arthur, 202.\n\n Hening, 30, 32, 73, 76, 211.\n\n Henry, William Wirt, 32.\n\n Hershey, O. F., 270.\n\n Heyward, Governor, 252.\n\n Hittell, John S., 132.\n\n Hoffman, F. L., 153.\n\n Hogg, Governor, 230.\n\n Holt, George C., 155, 265.\n\n Hone, Philip, 117.\n\n Horse thieves, 3, 122, 128, 134, 163.\n\n Howe, Henry, 25, 26, 33.\n\n\n Idaho, lynch-law adopted, 180,184.\n\n Illinois, lynch-law adopted, 44, 45, 78, 180, 185, 188;\n compact entered into by Regulators, 83;\n mob violence, 110, 115;\n burning alive, 191;\n punishment of lynchers, 254.\n\n Illiteracy, study of with reference to the distribution of lynchings,\n 186 ff.\n\n Immigration, effect on practice of lynching, 186 ff.\n\n Indemnities paid by United States, 259.\n\n Indemnification of William Preston and others, 29;\n William Campbell and others, 72;\n Thomas Nelson, Jr., 73.\n\n Indiana, lynch-law adopted, 38, 77, 152, 180, 185, 188;\n anti-lynching laws, 241 ff.;\n Maxwell _v._ Dudley, 250.\n\n Indians lynched, 172. Cf. 41 ff., 44. 45.\n\n Indian Territory, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.\n\n Informers tarred and feathered, 62 ff.\n\n Ingle, Edward, 75.\n\n Ingraham, J. H., 101, 227.\n\n Iowa, lynch-law adopted, 86 ff., 180, 184.\n\n Italians lynched, 172, 181, 228.\n\n\n Jacksonian period, 106 ff.\n\n Jameson, R. G., 61.\n\n Jamieson, John, 8.\n\n Japanese lynched, 172, 181.\n\n Jeddart justice, 8.\n\n Jelks, Governor, 263.\n\n Johnson, Joseph, 22, 56, 61.\n\n Johnson, William, 26.\n\n Judge Lynch, code of his honor, 82, 83, 102, 133.\n\n\n Kansas, lynch-law adopted, 134, 152, 180, 184, 245;\n burning alive, 191;\n anti-lynching law, 245.\n\n Keller, Albert G., 272.\n\n Kemble, Fanny, 201.\n\n Kentucky, lynch-law adopted, 38, 78, 88, 151, 179, 183, 188;\n damages for slaves illegally executed, 125;\n burning alive, 191, 264;\n anti-lynching law, 238 ff.;\n punishment of lynchers, 255, 264.\n\n Ku-Klux Klan 6, 139 ff.\n\n\n Lashing (see whipping).\n\n Latrobe, C. J., 83.\n\n Lawless, Judge, 109, 193.\n\n LeBon, Gustave, 275.\n\n Lee, Henry, 26.\n\n Legal executions compared with lynchings, 163.\n\n Legal remedies, efficacy of, 245, 251 ff, 277.\n\n LeRoy, James A., 202.\n\n Lester, J. C., 139.\n\n Levell, W. H., 274.\n\n Linch, 16.\n\n Linch\u2019s Law, 39, 81.\n\n Lincoln, Abraham, on effects of mob law, 110 ff.\n\n Linn, W. A., 103.\n\n Lossing, Benson J., 24.\n\n Louisiana, lynch-law adopted, 117, 151, 179, 183, 188;\n slaves sentenced to death by planters, 126;\n burning alive, 191, 228.\n\n Lovejoy, Rev. E. P., 110, 115.\n\n Loyal League, 146.\n\n Lydford law, 7.\n\n Lyell, Sir Charles, 119.\n\n Lynch, dictionary definitions of, 9 ff.;\n etymology of, 16 ff.;\n use of word, 116.\n\n Lynch, Charles, 11, 23 ff.\n\n Lynch, John, 23, 35, 75.\n\n Lynch, James Fitzstephen, 13.\n\n Lynch, William, 73, 75.\n\n Lynchers, punishment of, 114 ff., 152, 254 ff., 265.\n\n Lynch\u2019s Creek, South Carolina, 19 ff.\n\n Lynch Creek, North Carolina, 17.\n\n Lynching, practice peculiar to United States, 1 ff., 267 ff.;\n social conditions affecting, 2, 5, 277;\n similar to regulating, 46;\n definition of, 11, 135, 136, 186, 241, 276;\n manner of death by, 151, 152, 191;\n how justified in South, 224\u2013226, 272, 273.\n\n Lynchings, reports of in newspapers, 159;\n distribution of by States, 182;\n distribution of by counties, 189.\n\n Lynch-law, meaning of term, 9 ff., 40, 136;\n frontier type, 82 ff., 85 ff., 89, 90, 129 ff., 150, 194 ff.;\n type found in well settled communities, 2, 112 ff.\n\n Lynch\u2019s law, earliest use of expression, 36;\n original signification of term, 39, 40;\n used for first time in Liberator, 97;\n used for first time in Niles\u2019 Register, 98.\n\n\n Malay lynched, 152.\n\n Marryat, F., 114, 194 ff.\n\n Martin, Colonel William, 34.\n\n Martin, F. X., 20, 48.\n\n Martineau, Harriet, 104, 114.\n\n Maryland, lynch-law adopted, 152, 179, 183, 188.\n\n Massachusetts, lynch-law adopted, 102, 103;\n tarring and feathering, 61 ff., 64, 65, 67 ff.\n\n Matthews, Albert, 19, 21, 32, 36, 59.\n\n Maxwell _v._ Dudley, 250.\n\n Mayo-Smith, Richmond, 170.\n\n McConnel, J. L., 84, 85.\n\n McCord, D. J., 213, 219, 221.\n\n McCrady, Edward, 20, 61, 69.\n\n Mexicans lynched, 172, 181.\n\n Michigan, lynch-law adopted, 152, 180, 185;\n anti-lynching law, 244.\n\n Mississippi, lynch-law adopted, 99 ff., 117, 120, 168, 179, 183, 188;\n suits for damages, 115;\n burning alive, 191;\n punishment of lynchers, 254.\n\n Missouri, lynch-law adopted, 98, 116, 118, 119, 120, 122, 151, 179,\n 183, 188;\n burning alive, 108, 109, 126;\n punishment of lynchers, 255.\n\n Mob law, 37.\n\n Mobocracy, 101.\n\n Mobs, 20, 69, 97, 101;\n definition, 241.\n\n Mob violence, 66, 68, 91, 103 ff., 110, 115, 259;\n damages for, 66.\n\n Molly Maguires, 150.\n\n Montana, lynch-law adopted, 151, 163, 180, 184.\n\n Montgomery, Cora, 197.\n\n Moore, Frank, 60, 61, 69, 70, 71.\n\n Moore, Nina, 64.\n\n Mormons, 103.\n\n Murray, C. A., 36, 198.\n\n Murrell conspiracy, 100.\n\n\n Nebraska, lynch-law adopted, 152, 180, 184.\n\n Negroes, lynching of, previous to Civil War, 124, 126 ff.;\n in recent years, 151, 152, 170 ff., 181;\n how justified, 223 ff.\n\n Nevada, lynch-law adopted, 151, 180, 184.\n\n New Hampshire, lynch-law adopted, 44.\n\n New Jersey, tarring and feathering, 70, 180, 185.\n\n New Mexico, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.\n\n New York, tarring and feathering, 63, 70;\n lynch-law adopted, 180, 185.\n\n New Zealand, tarring and feathering, 61.\n\n Noble, J., 212.\n\n North Carolina, Regulators, 20 ff., 48;\n lynch-law adopted, 91, 120, 179, 183, 188, 264;\n burning alive, 191;\n anti-lynching law, 232;\n punishment of lynchers, 256, 257.\n\n North Dakota, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.\n\n Nuttall, 10.\n\n\n O\u2019Ferall, Governor, 229, 231, 262.\n\n Ohio, lynch-law adopted, 152, 180, 185, 188, 248;\n anti-lynching laws, 235 ff.;\n Commissioners _v._ Church, 248 ff.\n\n Olmsted, F. L., 128.\n\n O\u2019Neall, J. B., 20, 21, 53, 55.\n\n Oregon, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.\n\n\n Page, Thomas Nelson, 140, 207, 224.\n\n Page, Thomas Walker, 23 ff.\n\n Page, Walter H., 223.\n\n Pell, Edward Leigh, 159, 231.\n\n Pennsylvania, Rangers at Paxtang, 41;\n tarring and feathering, 64;\n lynch-law adopted, 22, 97, 98, 180, 185.\n\n Perfectionists, 103.\n\n Phillips, Edward, 7.\n\n Popular tribunals, 133.\n\n Public sentiment as remedy, 265 ff., 279.\n\n\n Race prejudice, 168, 198 ff., 272.\n\n Ramsay, David, 55.\n\n Rangers, 41, 45, 82.\n\n Rape, 126, 127, 166, 169, 170, 177, 207 ff., 213 ff., 273.\n\n Ratzel, F., 4, 201.\n\n Reconstruction period characterized, 153.\n\n Regulate, earliest use in connection with extra-legal punishment, 48.\n\n Regulating, 20, 38, 39, 46, 48, 51, 59, 80.\n\n Regulators, 6, 20 ff., 33, 38, 42, 48 ff., 79 ff., 88, 121, 130, 143.\n\n Remedies tried, 245, 251 ff.\n\n Revolutionary War, social conditions during, 60.\n\n Rhode Island, tarring and feathering, 63;\n mob violence, 66.\n\n Riding on rail, 92, 103, 113, 120 (see whipping, tar and feathers).\n\n Riots, 38, 69, 91, 97.\n\n Roads, Jr., S., 69.\n\n Roberts, William, 3.\n\n Royce, Josiah, 132.\n\n Russia, lynch-law procedure, 3.\n\n\n San Francisco vigilance committees, 132.\n\n Schaper, Wm. A., 21.\n\n Schenck, David, 36.\n\n Schofilites, 22, 56.\n\n Scotland, summary procedure, 7, 9.\n\n Scotch-Irish blamed for introduction of lynch-law, 42, 43.\n\n Sewall, Samuel, 201.\n\n Shaler, N. S., 270.\n\n Shepherd, Samuel, 211.\n\n Sidis, Boris, 275.\n\n Simms, W. G., 26.\n\n Slick, use of word, 98, 120.\n\n Sloane, W. M., 71.\n\n Smith, W. H., 45.\n\n Sons of Liberty, 59, 154.\n\n South Carolina, Regulators, 19, 21, 51 ff.;\n tarring and feathering, 69, 71;\n lynch-law adopted, 151, 168, 179, 183, 188;\n provision for trial of slaves, 218 ff.;\n anti-lynching law, 233 ff.;\n Brown _v._ Orangeburg Co., 246 ff.\n\n South Dakota, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.\n\n Squire Birch, 33, 81.\n\n Stamp Act, 59.\n\n Stearns, Charles, 139.\n\n Stedman, C., 26.\n\n Stone, Alfred Holt, 191.\n\n Summers, L. P., 36.\n\n Sumner, W. G., 60, 107.\n\n Swiss lynched, 172, 181.\n\n\n Tar and feathers, 60 ff., 92, 97, 98, 100, 101, 103, 120.\n\n Tarleton, Banastre, 26.\n\n Tea merchants, subjects for tar and feathers, 66.\n\n Tennessee, lynch-law adopted, 35, 114, 115, 119, 151, 179, 183, 188;\n Ku-Klux Klan, 139, 145, 148;\n anti-lynching law, 237;\n punishment of lynchers, 255, 256.\n\n Texas, lynch-law adopted, 118, 121, 122, 128, 179, 183, 188;\n burning alive, 191, 228;\n anti-lynching law, 240, 241;\n punishment of lynchers, 255.\n\n Tillinghast, J. A., 200.\n\n Tories, 24 ff., 60, 72.\n\n Turner, Nat., 92 ff.\n\n\n Union League, 146.\n\n Upton, George P., 160.\n\n Utah, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.\n\n\n Vardaman, Governor, 263.\n\n Vehmic courts, 5 ff.\n\n Verdicts of coroner\u2019s juries, 263.\n\n Vicksburg gamblers, 99, 108, 194.\n\n Vigilance organizations, 6, 122, 125, 128, 130 ff.\n\n Virginia, lynch-law adopted, 23 ff., 32, 39, 76, 92, 119, 151, 179,\n 183, 188;\n acts to indemnify, 29, 72, 73;\n tarring and feathering, 71;\n agreement of 1780, 73;\n slave insurrection led by Nat Turner, 92 ff.\n\n\n Washington, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184.\n\n Washington, Booker T., 278.\n\n Wells, Ida B., 229.\n\n West Virginia, lynch-law adopted, 102, 179, 183, 188;\n joint resolution condemning lynching, 244.\n\n Westcott, 7.\n\n Wheeler, John H., 17 ff., 50.\n\n Whipping, 27, 28, 32, 35, 47, 76, 77, 92, 98, 99, 102, 113, 114, 115,\n 116, 120, 217\u2013218.\n\n White Caps, 154, 168.\n\n Willcox, Walter F., 207.\n\n Williams, George W., 199, 203.\n\n Williamson, Hugh, 20, 48, 50.\n\n Wilson, D. L., 139.\n\n Wilson, Woodrow, 107.\n\n Wirt, William, 26, 32, 71.\n\n Wisconsin, lynch-law adopted, 152, 180, 185.\n\n Wister, Owen, 197.\n\n Women, lynching of, 172, 173.\n\n Wright, Carroll D., 268.\n\n Wyoming, lynch-law adopted, 180, 184;\n punishment of lynchers, 255.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n Compare statement by William Roberts in _Fortnightly Review_, January,\n 1892 (57: 92).\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n The _Times_, Washington, D. C., Dec. 14, 1902.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n The _Standard Union_, Brooklyn, N. Y., Nov. 14, 1902.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n The _New York Evening Telegraph_, Oct. 8, 1902.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n See F. Ratzel: \u201cHistory of Mankind\u201d (trans. by A. J. Butler), I, 125,\n 281, 282; II, 131; III, 507.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n See \u201cFehmic courts,\u201d Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 9th edition.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n Edward Phillips: \u201cThe New World of Words, or a General English\n Dictionary\u201d (1678, 4th edition).\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n Grose\u2019s \u201cProvincial Glossary\u201d (London, 1811), p. 163.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n See \u201cLynch Law,\u201d International Cyclop\u00e6dia (1893).\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n See Century Dictionary under \u201cLaw.\u201d\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n John Jamieson: \u201cEtymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language\u201d\n (1879).\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n An American edition, bound under the title, \u201cBrande\u2019s Encyclop\u00e6dia,\u201d\n was published in 1843.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n The English Dictionary, edited by Rev. John Boag and published at\n Glasgow in 1848, gives for the verb lynch, \u201cTo inflict punishment\n without the forms of law, as by a mob.\u201d The definitions given for the\n words \u201clynched\u201d and \u201clynching\u201d are also very similar to the ones given\n by Webster. It is fair to presume that Boag consulted Webster and\n followed his authority, although he did not mark the term as an\n American word. John Craig\u2019s Dictionary of the English Language\n (London, 1849) gives \u201clynch, _v. a._ To punish summarily without\n judicial investigation, as by a mob.\u2014An American word.\u201d The London\n edition of Nuttall\u2019s Dictionary (published about 1863) gives \u201cLynch,\n _v. a._ To inflict pain, or punish without the forms of law, as by an\n American mob.\u201d The dictionaries published in Great Britain previous to\n 1848 do not contain the verb lynch.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n The edition of 1901 has the same. The Century Dictionary is the only\n recent authoritative work that states unequivocally that lynch-law was\n originally the kind of law administered by Charles Lynch of Virginia.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n See Hardiman\u2019s History of Galway (Dublin, 1820), p. 70. Also,\n _Spectator_ (London), April 13, 1889 (62: 511). The story can be\n traced back as far as the year 1674. See Miscellany of the Irish\n Arch\u00e6ological Society (1846), I, 44\u201380. (M.)\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n The _Green Bag_, March, 1900 (12: 150).\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n See \u201clynch law,\u201d The American Cyclop\u00e6dia (edition of 1875). See also,\n Notes & Queries, 2d Series, Oct. 23, 1858 (6: 338), where reference is\n made to _London Gazette_, 6\u20139 February, 1687\u20138, No. 2319.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n That he succeeded in making himself thoroughly unpopular with every\n one is shown in the Calendars of State Papers, Colonial Series,\n America & West Indies, 1685\u20131688, and 1688\u20131692. (M.)\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n See \u201clynch law,\u201d Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica (9th edition); also, under\n \u201cto lynch,\u201d Bartlett\u2019s Dictionary of Americanisms (4th edition, 1877).\n\n C. A. Bristed, in an essay on The English Language in America\n (Cambridge Essays, 1855, p. 60) says: \u201c_Linch_, in several of the\n northern-county dialects, means to beat, or maltreat. Lynch Law, then,\n would be simply equivalent to _club-law_; and the change of a letter\n may be easily accounted for by the fact that the name of Lynch is as\n common in some parts of America as in Ireland.\u201d\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n No such verb as _linch_ or _linge_ is found in Bosworth\u2019s Dictionary\n of the Anglo-Saxon Language, or in Stratmann\u2019s Middle-English\n Dictionary. Murray\u2019s Oxford Dictionary (1903) gives the verb _linch_\n as a variant of _linge_, a word \u201cof obscure origin.\u201d\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n See \u201clynch,\u201d Skeat\u2019s Etymological Dictionary.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n Although Bristed ingeniously traces lynch-law back to the verb\n _linch_, he remarks, in passing, that \u201cif there ever was a phrase\n deemed particularly Trans-atlantic in origin, it is that of Lynch Law\n for summary and informal justice.\u201d\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n See p. 10, note 1.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n \u201cReminiscences and Memoirs of North Carolina\u201d (1884), p. 172.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n \u201cHistory of North Carolina\u201d (1851), p. 274.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n See article by Albert Matthews in the _Nation_, Dec. 4, 1902 (75:\n 439).\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n Alexander Gregg: \u201cHistory of the Old Cheraws\u201d (1867), p. 120. F. X.\n Martin: \u201cHistory of North Carolina\u201d (1829), II, 228, 233. Hugh\n Williamson: \u201cHistory of North Carolina\u201d (1812), II, 128, 131.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n J. B. O\u2019Neall: \u201cAnnals of Newberry\u201d (1859), p. 76. It is not stated by\n O\u2019Neall at what time these gentlemen instituted this practice in South\n Carolina. From the evidence that Gregg gives, it apparently took place\n in the summer of 1767. See the following chapter, p. 53.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n See article by Edward McCrady, in the _Nation_, Jan. 15, 1903 (76:\n 52). This article as originally written was published in full in the\n _Sunday News_, Charleston, S. C., Jan. 11, 1903. In a letter published\n in the _Nation_, March 19, 1903 (76: 225), Mr. George S. Wills cites\n an example of the use of the word lynch in connection with this creek,\n which is found in a journal kept by the Rev. William H. Wills, a\n Methodist minister of North Carolina, who traveled in his sulky from\n Tarboro, North Carolina, to Alabama, in the early summer of 1837.\n After describing a narrow escape from drowning in an attempt to cross\n Lynch\u2019s Creek while it was swollen, the Rev. Mr. Wills writes in his\n journal: \u201cProbably I shall never forget Lynches Creek; for it had well\n nigh Lynch^d me.\u201d\u2014See \u201cPublications of the Southern Historical\n Association,\u201d November, 1902 (6:479). This example, however, shows no\n original connection between the term lynch-law and Lynch\u2019s Creek,\n South Carolina. As will appear in the following pages, by the year\n 1837 the word lynch had come to be widely used to indicate summary\n punishment. Evidently the writer in this case merely noticed the\n similarity between the name of the creek and the word which had\n recently come into use, and so made this play upon words, using the\n word lynch in a somewhat figurative sense.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n See article by Albert Matthews in the _Nation_, Jan. 29, 1903 (76:\n 91). In a monograph by William A. Schaper, on \u201cSectionalism and\n Representation in South Carolina,\u201d the statement is made, in reference\n to the Regulators of 1768, that \u201cthe settlers agreed to rely on lynch\n law, which received its name at this time.\u201d\u2014Annual Report of the\n American Historical Association (1900), I, 337. The author of this\n statement that lynch-law received its name at this time was, however,\n unable to cite facts to support it. (M.)\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n \u201cHistory of the Old Cheraws\u201d (1867), p. 128.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n J. B. O\u2019Neall: \u201cBiographical Sketches of the Bench and Bar of South\n Carolina\u201d (1859), I, p. x.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n \u201cTraditions and Reminiscences,\u201d pp. 44\u201345.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n Ibid., p. 544.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n Vol. 48, p. 402.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n One such story will be found in the following chapter on p. 73. For an\n account of the Lynch family in Virginia, see Mrs. Julia Mayo Cabell:\n \u201cSketches and Recollections of Lynchburg\u201d (1858), pp. 9\u201323. The chief\n available sources of information for the facts and events pertaining\n to the life of Charles Lynch are an article by Thomas Walker Page in\n the _Atlantic Monthly_, December, 1901 (88: 731), and one by Howell\n Colton Featherston in the _Green Bag_, March, 1900 (12: 150). Both of\n these articles have been largely drawn upon in the following pages.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n A writer (\u201cClaverhouse\u201d) in the _New York Evening Post_ for June 2,\n 1864, says: \u201cIn America, the term \u2018Lynch law\u2019 was first used in\n Piedmont, on the western frontier of Virginia. There was no court\n within the district, and all controversies were referred to the\n arbitrament of prominent citizens. Among these was a man by the name\n of Lynch, whose decisions were so impartial that he was known as Judge\n Lynch, and the system was called \u2018Lynch law,\u2019 and adopted in our\n pioneer settlements as an inexpensive and speedy method of obtaining\n justice.\u201d\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n Edited by Benson J. Lossing, published in 1882.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n See article by Arthur Desjardins, _Revue des Deux Mondes_, May, 1891.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n Charles Lynch was born in 1736, at Chestnut Hill, his father\u2019s estate,\n upon a part of which the city of Lynchburg now stands. His father was\n a \u201credemptioner\u201d who came to Virginia from Ireland about 1725. The\n young adventurer subsequently married the daughter of the planter to\n whom the captain of the ship that brought him over had sold him, took\n up a large tract of land lying between the James and the Staunton\n rivers, and became a tobacco planter on a large scale. At his death\n the home on the James fell to his eldest son, John, and Charles took\n the part of the family lands that lay nearer the frontier. The mother,\n Sarah Lynch, then a widow, had joined the sect of the Quakers at the\n Cedar Creek meeting on April 16, 1750, and it is in the records of\n this congregation of Quakers that the following item appears: \u201c14 of\n Dec., 1754. Charles Lynch and Anne Terrill published for the first\n Time their Intentions of Marriage.\u201d The young couple established their\n home on the Staunton, in what is now the southwestern part of Campbell\n County.\n\n For years Charles followed his mother\u2019s teachings and was an active\n member of the Society of Friends; for some time he was \u201cClerk of the\n monthly meetings.\u201d Later, however, the exigencies of the times caused\n him to forego some of his scruples and accept public office. In 1767\n he became \u201cunsatisfactory\u201d to the peace-loving Quakers and he was\n \u201cdisowned for taking solemn oaths, contrary to the order and\n discipline of Friends.\u201d It was in this year, 1767, that he was elected\n to the Virginia House of Burgesses, where he held a seat till the\n colony became an independent State. He was prominent in the earliest\n organization of Bedford County, formed from Lunenburg County in 1753\n (Henry Howe: \u201cHistorical Collections of Virginia\u201d (1845), p. 188;\n Hening\u2019s Statutes at Large, VI, 381), and was a member of the Virginia\n convention of 1776, which, by sending instructions to the delegates\n from Virginia in the Continental Congress, exercised a decisive\n influence on the movement for independence. He had been made a justice\n of the peace under a commission from Governor Dunmore in 1774, and\n when the county court was reorganized, according to the ordinance of\n the Convention, passed on the 3d of July, 1776, he retained the\n position.\n\n At the beginning of the Revolutionary War his Quaker principles seemed\n still to influence his actions to an extent sufficient to keep him out\n of active military service. His loyalty was well known, however. Mr.\n Page says: \u201cHe did not enlist in the army, partly because of his\n Quaker principles, but chiefly because his presence was imperatively\n necessary at home. He had to rouse the spirit of his constituents to\n support the action he had advocated in the convention. He had to raise\n and equip troops for the army. He had, as it were, to mobilize the\n forces of his country, and attend to all the duties of a commissary\n department. In addition, he had to make some provision in the event of\n an attack from hostile Indians.\u201d In 1778 the court of Bedford\n recommended him to the Governor for the office of Colonel of Militia\n in that county. He accepted the commission and organized a regiment,\n but the call to the front did not come till two years later when the\n war was shifted to the south and Lord Cornwallis was sent to\n co-operate with General Philips and Benedict Arnold in the invasion of\n Virginia.\n\n The records of the court of Bedford County, the minutes of various\n Quaker meetings, the journals of the Virginia House of Burgesses and\n of the first Constitutional Convention, taken together with family\n documents and traditions, show Charles Lynch to have been a thoroughly\n capable and highly respected man, a leader among the men in his\n community. Before the close of the war he made a record for himself as\n an officer in the army. At the battle of Guilford Court House, March\n 15, 1781, a battalion of riflemen under his command behaved with much\n gallantry and aided in bringing considerable credit to the Virginia\n militia. [Henry Howe: \u201cHistorical Collections of Virginia\u201d (1845), p.\n 212. W. G. Simms: \u201cLife of Nathanael Greene\u201d (1859), p. 186. Henry\n Lee: \u201cMemoirs of the War\u201d (1812), I, 341, 345. William Johnson:\n \u201cSketches of Life and Correspondence of Nathanael Greene\u201d (1822), II,\n 3. Banastre Tarleton: \u201cHistory of the Campaigns of 1780 and 1781\u201d\n (1787), p. 272. C. Stedman: \u201cHistory of the American War\u201d (1794), II,\n 338.]\n\n He lived for a number of years after peace had been declared with\n England, and voted for the new constitution. In the family\n burying-ground on his homestead plantation a tombstone bears the\n simple inscription:\n\n \u201cIn memory of Colonel Charles Lynch, a zealous and active patriot.\n Died, October 29, 1796; aged 60 years.\u201d\n\n Many anecdotes are still in circulation among the old inhabitants of\n his neighborhood illustrative of his habits and character. The chorus\n of a once popular patriotic song runs as follows:\n\n \u201cHurrah for Colonel Lynch,\n Captain Bob and Callaway!\n They never turned a Tory loose\n Until he shouted \u2018Liberty\u2019!\u201d\n\n Another version of this refrain runs this way:\n\n \u201cHurrah for Captain Bob,\n Colonels Lynch and Callaway!\n Who never let a Tory off\n Until he cried out \u2018Liberty!\u2019\u201d\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n Mr. Page makes no mention of any trouble with desperadoes. Referring\n to the Tories in Bedford County, he says: \u201cNumerous records of the\n county courts, taken together with other sources of information, show\n that here, as in many other western counties, there was a strong and\n influential party opposed to the struggle for independence. For the\n most part they were quiet, thrifty men, far different from the\n ruffians and desperadoes that prejudice has since represented them to\n be.\u201d That there were cliques of depredators and that much lawlessness\n prevailed in Virginia and the Carolinas at about this time is\n undoubtedly true, however. William Wirt, in his \u201cSketches of the Life\n and Character of Patrick Henry\u201d (p. 217), cites the case of Josiah\n Philips who, at the head of a band of banditti, spread terror in the\n counties of Norfolk and Princess Anne, and was made an outlaw by an\n act of the legislature of Virginia, by which act it became lawful for\n any person to kill him whenever opportunity offered. Lyman C. Draper\n presents the record of a great deal of lawlessness and depredation in\n his \u201cKing\u2019s Mountain and its Heroes.\u201d See pp. 241, 331, 332, 336, 340\n note, 343 note, 384, 448\u2013449.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n It is to be understood that these statements are based on tradition\n and not on contemporary evidence.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n Mr. Page remarks that the fine was not so heavy as it seems, for in\n that year the prices fixed by the court were: rum and brandy per\n gallon, \u00a340, corn and oats per gallon, \u00a32 8s., dinner at an\n \u201cordinary,\u201d \u00a34 10s., &c.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n Hening\u2019s Statutes at Large, XI, 134\u2013135.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n Quoted from the article by Mr. Page. No evidence is cited in support\n of the statement that the proceedings in Bedford were imitated in\n other parts of the State and came to be known by the name of Lynch\u2019s\n Law.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n See article by Mr. Featherston. A drawing of this tree \u201cfrom a sketch\n from nature\u201d may be found in the _Green Bag_, December, 1892 (4: 561).\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n Mr. Featherston states that Charles Lynch was often called \u201cJudge\n Lynch\u201d by his neighbors. He seems to have been more commonly known as\n \u201cColonel Lynch.\u201d\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n \u201cThe infliction of capital punishment was extremely rare. There were\n only three instances of it, and these for most heinous offenses,\n between the organization of the county (Bedford) and the Revolution.\n The first case was on May 24, 1756, when the court assembled \u2018to hear\n and determine all Treasons, Petit Treasons, Murders, and other\n Offenses committed or done by Hampton and Sambo belonging to John\n Payne of Goochland, Gent.\u2019 \u2018The said Hampton and Sambo were set to the\n Bar under Custody of Charles Talbot (then sheriff) to whose Custody\n they were before committed on Suspicion of their being Guilty of the\n felonious Prepairing and Administering Poysonous Medicines to Ann\n Payne, and being Arraigned of the Premises pleaded Not Guilty and for\n their Trial put themselves upon the Court. Whereupon divers Witnesses\n were charged and they heared in their Defence. On Consideration\n thereof it is the Opinion of the Court that the said Hampton is guilty\n in the Manner and Form as in the Indictment. Therefore it is\n considered that the said Hampton be hanged by the Neck till he be\n dead, and that he be afterwards cut in Quarters, and his Quarters hung\n up at the Cross Roads. And it is the Opinion of the Court that the\n said Sambo is guilty of a Misdemeanor. Therefore it is considered that\n the said Sambo be burnt in the Hand, and that he also receive\n thirty-one Lashes on his bare Back at the Whipping Post. Memo: That\n the said Hampton is adjudged at forty-five Pound which is ordered to\n be certified to the Assembly (that his owner may be remunerated\n according to law).\u2019 That it was a convincing proof of his guilt, and\n not race prejudice, that led the court to impose this savage\n punishment is evident from the fact that in the same year a negro was\n tried for murder, another for poisoning, and a third for arson, and\n all were cleared.\u201d\u2014Quoted from the article by Mr. Page.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n This evidence has been presented by the present writer in a\n communication to the _Nation_. See issue of May 21, 1903 (76: 415).\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n William Wirt: \u201cSketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry\u201d\n (1818), p. 372. Mr. Matthews, in his article in the _Nation_, Dec. 4,\n 1902 (75: 439), remarks that it is uncertain whether the note was\n written by Roane or Wirt. In William Wirt Henry\u2019s \u201cLife of Patrick\n Henry,\u201d Vol. II, p. 482, the \u201cMS. Letter of Judge Roane to Mr. Wirt\u201d\n is given, but the note is not included. The note was undoubtedly\n written by Wirt.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n An act for dividing the county of Bedford into two distinct counties,\n the new county to be known by the name of Campbell, was passed by the\n General Assembly in 1782.\u2014Hening\u2019s Statutes at Large, X, 447; Journal\n of the House of Delegates, Jan. 5, 1782, p. 73. Howe says that\n Campbell County was formed from Bedford in 1784, and named in honor of\n General William Campbell, a distinguished officer of the American\n Revolution.\u2014\u201cHistorical Collections of Virginia.\u201d p. 210.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n Published at Charleston, South Carolina, in 1845. See p. 212 for the\n quotation. See Mrs. Julia Mayo Cabell: \u201cSketches and Recollections of\n Lynchburg\u201d (1858), pp. 9\u201310, for a similar account of the connection\n of Colonel Charles Lynch with the origin of \u201cthe celebrated code\n called \u2018Lynch Law.\u2019\u201d This account is taken from the _St. Louis\n Republican_, but neither the author\u2019s name nor the date of its\n publication is given.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n Henry Howe: \u201cThe Great West\u201d (Cincinnati, 1852), p. 183.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n The writer is indebted to Mr. Matthews for the suggestion that Howe\u2019s\n allusion to \u201cSquire Birch\u201d points to Judge James Hall\u2019s \u201cLetters from\n the West\u201d as one such source. See Chapter III. p. 81.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n There are two errors here. Lynchburg was not named for him but for his\n brother, John Lynch, and the plan was started later than \u201csome seventy\n or eighty years ago.\u201d Mr. Matthews disagrees with the writer in saying\n that this account is entirely independent of what Wirt had written on\n the subject. It seems to the writer, however, that these two\n inaccuracies indicate that Martin was drawing wholly from his own\n sources of information. He was, apparently, merely writing down what\n was considered a matter of common knowledge among the older men in\n that section of the country, many of whom were emigrants from\n Virginia.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n \u201cPublications of the Southern Historical Association,\u201d November, 1900,\n (4: 463).\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n Charles Augustus Murray, in his \u201cTravels in North America during the\n years 1834, 1835, and 1836\u201d (2 vol., N. Y., 1839), gives a traditional\n account of the origin of the term \u201clynch-law,\u201d such a one as might be\n given around a camp-fire. He also describes the operation of lynch-law\n at that time in the Mississippi Valley. See Vol II, p. 79. G. W.\n Featherstonhaugh, in his \u201cExcursion through the Slave States\u201d (N. Y.,\n 1844), gives \u201cAn account of the first Judge Lynch, and the state of\n Legal Practice in his Court,\u201d pp. 89\u201390. He speaks of a certain Judge\n Lynch in Arkansas and of \u201ca famous Virginia ancestor of his.\u201d He says\n that \u201cthis ancestor, the first Judge Lynch, was a miller and a justice\n of the peace in the back woods,\u201d and then gives a traditional account\n of his methods of inflicting punishment. See also David Schenck:\n \u201cNorth Carolina, 1780\u201381\u201d (1889), pp. 309\u2013310. L. P. Summers: \u201cHistory\n of Southwest Virginia and Washington County\u201d (1903), p. 243.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n Mr. Matthews holds a somewhat different view. See article, \u201cThe Term\n Lynch Law,\u201d _Modern Philology_, Vol. II, No. 2, October, 1904. This\n article should be consulted by any one desiring to investigate this\n matter further.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n In the _Salem Gazette_, July 17, 1812, p. 3, the rise and domination\n of mobs in a community was characterized as \u201cMob Law.\u201d (M.)\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n Jan. 9, 1819 (15: 384). (M.)\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n July 24, 1819 (16: 368). (M.)\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n June 1, 1822 (22: 224). (M.)\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n \u201cMemorable Days in America\u201d (1823), p. 304.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n Ibid., p. 318.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n Vol. 26, p. 326.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n \u201cAn Excursion through the United States and Canada,\u201d pp. 233\u2013236. (M.)\n An extended extract is given in the following chapter on p. 79.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n pp. 291, 292. A more extended extract is given in the following\n chapter on p. 81.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n C. A. Hanna: \u201cThe Scotch-Irish\u201d (1902), p. 60.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n C. A. Hanna: \u201cThe Scotch-Irish\u201d (1902), p. 60.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n New Hampshire Provincial Papers, VI, 262\u2013266. (M.)\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n W. H. Smith: \u201cThe St. Clair Papers\u201d (1882), II, 351, 374, 376,\n 396\u2013397. (M.)\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n New Jersey Archives (1897), XIX, 225\u2013226. (M.)\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n New Jersey Archives (1897), XIX, 326\u2013327. _New York Gazette_, December\n 31, 1753. (M.) This is the earliest use of the word regulate in\n connection with illegal punishment for corrective purposes that has\n come to the writer\u2019s notice.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n See monograph on \u201cThe Regulators of North Carolina,\u201d by Professor John\n S. Bassett of Trinity College, N. C., for a full and complete account\n of this organization. It was published in the Annual Report of the\n American Historical Association for 1894.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n F. X. Martin: \u201cHistory of North Carolina\u201d (1829), II, 218\u2013219. H.\n Williamson: \u201cHistory of North Carolina\u201d (1812), II, 130\u2013131, 261.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n H. Williamson: \u201cHistory of North Carolina\u201d (1812), II, 262\u2013263. J. H.\n Wheeler: \u201cHistory of North Carolina\u201d (1851), II, 306.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n H. Williamson: \u201cHistory of North Carolina\u201d (1812), II, 270\u2013271.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n See Alexander Gregg: \u201cHistory of the Old Cheraws\u201d (1867), Ch. VII.\n This chapter contains quotations from original sources on the\n Regulation movement in South Carolina, and has, therefore,\n considerable value.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n See Gregg\u2019s \u201cHistory of The Old Cheraws,\u201d p. 134.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n See Gregg\u2019s \u201cHistory of The Old Cheraws,\u201d p. 134.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n J. B. O\u2019Neall: \u201cThe Annals of Newberry\u201d (1859), pp. 75\u201376.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n See Gregg\u2019s \u201cHistory of the Old Cheraws,\u201d p. 136. This is the earliest\n use of the word Regulator in connection with the disturbances in the\n Carolinas known to the present writer.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n On April 18, a Circuit Court Act was passed, but afterwards failed to\n become a law.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n See Gregg\u2019s \u201cHistory of The Old Cheraws,\u201d p. 138.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n See Gregg\u2019s \u201cHistory of The Old Cheraws,\u201d p. 139.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n David Ramsay: \u201cHistory of the Revolution in South Carolina\u201d (1785), I,\n 63\u201364. According to this author these events took place \u201cabout the\n year 1770.\u201d O\u2019Neall says (Annals of Newberry, p. 75): \u201cThe Regulators\n and Scofelites, in 1764, met in battle array,\u201d &c. Johnson says\n (Traditions and Reminiscences, p. 92): \u201cIn 1769 great commotions arose\n in the upper parts of the State, between what were called \u2018Regulators\u2019\n and \u2018Schofilites.\u2019\u201d In reality, the crisis in the strife between the\n Regulators and Schofilites occurred in March, 1769. This is shown by\n the following extract, dated Charlestown, (South Carolina), April 6,\n which appeared in the _Boston Chronicle_ of May 11\u201315, 1769 (No. 92,\n II, 155): \u201cThe prudent conduct of government, in ordering Joseph\n Coffill, who had assumed the title of Colonel, and some extraordinary\n powers, and with his party had committed divers excesses, to disperse,\n has had the happy effect of once more restoring peace and good order\n amongst the inhabitants of the western settlements, who, exasperated\n by the tyrannical conduct of this man, has assembled in a large body\n towards the close of last month, in order to compel him to shew what\n powers he was invested with, and if they had found that he was not\n cloathed with authority, to have brought him to justice, at all\n events. Both parties were incamped within musket shot of each other,\n on Saludy river, when the orders to Coffill arrived, and thus a great\n deal of bloodshed was prevented. The Colonels Richardson, Thompson,\n and M\u2019Girt, gentlemen of great reputation, and highly esteemed by the\n whole body of honest back settlers, we are told, exerted themselves\n upon this occasion, with great spirit, discretion, and success.\u201d\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n Joseph Johnson: \u201cTraditions and Reminiscences\u201d (1851), p. 45.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n Ibid.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n See Gregg\u2019s \u201cHistory of the Old Cheraws,\u201d pp. 151\u2013152.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n This is likewise Gregg\u2019s view of the matter.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n In the year 1765 and for several succeeding years the \u201cSons of\n Liberty\u201d were particularly active in stirring up resistance to the\n acts of the British government, which were considered oppressive. The\n \u201cSons of Liberty,\u201d elsewhere as well as in Boston, seem to have been\n regularly organized and to have held secret meetings at which\n resolutions were adopted and definite plans of action were determined\n upon for either driving away or punishing certain \u201cStamp Masters,\u201d\n \u201cinfamous importers,\u201d and \u201cinformers.\u201d Warning notices were frequently\n posted and published, signed by \u201cP. P., Clerk,\u201d \u201cM. Y., Secretary,\u201d\n &c. Hanging and burning in effigy, flagellation, tarring and\n feathering, and ducking, were the punitive measures generally\n threatened and not infrequently carried into effect.\u2014These statements\n are based on a collection of notes on \u201cSons of Liberty\u201d which were\n loaned to the writer by Mr. Albert Matthews.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n For an exposition of the condition of society, its state of\n dissolution and lack of organization, during the Revolutionary period\n and subsequent to that period, see W. G. Sumner: \u201cAlexander Hamilton\u201d\n (1890). On page 13 this statement is made: \u201cThe Union was from the\n start at war with the turbulent, anarchistic elements which the\n Revolution had set loose.\u201d\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n A correspondent of the _New England Gazette_ in 1776 asked \u201cwhether it\n would be featherable for a man to be detected with one of them\n (pardons from the king) in his pocket.\u201d\u2014Frank Moore: \u201cDiary of the\n Revolution (1875), p. 226. Paul Leicester Ford, when writing his\n historical novel \u201cJanice Meredith,\u201d treated tarring and feathering as\n an ordinary incident of Revolutionary times. See Chapters XVII,\n XXXVIII.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n John Drayton: \u201cMemoirs of the American Revolution\u201d (1821), I, 273.\n Frank Moore: \u201cDiary of the Revolution\u201d (1875), p. 44. Joseph Johnson:\n \u201cTraditions and Reminiscences\u201d (1851), p. 70. Edward McCrady: \u201cSouth\n Carolina in the Revolution 1775\u20131780\u201d (1901), p. 24. The date on which\n the tarring and feathering of Thomas Ditson of the town of Billerica\n took place was March 9, not March 8, as given by the above writers.\n For an explanation of the discrepancy in the date and for a\n description of the occurrence, see _Boston Gazette_, March 13, 1775\n (No. 1039, p. 3); March 20, 1775 (No. 1040, p. 3).\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n Joseph Johnson: \u201cTraditions and Reminiscences\u201d (1851), p. 71. \u201cThe\n punishment of banishment, preceded by the more dreadful operation of\n tarring and feathering,\u201d was put in execution by a \u201cjudicial\n Association\u201d in the early days of a settlement on the Bay of Islands,\n New Zealand. See R. G. Jameson: \u201cNew Zealand, South Australia, and New\n South Wales\u201d (London, 1842), pp. 190\u2013191.\n\n The _Yankee_, June 4, 1813, p. 4, cited one of the laws of the naval\n code established during the reign of Richard I as the \u201cOrigin of\n Tarring and Feathering.\u201d By this law any one lawfully convicted of\n stealing should have his head shorn, and boiling pitch poured upon his\n head, and feathers or down strewed upon the same, whereby he might be\n known until the next landing place was reached, where he was to be\n left.\u2014See Hakluyt\u2019s \u201cVoyages,\u201d II, 21.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n The writer is indebted to Mr. Albert Matthews for the facts which are\n here presented in regard to the practice of tarring and feathering\n previous to the year 1775.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n _Salem Gazette_, Sept. 6\u201313, 1768 (No. 7, p. 27). _Boston Evening\n Post_, Sept. 12, 1768 (No. 1720, p. 3). \u201cDiaries of B. Lynde & B.\n Lynde, Jr.\u201d (1880), p. 192.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n _Boston Evening Post_, Sept. 19, 1768 (No. 1721, p. 3).\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n _Essex Gazette_, Sept. 20\u201327, 1768 (No. 9, p. 37).\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n _Boston Evening-Post_, June 19, 1769 (No. 1760, p. 3).\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n _Boston Gazette_, Sept. 25, 1769 (No. 755, p. 3).\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n _Boston Gazette_, Oct. 16, 1769 (No. 758, p. 2).\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n No. 140, II, 351.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n _Boston Gazette_, Jan. 1, 1770 (No. 769, p. 1); June 11, 1770 (No.\n 792, p. 2); July 2, 1770 (No. 795, p. 2); August 20, 1770 (No. 802, p.\n 1); _Boston-Gazette_ Supplement July 30, 1770 (No. 799, p. 2); Aug. 6,\n 1770 (No. 800, p. 2); _Boston News-Letter_, June 21, 1770 (No. 3480,\n p. 3); _Essex Gazette_, June 19\u201326, 1770, II, p. 191; June 26\u2013July 3,\n 1770, II, p. 195; Aug. 7\u201314, 1770, III, p. 11; _London Gazetteer_,\n Nov. 17, 1770 (No. 13016, p. 2); \u201cThe Letters of James Murray,\n Loyalist,\u201d edited by Nina Moore Tiffany (1901), pp. 165, 175\u2013178.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n _Boston Gazette_, Nov. 1, 1773 (No. 969, pp. 1, 3). See also _Boston\n News-Letter_, Jan. 27, 1774 (No. 3669, p. 2).\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n _Boston Gazette_, Nov. 15, 1773 (No. 971, p. 3).\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n _Boston News-Letter_, Jan. 27, 1774 (No. 3669, p. 2); Feb. 3, 1774\n (No. 3670, p. 2); _Massachusetts Spy_, Jan. 27, 1774 (No. 156, p. 3).\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n _Boston Gazette_, Jan, 31. 1774 (No. 982, p. 3); _Massachusetts Spy_,\n Feb. 3, 1774 (No. 157, p. 2).\n\n On January 17 a handbill signed in the same way had been distributed,\n giving notice that any \u201cTEA CONSIGNEES\u201d who should come to reside\n again in Boston would be given \u201csuch a Reception as such vile Ingrates\n deserve.\u201d\u2014_Boston Gazette_, Jan. 17, 1774 (No. 980, p. 3); _Boston\n Evening Transcript_, Feb. 27, 1903, p. 14.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n No. 976, p. 3.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n _Boston News-Letter_, Nov. 18, 1773 (No. 3659, p. 2).\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n \u201cHistory of Rhode Island\u201d (1878), II, 308\u2013309.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n No. 761, p. 3.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n _Boston News-Letter_, Jan. 27, 1774 (No. 3669, p. 2); _Massachusetts\n Spy_, Jan. 27, 1774 (No. 156, p. 2); _Essex Gazette_, Jan. 25\u2013Feb. 1,\n 1774 (No. 288, VI, p. 107); March 1\u20138, 1774 (No. 293, VI, p. 127);\n _Boston Gazette_, Feb. 28, 1774 (No. 986, p. 2); March 14, 1774 (No.\n 988, p. 1). For a brief account of the whole affair see S. Roads, Jr.:\n \u201cHistory and Traditions of Marblehead\u201d (1880), pp. 91\u201394.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n For an account of the doings of mobs in Massachusetts see Frank Moore:\n \u201cDiary of the American Revolution\u201d (1875), pp. 37\u201342.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n John Drayton: \u201cMemoirs of the American Revolution\u201d (1821), I, 273\u2013274.\n Frank Moore: \u201cDiary of the Revolution\u201d (1875), pp. 90\u201391. Edward\n McCrady: \u201cSouth Carolina in the Revolution, 1775\u20131780\u201d (1901), p. 24.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n John Drayton: \u201cMemoirs of the American Revolution\u201d (1821), II, 17.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n Frank Moore: \u201cDiary of the Revolution\u201d (1875), p. 138.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n Ibid., p. 178.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n Frank Moore: \u201cDiary of the Revolution\u201d (1875), p. 359.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n W. M. Sloane: \u201cThe French War and the Revolution\u201d (1893), p. 239.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n \u201cSketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry\u201d (1818), pp.\n 232\u2013233.\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n Hening\u2019s \u201cStatutes at Large,\u201d X, 195.\n\n For an account of the measures taken which were not strictly warranted\n by law, see L. C. Draper: \u201cKing\u2019s Mountain and its Heroes\u201d (1881), pp.\n 384\u2013387.\n\n \u201cAn act to indemnify Thomas Nelson, Junior, esquire, late governor of\n this commonwealth, and to legalize certain acts of his\n administration,\u201d was passed in 1781.\u2014Hening\u2019s \u201cStatutes at Large,\u201d X,\n 478.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n _Southern Literary Messenger_, II, 389 (May, 1836).\n\n This reference comes to the present writer through Mr. J. P. Lamberton\n of Philadelphia, Mr. Edward Ingle, the author of \u201cSouthern Sidelights\u201d\n (See pp. 191\u2013193), and Mr. Albert Matthews.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n The name of one of the younger sons of John Lynch, the founder of\n Lynchburg, was William, and Mrs. Cabell says that he was a \u201cColonel in\n the late war.\u201d This William Lynch, however, married in early life and\n made his home in the city of Lynchburg. See Mrs. Julia Mayo Cabell:\n \u201cSketches and Recollections of Lynchburg\u201d (1858), p. 20.\n\n A writer in _Harper\u2019s Magazine_ for May, 1859 (p. 794) refers to a\n \u201cMr. Lynch\u201d who \u201cwas for many years the senior and presiding Justice\n of the County Court of Pittsylvania.\u201d This writer also says that\n Lynchburg was named for this Mr. Lynch, and that his advanced age\n prevented him from taking the field during the War of Independence.\n This, however, is an account from memory of a story heard when a mere\n boy from an old man, and, as there are inaccuracies in several\n particulars, it cannot be regarded as reliable.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n Hening\u2019s \u201cStatutes at Large,\u201d XI, 373.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n \u201cMemorable Days in America\u201d (London, 1823), pp. 304, 305.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n See pp. 96\u201398 for this extract. (M.)\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n W. N. Blane: \u201cAn Excursion through the United States and Canada,\n 1822\u20131823\u201d (London, 1824), pp. 233\u2013236.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n See pp. 291\u2013292 for this extract. The letters which compose Judge\n Hall\u2019s book were mostly printed in _The Port Folio_ between 1821 and\n 1825, but the letter in which he speaks of lynch-law first appeared in\n the printed volume of 1828. (M.)\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n This expression is used in the Illinois agreement of 1820 (see below),\n and that document, if genuine, furnishes the earliest instance of its\n use known to the present writer.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n This statement is made on the authority of McConnel (see below), but\n compare C. J. Latrobe: \u201cRamble in America,\u201d (N. Y., 1836, 2d ed.),\n Let. VII, I, 96.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n J. L. McConnel: \u201cWestern Characters or Types of Border Life in the\n Western States\u201d (1853), pp. 244\u2013245. (M.) This extract is copied\n verbatim, the names of the twelve men being omitted by McConnel. Of\n the genuineness of the document McConnel says: \u201cI am not sure that I\n can vouch for its authenticity, but all who are familiar with the\n history of those times, will recognise, in its peculiarities, the\n characteristics of the people who then inhabited this country. The\n affectation of legal form in such a document as this would be rather\n amusing, were it not quite too significant; at all events, it is\n entirely \u2018in keeping\u2019 with the constitution of a race who had some\n regard for law and its vindication, even in their most high-handed\n acts. The technical phraseology, used so strangely, is easily\n traceable to the little \u2018Justice\u2019s Form Book,\u2019 which was then almost\n the only law document in the country; and though the words are rather\n awkwardly combined, they no doubt gave solemnity to the act in the\n eyes of its sturdy signers.\u201d\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n J. L. McConnel: \u201cWestern Characters,\u201d &c., p. 176.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n _Niles\u2019 Register_, July 19, 1834 (46: 352).\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n The _Liberator_, Nov. 5, 1831 (1: 180).\n\n The publication of this paper was begun in Boston in 1831, by William\n Lloyd Garrison, the enthusiastic agitator of the anti-slavery cause.\n His efforts to make his lists of \u201cSouthern Atrocities\u201d as large as\n possible render his paper a valuable source of information on the\n subject of lynch-law, particularly lynch-law as applied to negroes\n prior to the Civil War.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n _Liberator_, Oct. 29, 1831 (1: 174).\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n Ibid., Oct. 1, 1831 (1: 157).\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n Ibid., Dec. 3, 1831 (1: 194).\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n For the fullest and, on the whole, most trustworthy account of this\n insurrection, see W. S. Drewry: \u201cSlave Insurrections in Virginia\u201d\n (1900). This book has been very largely drawn upon for what is here\n said on the subject.\n\n See also, _Liberator_, Oct. 1, 1831 (1: 159); Dec 10, 1831 (1: 198);\n Dec. 17, 1831 (1: 202); Dec. 24, 1831 (1: 206).\n\n See also, _Niles\u2019 Register_, Aug. 27, 1831 (40: 455); Sept. 3, 1831\n (41: 4); Sept. 10, 1831 (41: 19); Sept. 17, 1831 (41: 35); Jan. 7,\n 1832 (41: 350).\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n See p. 84 in Drewry\u2019s book.\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n The slavery question was the subject of prolonged debate at the next\n session of the Virginia House of Delegates. See _Niles\u2019 Register_,\n Jan. 28, 1832 (41: 393).\n\n In a speech made during the course of this debate, William H. Broadnax\n said: \u201cI have certainly heard, if incorrectly, the gentleman from\n Southampton will put me right, that of the large cargo of emigrants\n lately transported from that county to Liberia, all of whom\n _professed_ to be _willing_ to go, were rendered so by some such\n severe ministrations as these I have described. A lynch club\u2014a\n committee of vigilance\u2014could easily exercise a kind of inquisitorial\n _surveillance_ over any neighborhood, and convert any desired number,\n I have no doubt, at any time, into a willingness to be removed.\u201d See\n W. L. Garrison: \u201cThoughts on African Colonization\u201d (1832), p. 74. This\n reference comes to the present writer through Mr. W. P. Garrison and\n Mr. Albert Matthews.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n See _Niles\u2019 Register_ for the year 1834.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n _Liberator_, Oct. 18, 1834 (4: 168).\n\n The _New England Magazine_, November, 1834 (7: 409), gives some\n comments on the times under the heading \u201cThe March of Anarchy.\u201d\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n _Liberator_, Sept. 27, 1834 (4: 153).\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n Conditions were apparently much like those which existed recently in\n Memphis, Tennessee, when a Committee of Public Safety was organized\n and a crusade started against gambling. See _New York Times_, July 14,\n 1904; July 17, 1904.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n See _Niles\u2019 Register_, July 25, 1835 (48: 363); Aug. 1, 1835 (48:\n 381). Also _Liberator_, Aug. 8,1835 (5: 126\u20137).\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n For a brief account of the conspiracy led by Murrell, see _Niles\u2019\n Register_, Aug. 8, 1835 (48: 403\u20134). A complete account may be found\n in the _American Whig Review_, November, 1850 (12: 494); March, 1851\n (13: 213).\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n See _Liberator_, Aug. 8, 1835 (5: 126\u20137).\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n The \u201cSouth-West,\u201d II, p. 185\u20137. In Mississippi, at this time, eleven\n crimes were punishable by death.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n See _Liberator_, Aug. 1, 1835 (5: 123).\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n _Boston Advertiser_, Sept. 12, p. 2.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n Similar punishments have been inflicted upon Mormons. Joseph Smith,\n Jr., and Sidney Rigdon were tarred and feathered on the night of March\n 25, 1832.\u2014See W. A. Linn: \u201cThe Story of the Mormons\u201d (1902), pp.\n 133\u2013137.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n Issue of Aug. 22, 1835 (48: 439).\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n Issue of Sept. 5, 1835 (49: 1).\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n See also Harriet Martineau \u201cSociety in America\u201d (1837), I, 120, 121,\n 122.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n _Niles\u2019 Register_, Oct. 3, 1835 (49: 65).\n\n For a caustic satire on the \u201cproceedings of Judge Lynch,\u201d see \u201cThe\n Enemies of the Constitution Discovered,\u201d &c., by Defensor (N. Y.,\n 1835), pp 48\u201352.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n _Liberator_, Nov. 21, 1835 (5: 188).\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n See _Liberator_, June 8, 1838 (8: 89), for an editorial from the\n _Philadelphia Daily Focus_.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n _Liberator_, April 16, 1836 (6: 63).\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n _Leisure Hour_, Nov. 24, 1877, p. 750.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n This was Garrison\u2019s view of the matter. See _Liberator_, Aug. 10, 1838\n (8: 127).\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n Woodrow Wilson: \u201cDivision and Reunion\u201d (Edition of 1898), pp. 115,\n 117.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n W. G. Sumner: \u201cAndrew Jackson\u201d (1882), pp. 364\u2013365; pp. 428\u2013429, in\n edition of 1899 in American Statesmen series.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n _Liberator_, July 4, 1835 (5: 108).\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n See _Niles\u2019 Register_, June 4, 1836 (50: 234).\n\n Also _Liberator_, May 14, 1836 (6: 79), and May 21, 1836 (6: 83).\n\n A negro slave was burned to death in a similar way in Arkansas in\n November, 1836, for murdering his master and several negroes. See\n extract from the _Arkansas Gazette_ in _Niles\u2019 Register_, Dec. 31,\n 1836 (51: 275).\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n _Liberator_, June 25, 1836 (6: 102).\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n \u201cAbraham Lincoln, Works,\u201d I, pp. 9\u201310.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n F. J. Grund: \u201cThe Americans in their moral, social, and political\n relations\u201d (London, 1837), I, 323. (M.)\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n \u201cDiary in America\u201d (1839), III, 232\u2013233.\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n Harriet Martineau: \u201cRetrospect of Western Travel\u201d (1838), I, 236\u2013237.\n Marryat: \u201cDiary in America\u201d (1839), II, 201. _Liberator_, Aug. 24,\n 1838 (8: 135), &c.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n See Chapter II.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n _Liberator_, Oct. 27, 1837 (7: 174).\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n _Niles\u2019 Register_, June 15, 1839 (56: 256).\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n _Liberator_, Sept. 14, 1838 (8: 146).\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n _Liberator_, March 16, 1838 (8: 44).\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n _Liberator_, Feb. 9, 1838 (8: 24).\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n This is not wholly in accord with the opinion expressed by Mr. Albert\n Matthews in the _Nation_, Dec. 4, 1902 (75: 441), but in a private\n letter to the writer Mr. Matthews has accepted this modification.\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n See _Liberator_, Dec. 19, 1835 (5: 204).\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n Philip Hone: \u201cDiary 1828\u20131851\u201d (1889), I, 150. (M.)\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n See _Niles\u2019 Register_, Oct. 25, 1845 (69: 115).\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n Sir Charles Lyell, who was in Macon, Georgia, a short time after this\n occurred, gives an account of it in his book, \u201cA Second Visit to the\n United States of America\u201d (1850), II, 31\u201332.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n _Liberator_, Oct. 19, 1855 (25: 168).\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n During the period 1830\u20131860 the word \u201cslick\u201d was occasionally used at\n places in the Mississippi Valley, in the same sense as \u201clynch.\u201d See\n _Liberator_, Oct. 3, 1835 (5: 157), and compare _Niles\u2019 Register_,\n Oct. 5, 1833 (45: 87).\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n _Liberator_, Sept. 14, 1860 (30: 146).\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n See _Liberator_, Oct. 2, 1857 (27: 160).\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n See _Liberator_, Aug. 24, 1860 (30: 160).\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n See _Liberator_, Jan. 18, 1856 (26: 12).\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n _Liberator_, Oct. 16, 1857 (27: 167).\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n _Liberator_, Sept. 24, 1858 (28: 155).\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n _Liberator_, April 3, 1857 (27: 56).\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n See _Liberator_, Dec. 19, 1856 (26: 204). It is possibly to this case\n that F. L. Olmsted refers in \u201cA Journey in the Back Country\u201d (N. Y.,\n 1860), pp. 442\u2013443. He says a negro killed his master \u201ca few months\n since in Georgia or Alabama\u201d; and \u201cwas roasted, at a slow fire, on the\n spot of the murder, in the presence of many thousand slaves, driven to\n the ground from all the adjoining counties.\u201d\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n See H. H Bancroft: \u201cPopular Tribunals\u201d (1887), I, 749. In his two\n volumes on \u201cPopular Tribunals\u201d this author presents very forcibly the\n arguments and the conditions urged in justification of the acts of\n these \u201cTribunals.\u201d He also exhibits the methods and inner workings of\n these organizations. In \u201cLiterary Industries\u201d (1890), pp. 655\u2013663, he\n tells how he obtained his knowledge of what went on behind the scenes.\n\n For a somewhat different view of the Vigilance Committee movement in\n California, see Josiah Royce: \u201cCalifornia\u201d (1886), Chapters IV and V.\n\n See also, John S. Hittell: \u201cHistory of the City of San Francisco.\u201d\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n Quoted from Bancroft: \u201cPopular Tribunals\u201d (1887), II, 666.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n _New York Tribune_, June 7, 1858, p. 3.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n In a message written by Governor Clarke of Mississippi in 1865, this\n passage occurs: \u201cThe terrible contest through which the country has\n just passed has aroused in every section the fiercest passions of the\n human heart. Lawlessness seems to have culminated in the assassination\n of Mr. Lincoln.\u201d\u2014Quoted in J. W. Garner\u2019s \u201cReconstruction in\n Mississippi\u201d (1901), p. 59. The message is printed in the _New York\n Times_ of June 11, 1865.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n See \u201cReport on the Condition of the South,\u201d No. 261 of Reports of\n Committees of House of Representatives for 2d Sess., 43d Cong.,\n 1874\u201375.\n\n See, also, article on \u201cThe Southern Question\u201d by Charles Gayarr\u00e9 in\n _North American Review_, November and December, 1877 (125: 472).\n\n For a comprehensive view, briefly stated, of the great social changes\n begun in the South during the reconstruction period, see editorial\n \u201cThe Way Out,\u201d in _Outlook_, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n See Reports of Committees of House of Representatives for 2d Sess.,\n 42d Cong., 1871\u201372.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n The best apparently reliable source for information as to the\n character and purpose of this organization is a little book entitled\n \u201cThe Ku-Klux Klan,\u201d written by J. C. Lester and D. L. Wilson, and\n published at Nashville, Tennessee, in 1884. See also, article \u201cThe\n Ku-Klux Klan,\u201d signed D. L. Wilson, published in the _Century\n Magazine_, July, 1884 (6: 398).\n\n A less valuable but an interesting book is \u201cK. K. K. Sketches,\u201d by J.\n M. Beard, published at Philadelphia in 1877.\n\n Many writers make incidental reference to the Ku-Klux Klan; for\n example, Charles Stearns: \u201cThe Black Man of the South and the Rebels\u201d\n (1872), Chap. 39; James Bryce: \u201cThe American Commonwealth,\u201d II, 479.\n\n An account of \u201cThe Ku-Klux Movement\u201d is given in W. G. Brown\u2019s \u201cLower\n South in American History\u201d (1902).\n\n Some of the characteristic, possibly exaggerated, features of the\n \u201cKu-Klux Movement\u201d have been presented in fiction. See, for example,\n A. Conan Doyle: \u201cAdventures of Sherlock Holmes, The Five Orange Pips\u201d\n (1902), p. 104; Thomas Nelson Page: \u201cRed Rock, a chronicle of\n Reconstruction\u201d (1898).\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n The committee appointed to select a name reported among others the\n name \u201cKukloi,\u201d from the Greek word _kuklos_, meaning a band or circle.\n At mention of this some one cried out: \u201cCall it \u2018Ku Klux.\u2019\u201d The word\n \u201cKlan\u201d at once suggested itself, and was added to complete the\n alliteration. It has been said that the society was named in imitation\n of the click heard in cocking the rifle, but this seems to be without\n foundation in fact.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n See, for example, _Nation_, March 23, 1871 (12: 192); _New York\n Times_, Feb. 15, 1871; _New York Times_, Aug. 26, 1873; _New York\n Tribune_, July 31, 1878.\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n For a list of the \u201cMolly Maguire\u201d outrages in the mining region of\n Pennsylvania, and for an exposition of the origin, growth, and\n character of that organization, see F. P. Dewees: \u201cThe Molly Maguires\u201d\n (1877).\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n No claim for completeness is made in regard to these statistics.\n Particularly in the case of lynchings in the West they are doubtless\n incomplete.\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n _Outlook_, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n Compare the opinion expressed in the _Nation_, Sept. 7, 1876 (23: 145)\n on the subject of \u201cintimidation\u201d at the South. In the year 1879, a\n \u201cNegro exodus from the Southern States\u201d took place, which, on account\n of its size and character, attracted considerable attention. Numerous\n reasons were assigned as the cause. See F. L. Hoffman: \u201cRace Traits\n and Tendencies of the American Negro.\u201d\u2014Publications of the American\n Economic Association, August, 1896 (11: 1); _Nation_, April 10, 1879\n (28: 239, 242); Report and Testimony of the Select Committee of the U.\n S. Senate to investigate the causes of the removal of the negroes from\n the Southern States to the Northern States, 2d Sess., 46th Cong.\n (Washington, 1880).\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n It is of interest to note that the Sons of Liberty of the period\n 1765\u20131775 seem to have had a regular organization and that in their\n use of disguises and in their methods they were not wholly unlike the\n Ku-Klux.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n \u201cLynching and Mobs,\u201d _American Journal of Social Science_, No. 32, p.\n 67 (November, 1894).\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n Edward Leigh Pell, writing on \u201cPrevention of Lynch-law Epidemics,\u201d in\n the _Review of Reviews_, March, 1898 (17: 321), questions the accuracy\n of the _Tribune_ figures for Alabama, Florida, and Virginia in the\n year 1897. It is to be noted, however, that he refers to lynchings and\n seems to have regarded number of lynchings as synonymous with number\n of persons lynched.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n In a recent article, entitled \u201cThe Facts about Lynching,\u201d written by\n George P. Upton, who for a number of years has been associate-editor\n of the _Tribune_, a similar table may be found. [See the\n _Independent_, Sept. 29, 1904 (57: 719)]. In this table, however,\n there are numerous inaccuracies, and the fact that Mr. Upton does not\n discriminate between number of lynchings and number of persons lynched\n detracts materially from the value of all of his statistical summaries\n on the subject.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n Compare p. 182.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n The negro had escaped from the mob and gone to a neighboring county\n where he gave himself up to the authorities for protection. Later,\n according to a letter received by the writer from the mayor of the\n town where he sought protection, he was taken back by the sheriff and\n brought before a justice for a preliminary hearing. The evidence was\n considered insufficient to bind him over to the grand jury and he was\n released.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n Principally New York City and New Haven, Conn., papers.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n To be strictly accurate the number of lynchings should be taken rather\n than the number of persons lynched, but for the purpose of comparison\n from year to year the latter may be considered sufficiently exact. See\n p. 185.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n Henry M. Boies has shown from the _Tribune_ record of murders that\n there has been, within the last twenty years, \u201can alarming increase of\n homicides, accompanied by a proportionate decrease of executions by\n law and lynching.\u201d\u2014\u201cScience of Penology\u201d (1901), p. 120.\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n See W. S. Drewry: \u201cSlave Insurrections in Virginia\u201d (1900), pp. 22\u201325.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n The liberty has been taken of coining this word to designate the cause\n for lynching the class of individuals known as desperadoes. No other\n word seems to express the idea so clearly. The word \u201cbrigandage\u201d is\n too narrow in meaning and too nearly obsolete; the word \u201coutlawry\u201d is\n not sufficiently inclusive and is generally used only in its technical\n sense.\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n \u201cStatistics and Sociology\u201d (1900), p. 271.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n This may be taken as an indication of the trustworthiness of the\n _Tribune_ record of lynchings as a basis for statistical\n investigation.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n See p. 164.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n See the daily issues from July 23 to July 27, 1886.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n These figures are taken from the Twelfth Census, where the term\n \u201cilliterates\u201d is used to designate all persons ten years of age and\n over who can neither read nor write, or who can read but cannot write.\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n The figures given by the Twelfth Census were used. The figures of the\n Eleventh Census would be more nearly typical for the period under\n consideration than those of the Twelfth Census, but a difficulty was\n met with in an attempt to use them, owing to the fact that new\n counties have been formed since 1890. It was found that counties in\n which lynchings have occurred did not appear at all in the Eleventh\n Census, and that for the sake of completeness it was necessary to use\n the Twelfth Census.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n Alfred Holt Stone, In a paper read before the American Economic\n Association in December, 1901, attributed the amicable relations\n existing between the whites and the negroes in the Yazoo-Mississippi\n delta to the absence of a white laboring class, particularly of field\n laborers. In his opinion one of the gravest causes of trouble between\n the two races is contact on a common industrial plane.\u2014\u201cPublications\n of the American Economic Association,\u201d February, 1902 (3d Ser., Vol.\n III, No. 1, p. 235).\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n See p. 109.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n _Liberator_, April 19, 1839 (9: 63).\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n _Liberator_, April 30, 1836 (6: 72).\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n \u201cDiary in America\u201d (1839), III, 226\u2013230.\n\n For a description of the beginnings of legal procedure in isolated\n settlements on the frontier, see \u201cNarrative of the Life of David\n Crockett,\u201d written by himself (1843), pp. 132\u2013135. (M.)\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n _British and Foreign Review_, 14: 29 (1843).\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n Cora Montgomery (Jane M. Cazneau): \u201cEagle Pass; or Life on the Border\u201d\n (1852), pp. 153, 164\u2013167.\n\n Compare the justification of the frontier type of lynch-law given by\n Owen Wister in his recent novel, \u201cThe Virginian.\u201d After describing the\n lynching of some Wyoming cattle-thieves, and emphasizing the fact that\n \u201cmany an act that man does is right or wrong according to the time and\n place which form, so to speak, its context,\u201d the author puts into the\n mouth of \u201cJudge Henry\u201d these words: \u201cThey (the ordinary citizens) are\n where the law comes from, you see. For they chose the delegates who\n made the Constitution that provided for the courts. There\u2019s your\n machinery. These are the hands into which ordinary citizens have put\n the law. So you see, at best, when they lynch they only take back what\n they once gave.... We are in a very bad way, and we are trying to make\n that way a little better until civilization can reach us. At present\n we lie beyond its pale. The courts, or rather the juries, into whose\n hands we have put the law, are not dealing the law. They are withered\n hands, or rather they are imitation hands made for show, with no life\n in them, no grip. They cannot hold a cattle-thief. And so when your\n ordinary citizen sees this, and sees that he has placed justice in a\n dead hand, he must take justice back into his own hands where it was\n once at the beginning of all things. Call this primitive, if you will,\n but so far from being a _defiance_ of the law, it is an _assertion_ of\n it\u2014the fundamental assertion of self-governing men, upon whom our\n whole social fabric is based.\u201d\u2014pp. 435\u2013436.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n C. A. Murray: \u201cTravels in America\u201d (1839), II, 81.\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n Bancroft\u2019s justification of popular tribunals and vigilance societies\n has been referred to above. See Chapter IV, p. 133.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n \u201cHistory of the Negro Race in America\u201d (1883), I, 121, 131.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n See J. A. Tillinghast: \u201cThe Negro in Africa and America\u201d\u2014Publications\n of the American Economic Association, May, 1902 (3d Ser., Vol. III,\n No. 2). This monograph presents an admirable historical perspective of\n the native characteristics and of the acquirements of the colored race\n in America.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n Fanny Kemble, writing in 1838\u201339, attributed the \u201cpersonal\n offensiveness\u201d of negroes to dirt and habits of uncleanliness,\n asserting that the negroes had no respect for their personal\n appearance, and that this lack of respect was due to slavery. In her\n journal, these words are found: \u201cThe stench in an Irish, Scotch,\n Italian, or French hovel are quite as intolerable as any I ever found\n in any of our negro houses.\u201d In another connection, however, when\n describing a certain negro named Isaac, she refers particularly to his\n strong physical resemblance to a monkey, and says that she is much\n comforted by the fact that this individual \u201c_speaks_.\u201d See \u201cJournal of\n a Residence on a Georgian Plantation\u201d (1863), pp. 23\u201324, 219.\n\n In describing \u201cThe Negro in General,\u201d Ratzel writes: \u201cThe specific,\n but hardly definable negro smell is certainly possessed by all, in\n varying degrees. Falkenstein refers it to the somewhat more oily\n composition of the sweat, which with uncleanly habits easily develops\n rancid acids.\u201d\u2014\u201cHistory of Mankind\u201d (Trans. from 2d German ed. by A.\n J. Butler, 1897), II, 315; see also II, 266, 301.\n\n A practising physician in the city of New Haven, Conn., has assured\n the writer that the peculiar odor is again apparent very soon after a\n negro patient has been given a bath and a change of clothing.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n Compare statements made in \u201cAn Apology for the Short Shrift\u201d\u2014_Saturday\n Review_, May 28, 1898 (85: 717).\n\n The following passage is found in \u201cThe Selling of Joseph,\u201d by\n Chief-Justice Samuel Sewall, printed in Boston, June 12, 1700, the\n first printed protest against slaveholding in Massachusetts: \u201cand\n there is such a disparity in their Conditions, Colour & Hair, that\n they can never embody with us, and grow up in orderly Families, to the\n Peopling of the Land: but still remain in our Body Politick as a kind\n of extravasat Blood.\u201d\u2014See \u201cProceedings of the Massachusetts Historical\n Society\u201d for October, 1863 (Vol. 1863\u201364, p. 161).\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n William Wells Brown makes this statement in his book, \u201cThe Negro in\n the Rebellion,\u201d pp. 361\u2013362.\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n Compare the manifestation of race prejudice in South Africa, in\n Australia, and in the Philippines. See article \u201cThe Negro Problem in\n South Africa,\u201d by Arthur Hawkes, _Review of Reviews_, September, 1903\n (28: 325), and the editorial comments on pp. 264\u2013265 of the same\n issue. See also, article \u201cRace Prejudice in the Philippines,\u201d by James\n A. Le Roy, _Atlantic Monthly_, July, 1902 (90: 100).\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n George W. Williams: \u201cHistory of the Negro Race in America\u201d (1883), II,\n 72.\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n Evidence for this statement has been presented above. See Chapter IV.\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n _Outlook_, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n _Outlook_, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n _Outlook_, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n See p. 200 of monograph \u201cThe Negro in Africa and America,\u201d referred to\n above. That this crime is of recent origin is either stated or assumed\n by almost every writer who discusses the lynching of negroes. See, for\n example, article by Thomas Nelson Page in _The North American Review_,\n January, 1904 (178: 33).\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n From a study of the prison statistics furnished by the United States\n census, Professor Walter F. Willcox came to the positive conclusion\n that \u201ca large and increasing amount of negro crime is manifested all\n over the country.\u201d\u2014See an address on \u201cNegro Criminality,\u201d delivered\n before the American Social Science Association, on Sept. 6,\n 1899\u2014\u201cJournal of Proceedings,\u201d No. 37, p. 97.\n\n A like opinion is expressed by many writers. See, for example,\n _Forum_, October, 1898 (16: 167); _Outlook_, Oct. 31, 1903 (75: 493);\n _Outlook_, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n For a number of references on the subject of rape and its punishment,\n and also on the subject of burning alive as a legal punishment for\n crime, during the colonial period, the writer is indebted to Mr.\n Albert Matthews.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n \u201cActs of Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania\u201d (1775), pp. 45\u201346.\n\n On May 5, 1722, it became the law of Pennsylvania that importers of\n servants who have been convicted of rape must pay a duty and enter\n security for good behavior for one year.\u2014Statutes at Large of\n Pennsylvania, III, 264.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n Colonial Laws of New York, I, 765\u2013766.\n\n Compare law of Aug. 8, 1688, in the Island of Barbadoes, which\n provided that two justices and three freeholders were to \u201cgive\n sentence of Death upon\u201d negroes, for murder, rape, burning houses,\n &c.\u2014Acts of Assembly Passed in the Island of Barbadoes, From 1648, to\n 1718 (1721), pp. 140\u2013141.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n Laws of the State of Delaware (1797), I, 102\u2013105.\n\n By an act passed in January, 1797, thirty-nine lashes well laid on\n were added to the punishment for an attempted rape on a white woman or\n maid.\u2014Laws of the State of Delaware (1797), II, 1321\u20131324.\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n Laws of Maryland (1799), Chapter XIV.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n See John S. Bassett: \u201cSlavery and Servitude in the Colony of North\n Carolina\u201d\u2014Johns Hopkins Historical Studies (1896), XIV, 199. In\n Virginia the punishment of castration was so frequently inflicted upon\n slaves by the county courts that the Assembly deemed it necessary to\n enact that \u201cit shall not be lawful for any county or corporation\n court, to order and direct castration of any slave, except such slave\n shall be convicted of an attempt to ravish a white woman, in which\n case they may inflict such punishment.\u201d\u2014See Hening: \u201cVirginia Statutes\n at Large,\u201d VI, 3; VIII, 358; Samuel Sheperd: \u201cVirginia Statutes at\n Large\u201d (New Series, 1835), I, 125.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n \u201cRecords of the Court of Assistants of the Colony of the Massachusetts\n Bay\u201d (J. Noble, 1901), p. 74.\n\n The following passage is taken from the _Boston Chronicle_, Sept.\n 26\u2013Oct. 3, 1768 (No. 42, I, 383): \u201cWe hear that a negro fellow was\n tried at the Assizes held lately at Worcester, for a rape, and found\n guilty, and received sentence of death.\u2014A white man was also tried and\n found guilty of the same crime, and sentenced to sit on the gallows.\u201d\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n See \u201cProceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society\u201d (1874), 2d\n Series, III, 178.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n See J. R. Brackett: \u201cThe Negro in Maryland\u201d (1889), p. 131.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n _Pennsylvania Gazette_, Dec. 14, 1744 (N. J. _Archives_, XII, 244).\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n The basis for these statements is a collection of notes on legal\n burning alive made by Mr. Albert Matthews. Compare John Fiske: \u201cOld\n Virginia and her Neighbours\u201d (1897), II, 265.\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n Section LVI of \u201cAn Act for the better Ordering and Governing Negroes\n and other Slaves in this Province,\u201d dated the 10th day of May, 1740,\n reads as follows: \u201cAnd _whereas_, several negroes did lately rise in\n rebellion, and did commit many barbarous murders at Stono and other\n parts adjacent thereto; and _whereas_, in suppressing the said rebels,\n several of them were killed and others taken alive and executed; and\n as the exigence and danger the inhabitants at that time were in and\n exposed to, would not admit of the formality of a legal trial of such\n rebellious negroes, but for their own security, the said inhabitants\n were obliged to put such negroes to immediate death; to prevent,\n therefore, any person or persons being questioned for any matter or\n thing done in the suppression or execution of the said rebellious\n negroes, as also any litigious suit, action, or prosecution that may\n be brought, sued or prosecuted or commenced against such person or\n persons for or concerning the same; _Be it enacted_ by the authority\n aforesaid, That all and every act, matter and thing, had, done,\n committed and executed, in and about the suppressing and putting all\n and every the said negro and negroes to death, is and are hereby\n declared lawful, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, as fully and\n amply as if such rebellious negroes had undergone a formal trial and\n condemnation, notwithstanding any want of form or omission whatever in\n the trial of such negroes; and any law, usage or custom to the\n contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.\u201d\u2014\u201cStatutes at Large of\n South Carolina\u201d (edited by D. J. McCord, 1840), VII, 416\u2013417.\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n Instances are recorded where Indians who had committed the crime of\n rape on white females were legally dealt with. See \u201cRecords of the\n Colony of the Massachusetts Bay in New England,\u201d II, 23; \u201cNew Haven\n Colonial Records\u201d (Hoadly, 1858), p. 543; \u201cRhode Island Colonial\n Records,\u201d II, 420, 427, 428; \u201cRecords of the Court of Assistants of\n the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay\u201d (J. Noble, 1901), pp. 21\u201322;\n \u201cPlymouth Colony Records,\u201d VI, 98.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n _Niles\u2019 Register_, Dec. 25, 1813 (5: 279).\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n _Niles\u2019 Register_, Aug. 25, 1821 (20: 415\u2013416).\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n _Niles\u2019 Register_, June 8, 1822 (22: 238).\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n _Niles\u2019 Register_, July 13, 1822 (22: 320).\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n _Niles\u2019 Register_, Sept, 14, 1822 (23: 18). It was in the year 1741\n that the thirteen blacks were burned at the stake in New York by\n judicial decree.\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n Additional evidence has been given above in another connection. See\n Chapter IV.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n By an act passed the 11th day of May, 1754, power was given the\n justice to postpone the trial to such time as he thought proper, owing\n to the frequent difficulty of procuring the justice and the\n freeholders and the witnesses to attend the trial within the three\n days.\u2014\u201cStatutes at Large of S. C.\u201d (edited by D. J. McCord, 1840),\n VII, 426\u2013427.\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n \u201cStatutes at Large of South Carolina\u201d (edited by D. J. McCord, 1840),\n VII, 400\u2013402. It was also provided by this act, which was passed the\n 10th day of May, 1740, that an oath for the faithful discharge of duty\n be taken by the freeholders when they assembled with the justices for\n the trial of prisoners, that the evidence of slaves, without oath, be\n admitted against slaves, that for certain offenses certain penalties\n be imposed, that compensation be allowed the owners of slaves\n executed, that masters and other persons be compelled to give\n evidence, that the constables execute or punish slaves according to\n the judgments rendered, &c., &c.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n The laws of Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware have been\n cited above.\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n \u201cNegro Outrage no Excuse for Lynching\u201d\u2014_Forum_, November, 1893 (16:\n 300).\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n Walter H. Page: \u201cThe Last Hold of the Southern Bully\u201d\u2014_Forum_,\n November, 1893 (16: 303).\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n \u201cLynching of Black People because they are Black\u201d\u2014_Our Day_, 13: 298\n (1894).\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n The following passage is taken from an editorial in the _Houston_\n (Texas) _Post_ of October 23, 1902: \u201cFrom the same telegraph pole from\n which the two negroes were hanged at Hempstead on Tuesday, a rapist\n was hanged less than two months ago. The circumstances of the first\n execution were fully known to the victims of the second mob. This\n teaches very plainly that lynching does not deter.\u201d\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n See \u201cThe Epidemic of Savagery,\u201d _Outlook_, Sept. 7, 1901 (69: 9);\n also, \u201cThe Lynching of Negroes,\u201d by Thomas Nelson Page, _North\n American Review_, January, 1904 (178: 33).\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n Compare the conclusion arrived at by a Georgia lawyer in an article in\n the _Forum_, October, 1893 (16: 176).\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n Even such a discriminating and estimable journal as the _Nation_ still\n makes use of every possible occasion to preach the rights of man in\n general and of the negro in particular, utterly ignoring the question\n of capability and responsibility.\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n See, for example, J. H. Ingraham: \u201cThe South-West\u201d (1835), II,\n 185\u2013189.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n See, for example, _Southern Literary Messenger_, March, 1839 (5: 219).\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n See _Public Opinion_, Feb. 11, 1893 (14: 448).\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n See _Our Day_, May, 1893 (11: 333).\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n See Haydn\u2019s \u201cDictionary of Dates\u201d (1898), p. 681. Also, \u201cThe\n Cyclopedic Review of Current History\u201d (1894), p. 647.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n The _New York World_ secured \u201cinterviews\u201d with nineteen governors on\n the subject of the proposed visit of the committee. See _American Law\n Review_, November-December, 1894 (28: 904).\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n See _Literary Digest_, July 14, 1894.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n See _Independent_, May 16, 1901 (53: 1133).\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n See article by Edward Leigh Pell on \u201cPrevention of Lynch-law\n Epidemics,\u201d _Review of Reviews_, March, 1898 (17: 321).\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n See Georgia Code, 1895, Sections 356\u2013359.\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n Public Laws of North Carolina, 1893, ch. 461.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n Georgia Laws, 1895, Part I, Title 7, No. 209.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n Constitution of South Carolina, Section 6, Article 6. This article of\n the constitution with additional provisions necessary to make its\n operation effective was passed by the legislature in 1896 as \u201cAn Act\n to Prevent Lynching.\u201d See Acts of South Carolina, 1896, p. 213.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n 92 Ohio Laws 136. In this the original act the amount of damages that\n could be recovered was fixed at a certain sum; for assault, \u201cthe sum\n of $1000,\u201d for suffering lynching \u201cthe sum of $500,\u201d &c. In thus\n fixing the amount of damages it was said that the legislature had\n assumed judicial power and had thus rendered the act unconstitutional.\n To remedy this defect, the legislature on April 21, 1898, amended the\n act so that the amount of damages that might be recovered should be,\n for assault \u201cany sum not exceeding $1000,\u201d for suffering lynching \u201cany\n sum not exceeding $500,\u201d &c. See 93 Ohio Laws 161. Being Sections\n 4426\u20134 to 4426\u201314 of the Revised Statutes.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n 93 Ohio Laws 411. Being Section 6908 of Title I, Part Fourth, Revised\n Statutes, Crimes and Offenses.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n Acts of Tennessee, 1897, Chapter 52. This act was approved March 24,\n 1897.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n Laws of Kentucky, 1897, Chapter 20. For the amendment and re-enactment\n of this law see Laws of Kentucky, 1902, Chapter 25. In the above\n r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of the law nothing has been included from the sections which\n were repealed in 1902.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n Laws of Texas, 1897, Chapter 13. This act was approved June 19, 1897.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n Acts of Indiana, 1899, Chapter 218. Being Sections 2065a\u20132065d, 2065f\n of the Revised Statutes (1901).\n\n By an act approved Feb. 24, 1899, boards of county commissioners in\n Indiana are authorized to pay five hundred dollars reward for the\n arrest and conviction of a murderer or lyncher.\u2014Acts of 1899, Chapter\n 100.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n Acts of Indiana, 1901, Chapter 140. Being Section 2065e of the Revised\n Statutes (1901).\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n Public Acts of Michigan, 1899, No. 252. Repealed by Public Acts of\n Michigan, 1903, No. 26.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n Constitution of Alabama, Section 138.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n Acts of West Virginia, 1903, p. 305; Joint Resolution, No. 12, adopted\n Feb. 3, 1903.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n See newspapers of the date Dec. 26, 1902, and subsequent dates.\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n Laws of Kansas, 1903, Chapter 407. This act was approved March 10,\n 1903.\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n Laws of Kansas, 1903, Chapter 221. This act was approved March 11,\n 1903.\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n As early as the year 1796, this measure was suggested as a means of\n preventing the administration of popular justice by extra-legal\n methods. In that year Governor St. Clair, in a report to the Secretary\n of State concerning \u201cOfficial Proceedings in the Illinois Country,\u201d\n after describing an affair in which some Indians were summarily put to\n death, the circumstances of which he characterized as \u201cnot only not\n blameable but laudable,\u201d continued in these words: \u201cI am sorry\n however, to add that, had the affair been ever so criminal in its\n nature, it would have been, I believe, impossible to have brought the\n actors to punishment. The difficulties that have occurred in cases of\n that nature in various parts of the United States, as well as in this\n Territory, and the stain it fixes on the national character, has often\n led me to consider whether justice could not be secured to the Indians\n by adding some sanction to the law beyond what is usual between the\n citizens, and it has occurred to me that, were a pretty heavy\n pecuniary fine to be set upon the murder of an Indian, and a\n proportional one for lesser injuries, to be levied upon the counties\n where the offense was committed if the offenders were not brought to\n justice, it would probably have the effect, for it is often seen that\n the minds of men little tinctured with justice or humanity, have a\n pretty strong sympathy with their pockets, and I believe it to be a\n subject within the province of the general legislature.\u201d\u2014The St. Clair\n Papers (1882), Vol. II, p. 397.\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n For the purpose of obtaining accurate and complete information on the\n subject of anti-lynching laws the writer asked the following questions\n of thirty-three attorneys-general in the United States, inclosing in\n each letter a self-addressed and stamped envelope for reply:\n\n 1. What anti-lynching laws have been enacted in your State since 1890?\n (Please give citation to statutes.) If there are no anti-lynching laws\n in your State, mention any attempts that have been made to enact such\n laws.\n\n 2. Have any cases been tried under any of such laws or any attempts\n been made to that effect, and what has been the record and the outcome\n in each case?\n\n 3. Are such laws effective in any respect?\n\n Twenty-four replies were received to the thirty-three letters sent,\n and upon examination a fact became evident which is probably rather\n more than a coincidence\u2014the nine unanswered letters were the ones\n which were sent to the attorneys-general of the States, with one\n exception, in which the greater number of lynchings have occurred. The\n exception is scarcely worth noting, however, because it was a reply\n which was very tardy and very non-committal.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n See p. 234.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n Brown _v._ Orangeburg Co., 55 S. C. 45; 32 S. E. 764. The decision of\n the Supreme Court was rendered on April 20, 1899.\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n See p. 235.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n Mitchell was a negro and was lynched on June 4, 1897, for the crime of\n rape.\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n Caldwell lost again in the common pleas and circuit courts, and went\n no further.\u2014Deputy Clerk of Cuyahoga County in letter to the writer.\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n See note, p. 236. The supreme court by this decision upheld the act in\n its original form.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n 62 O. S. 318.\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n 68 N. E. 899.\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n See p. 185. Compare Chart I.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n _New York Times_, Jan. 21, 1904. Governor Sayers of Texas made similar\n statements in his annual message to the legislature of Texas on Jan.\n 16, 1903.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n _New York Times_, Nov. 3, 1903.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n _New York Times_, Sept. 7, 1903.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n _Richmond_ (Va.) _Planet_, Feb. 14, 1903.\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n Governor\u2019s message to the legislature, Jan. 14, 1903.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n _New York Evening Sun_, June 5, 1903.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n After a trial which lasted three months, the first man tried was\n acquitted.\u2014_Denver_ (Colo.) _Republican_, Feb. 28, 1902.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n Attorney-general of Wyoming in letter to the writer.\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n A woman whose husband was hanged by a mob has recently filed suit\n against twenty-six \u201cprominent citizens\u201d of Fleming County, Kentucky,\n for $50,000 damages, claiming that they were members of the mob which\n lynched her husband.\u2014_New York Times_, July 14, 1904.\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n _Chattanooga_ (Tenn.) _Times_, July 27, 1902. It will be remembered\n that by the Tennessee act any person guilty of direct or indirect\n participation in a lynching was declared to be incompetent to serve on\n a jury, and that the court was to carefully exclude all such persons\n from both grand and petit juries. See p. 237.\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n Despatch from Lewisburg, Tennessee, in _New York Commercial\n Advertiser_, Jan. 8, 1903.\n\n In October, 1903, a grand jury in Moore County, Tennessee, indicted\n twenty-two members of a lynching mob.\u2014See _Outlook_, Oct. 24, 1903\n (75: 427).\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n _Atlantic Monthly_, February, 1904 (93: 155).\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n See bills introduced during 57th Congress, 1st Session: Senate Bill\n 1117; House bills 21, 4572.\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n _Congressional Record_, 57th Congress, 1st Session, p. 636.\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n See _Green Bag_, September, 1900 (12: 466).\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n _New York Tribune_, April 15, 1892.\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n Some of these indemnities cover loss of property and bodily injuries\n as well as loss of life.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n See, in addition to _New York Tribune_, April 15, 1892, United States\n Statutes at Large, 49th Cong., 2nd Sess., Ch. 253; 50th Cong., 1st\n Sess., Ch. 1210; 54th Cong., 1st Sess., Ch. 373; 55th Cong., 1st\n Sess., Ch. 9; 55th Cong., 2d Sess., Ch. 571; 56th Cong., 2d Sess., Ch.\n 831; 57th Cong., 2d Sess., Ch. 1006.\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n _American Law Review_, September-October, 1900 (34: 709).\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n See _Congressional Record_, 57th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 5902\u20135905,\n 5956, 6214.\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n _Leslie\u2019s Weekly_, Aug. 20, 1903; _Independent_, Oct. 29, 1903 (55:\n 2547).\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n See _Harvard Law Review_, March, 1904 (17: 317).\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n On the work of the courts in the State of New York, see \u201cReport of the\n Commission on Law\u2019s Delays,\u201d January, 1904.\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n _Review of Reviews_, March, 1898 (17: 321).\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n Governor Newton C. Blanchard, at his inauguration on May 16, 1904, at\n Baton Rouge, Louisiana, stated his position with reference to\n lynchings in unmistakable language. \u201cLynchings,\u201d he said, \u201cwill not be\n permitted under any circumstances, if it be possible for the military\n at the command of the Governor to get there in time to prevent them.\n And if they occur before the intervention of the Executive can be made\n effective, inquiry and investigation will be made and prosecution\n instigated. Sheriffs will be held to the strictest accountability\n possible under the law for the safety from mob violence of persons in\n their custody.... The courts are adequate to the prompt vindication of\n the law and the punishment of crime.\u201d\u2014_Outlook_, May 28, 1904 (77:\n 197).\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n Governor Vardaman ordered out two companies of militia and went\n himself to the scene of the trouble in a special train, bringing the\n negro away in his private car, at a cost to the State, it was said, of\n $250,000. See _New York Times_, Feb. 29, 1904.\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n Vigilance and prompt action on the part of the officers of the law,\n together with the presence of the militia, probably prevented the\n lynching of the three negroes who assaulted Mrs. Biddle at Burlington,\n New Jersey, on July 5, 1904.\u2014See _New York Times_, July 16, 1904.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n Governor Jelks, of Alabama, in his message of Jan. 14, 1903, said in\n reference to the lynching in Pike County of a negro who was taken away\n from a constable: \u201cHis offense was probably swearing contrary to one\n of his white neighbors in a justice trial on a proof of character.\n This was a cold-blooded murder and without excuse at all.... The\n murderers go about. None of them will be hanged as they should be.\u201d\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n The _News-Observer_, Raleigh, North Carolina, Aug. 27, 1902.\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n _American Law Review_, March\u2014April, 1900 (34: 238).\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n For a discussion of the problem of punishing lynchers and for some\n statistics with reference to the punishment of persons who\n participated in lynchings during the first six months of the year\n 1892, see paper by George C. Holt, on \u201cLynching and Mobs,\u201d _American\n Journal of Social Science_, No. 32, p. 67 (November, 1894).\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n Carroll D. Wright: \u201cOutline of Practical Sociology\u201d (1899), p. 357.\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n This view of the matter is ably set forth in the _Green Bag_ for\n September, 1900 (12: 466), by O. F. Hershey of the Maryland Bar.\n\n The same idea is expressed in a different way in an article on\n \u201cAmerican Quality,\u201d by N. S. Shaler. See _International Monthly_,\n July, 1901.\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n Francis J. Grund: \u201cThe Americans in their moral, social, and political\n relations\u201d (London, 1837), I, 323. (M.)\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n Quoted from the _Journal of Jurisprudence_ (Edinborough). See\n _American Law Review_, May\u2014June, 1891 (25: 461).\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n For a comprehensive discussion of the \u201cnative question,\u201d see \u201cA\n Sociological View of the \u2018Native Question,\u2019\u201d by Albert G. Keller,\n _Yale Review_, November, 1903.\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n W. E. B. DuBois: \u201cThe Souls of Black Folk\u201d (1903), p. 143.\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n William Hayne Levell: \u201cOn Lynching in the South.\u201d\u2014_Outlook_ Nov. 16,\n 1901 (69: 731).\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n \u201cLynching and the Franchise Rights of the Negro,\u201d Annals of the\n American Academy of Science, May, 1900 (15: 493).\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n On the suggestibility of crowds, see Gustave LeBon: \u201cThe Crowd. A\n Study of the Popular Mind\u201d (2d ed., 1897).\n\n See also Boris Sidis: \u201cThe Psychology of Suggestion\u201d (1898), Part III.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTES\n\n\n 1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in\n spelling.\n 2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.\n 3. Re-indexed footnotes using numbers and collected together at the end\n of the last chapter.\n 4. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.","title":"Lynch-law; an investigation into the history of lynching in the United States","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":86989}