INDEX

[1]. Compare statement by William Roberts in Fortnightly Review, January, 1892 (57: 92).

[2]. The Times, Washington, D. C., Dec. 14, 1902.

[3]. The Standard Union, Brooklyn, N. Y., Nov. 14, 1902.

[4]. The New York Evening Telegraph, Oct. 8, 1902.

[5]. See F. Ratzel: “History of Mankind” (trans. by A. J. Butler), I, 125, 281, 282; II, 131; III, 507.

[6]. See “Fehmic courts,” Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th edition.

[7]. Edward Phillips: “The New World of Words, or a General English Dictionary” (1678, 4th edition).

[8]. Grose’s “Provincial Glossary” (London, 1811), p. 163.

[9]. See “Lynch Law,” International Cyclopædia (1893).

[10]. See Century Dictionary under “Law.”

[11]. John Jamieson: “Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language” (1879).

[12]. An American edition, bound under the title, “Brande’s Encyclopædia,” was published in 1843.

[13]. The English Dictionary, edited by Rev. John Boag and published at Glasgow in 1848, gives for the verb lynch, “To inflict punishment without the forms of law, as by a mob.” The definitions given for the words “lynched” and “lynching” are also very similar to the ones given by Webster. It is fair to presume that Boag consulted Webster and followed his authority, although he did not mark the term as an American word. John Craig’s Dictionary of the English Language (London, 1849) gives “lynch, v. a. To punish summarily without judicial investigation, as by a mob.—An American word.” The London edition of Nuttall’s Dictionary (published about 1863) gives “Lynch, v. a. To inflict pain, or punish without the forms of law, as by an American mob.” The dictionaries published in Great Britain previous to 1848 do not contain the verb lynch.

[14]. The edition of 1901 has the same. The Century Dictionary is the only recent authoritative work that states unequivocally that lynch-law was originally the kind of law administered by Charles Lynch of Virginia.

[15]. See Hardiman’s History of Galway (Dublin, 1820), p. 70. Also, Spectator (London), April 13, 1889 (62: 511). The story can be traced back as far as the year 1674. See Miscellany of the Irish Archæological Society (1846), I, 44–80. (M.)

[16]. The Green Bag, March, 1900 (12: 150).

[17]. See “lynch law,” The American Cyclopædia (edition of 1875). See also, Notes & Queries, 2d Series, Oct. 23, 1858 (6: 338), where reference is made to London Gazette, 6–9 February, 1687–8, No. 2319.

[18]. That he succeeded in making himself thoroughly unpopular with every one is shown in the Calendars of State Papers, Colonial Series, America & West Indies, 1685–1688, and 1688–1692. (M.)

[19]. See “lynch law,” Encyclopædia Britannica (9th edition); also, under “to lynch,” Bartlett’s Dictionary of Americanisms (4th edition, 1877).

C. A. Bristed, in an essay on The English Language in America (Cambridge Essays, 1855, p. 60) says: “Linch, in several of the northern-county dialects, means to beat, or maltreat. Lynch Law, then, would be simply equivalent to club-law; and the change of a letter may be easily accounted for by the fact that the name of Lynch is as common in some parts of America as in Ireland.”

[20]. No such verb as linch or linge is found in Bosworth’s Dictionary of the Anglo-Saxon Language, or in Stratmann’s Middle-English Dictionary. Murray’s Oxford Dictionary (1903) gives the verb linch as a variant of linge, a word “of obscure origin.”

[21]. See “lynch,” Skeat’s Etymological Dictionary.

[22]. Although Bristed ingeniously traces lynch-law back to the verb linch, he remarks, in passing, that “if there ever was a phrase deemed particularly Trans-atlantic in origin, it is that of Lynch Law for summary and informal justice.”

[23]. See p. [10], note 1.

[24]. “Reminiscences and Memoirs of North Carolina” (1884), p. 172.

[25]. “History of North Carolina” (1851), p. 274.

[26]. See article by Albert Matthews in the Nation, Dec. 4, 1902 (75: 439).

[27]. Alexander Gregg: “History of the Old Cheraws” (1867), p. 120. F. X. Martin: “History of North Carolina” (1829), II, 228, 233. Hugh Williamson: “History of North Carolina” (1812), II, 128, 131.

[28]. J. B. O’Neall: “Annals of Newberry” (1859), p. 76. It is not stated by O’Neall at what time these gentlemen instituted this practice in South Carolina. From the evidence that Gregg gives, it apparently took place in the summer of 1767. See the following chapter, p. [53].

[29]. See article by Edward McCrady, in the Nation, Jan. 15, 1903 (76: 52). This article as originally written was published in full in the Sunday News, Charleston, S. C., Jan. 11, 1903. In a letter published in the Nation, March 19, 1903 (76: 225), Mr. George S. Wills cites an example of the use of the word lynch in connection with this creek, which is found in a journal kept by the Rev. William H. Wills, a Methodist minister of North Carolina, who traveled in his sulky from Tarboro, North Carolina, to Alabama, in the early summer of 1837. After describing a narrow escape from drowning in an attempt to cross Lynch’s Creek while it was swollen, the Rev. Mr. Wills writes in his journal: “Probably I shall never forget Lynches Creek; for it had well nigh Lynchd me.”—See “Publications of the Southern Historical Association,” November, 1902 (6:479). This example, however, shows no original connection between the term lynch-law and Lynch’s Creek, South Carolina. As will appear in the following pages, by the year 1837 the word lynch had come to be widely used to indicate summary punishment. Evidently the writer in this case merely noticed the similarity between the name of the creek and the word which had recently come into use, and so made this play upon words, using the word lynch in a somewhat figurative sense.

[30]. See article by Albert Matthews in the Nation, Jan. 29, 1903 (76: 91). In a monograph by William A. Schaper, on “Sectionalism and Representation in South Carolina,” the statement is made, in reference to the Regulators of 1768, that “the settlers agreed to rely on lynch law, which received its name at this time.”—Annual Report of the American Historical Association (1900), I, 337. The author of this statement that lynch-law received its name at this time was, however, unable to cite facts to support it. (M.)

[31]. “History of the Old Cheraws” (1867), p. 128.

[32]. J. B. O’Neall: “Biographical Sketches of the Bench and Bar of South Carolina” (1859), I, p. x.

[33]. “Traditions and Reminiscences,” pp. 44–45.

[34]. Ibid., p. 544.

[35]. Vol. 48, p. 402.

[36]. One such story will be found in the following chapter on p. [73]. For an account of the Lynch family in Virginia, see Mrs. Julia Mayo Cabell: “Sketches and Recollections of Lynchburg” (1858), pp. 9–23. The chief available sources of information for the facts and events pertaining to the life of Charles Lynch are an article by Thomas Walker Page in the Atlantic Monthly, December, 1901 (88: 731), and one by Howell Colton Featherston in the Green Bag, March, 1900 (12: 150). Both of these articles have been largely drawn upon in the following pages.

[37]. A writer (“Claverhouse”) in the New York Evening Post for June 2, 1864, says: “In America, the term ‘Lynch law’ was first used in Piedmont, on the western frontier of Virginia. There was no court within the district, and all controversies were referred to the arbitrament of prominent citizens. Among these was a man by the name of Lynch, whose decisions were so impartial that he was known as Judge Lynch, and the system was called ‘Lynch law,’ and adopted in our pioneer settlements as an inexpensive and speedy method of obtaining justice.”

[38]. Edited by Benson J. Lossing, published in 1882.

[39]. See article by Arthur Desjardins, Revue des Deux Mondes, May, 1891.

[40]. Charles Lynch was born in 1736, at Chestnut Hill, his father’s estate, upon a part of which the city of Lynchburg now stands. His father was a “redemptioner” who came to Virginia from Ireland about 1725. The young adventurer subsequently married the daughter of the planter to whom the captain of the ship that brought him over had sold him, took up a large tract of land lying between the James and the Staunton rivers, and became a tobacco planter on a large scale. At his death the home on the James fell to his eldest son, John, and Charles took the part of the family lands that lay nearer the frontier. The mother, Sarah Lynch, then a widow, had joined the sect of the Quakers at the Cedar Creek meeting on April 16, 1750, and it is in the records of this congregation of Quakers that the following item appears: “14 of Dec., 1754. Charles Lynch and Anne Terrill published for the first Time their Intentions of Marriage.” The young couple established their home on the Staunton, in what is now the southwestern part of Campbell County.

For years Charles followed his mother’s teachings and was an active member of the Society of Friends; for some time he was “Clerk of the monthly meetings.” Later, however, the exigencies of the times caused him to forego some of his scruples and accept public office. In 1767 he became “unsatisfactory” to the peace-loving Quakers and he was “disowned for taking solemn oaths, contrary to the order and discipline of Friends.” It was in this year, 1767, that he was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses, where he held a seat till the colony became an independent State. He was prominent in the earliest organization of Bedford County, formed from Lunenburg County in 1753 (Henry Howe: “Historical Collections of Virginia” (1845), p. 188; Hening’s Statutes at Large, VI, 381), and was a member of the Virginia convention of 1776, which, by sending instructions to the delegates from Virginia in the Continental Congress, exercised a decisive influence on the movement for independence. He had been made a justice of the peace under a commission from Governor Dunmore in 1774, and when the county court was reorganized, according to the ordinance of the Convention, passed on the 3d of July, 1776, he retained the position.

At the beginning of the Revolutionary War his Quaker principles seemed still to influence his actions to an extent sufficient to keep him out of active military service. His loyalty was well known, however. Mr. Page says: “He did not enlist in the army, partly because of his Quaker principles, but chiefly because his presence was imperatively necessary at home. He had to rouse the spirit of his constituents to support the action he had advocated in the convention. He had to raise and equip troops for the army. He had, as it were, to mobilize the forces of his country, and attend to all the duties of a commissary department. In addition, he had to make some provision in the event of an attack from hostile Indians.” In 1778 the court of Bedford recommended him to the Governor for the office of Colonel of Militia in that county. He accepted the commission and organized a regiment, but the call to the front did not come till two years later when the war was shifted to the south and Lord Cornwallis was sent to co-operate with General Philips and Benedict Arnold in the invasion of Virginia.

The records of the court of Bedford County, the minutes of various Quaker meetings, the journals of the Virginia House of Burgesses and of the first Constitutional Convention, taken together with family documents and traditions, show Charles Lynch to have been a thoroughly capable and highly respected man, a leader among the men in his community. Before the close of the war he made a record for himself as an officer in the army. At the battle of Guilford Court House, March 15, 1781, a battalion of riflemen under his command behaved with much gallantry and aided in bringing considerable credit to the Virginia militia. [Henry Howe: “Historical Collections of Virginia” (1845), p. 212. W. G. Simms: “Life of Nathanael Greene” (1859), p. 186. Henry Lee: “Memoirs of the War” (1812), I, 341, 345. William Johnson: “Sketches of Life and Correspondence of Nathanael Greene” (1822), II, 3. Banastre Tarleton: “History of the Campaigns of 1780 and 1781” (1787), p. 272. C. Stedman: “History of the American War” (1794), II, 338.]

He lived for a number of years after peace had been declared with England, and voted for the new constitution. In the family burying-ground on his homestead plantation a tombstone bears the simple inscription:

“In memory of Colonel Charles Lynch, a zealous and active patriot. Died, October 29, 1796; aged 60 years.”

Many anecdotes are still in circulation among the old inhabitants of his neighborhood illustrative of his habits and character. The chorus of a once popular patriotic song runs as follows:

“Hurrah for Colonel Lynch,

Captain Bob and Callaway!

They never turned a Tory loose

Until he shouted ‘Liberty’!”

Another version of this refrain runs this way:

“Hurrah for Captain Bob,

Colonels Lynch and Callaway!

Who never let a Tory off

Until he cried out ‘Liberty!’”

[41]. Mr. Page makes no mention of any trouble with desperadoes. Referring to the Tories in Bedford County, he says: “Numerous records of the county courts, taken together with other sources of information, show that here, as in many other western counties, there was a strong and influential party opposed to the struggle for independence. For the most part they were quiet, thrifty men, far different from the ruffians and desperadoes that prejudice has since represented them to be.” That there were cliques of depredators and that much lawlessness prevailed in Virginia and the Carolinas at about this time is undoubtedly true, however. William Wirt, in his “Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry” (p. 217), cites the case of Josiah Philips who, at the head of a band of banditti, spread terror in the counties of Norfolk and Princess Anne, and was made an outlaw by an act of the legislature of Virginia, by which act it became lawful for any person to kill him whenever opportunity offered. Lyman C. Draper presents the record of a great deal of lawlessness and depredation in his “King’s Mountain and its Heroes.” See pp. 241, 331, 332, 336, 340 note, 343 note, 384, 448–449.

[42]. It is to be understood that these statements are based on tradition and not on contemporary evidence.

[43]. Mr. Page remarks that the fine was not so heavy as it seems, for in that year the prices fixed by the court were: rum and brandy per gallon, £40, corn and oats per gallon, £2 8s., dinner at an “ordinary,” £4 10s., &c.

[44]. Hening’s Statutes at Large, XI, 134–135.

[45]. Quoted from the article by Mr. Page. No evidence is cited in support of the statement that the proceedings in Bedford were imitated in other parts of the State and came to be known by the name of Lynch’s Law.

[46]. See article by Mr. Featherston. A drawing of this tree “from a sketch from nature” may be found in the Green Bag, December, 1892 (4: 561).

[47]. Mr. Featherston states that Charles Lynch was often called “Judge Lynch” by his neighbors. He seems to have been more commonly known as “Colonel Lynch.”

[48]. “The infliction of capital punishment was extremely rare. There were only three instances of it, and these for most heinous offenses, between the organization of the county (Bedford) and the Revolution. The first case was on May 24, 1756, when the court assembled ‘to hear and determine all Treasons, Petit Treasons, Murders, and other Offenses committed or done by Hampton and Sambo belonging to John Payne of Goochland, Gent.’ ‘The said Hampton and Sambo were set to the Bar under Custody of Charles Talbot (then sheriff) to whose Custody they were before committed on Suspicion of their being Guilty of the felonious Prepairing and Administering Poysonous Medicines to Ann Payne, and being Arraigned of the Premises pleaded Not Guilty and for their Trial put themselves upon the Court. Whereupon divers Witnesses were charged and they heared in their Defence. On Consideration thereof it is the Opinion of the Court that the said Hampton is guilty in the Manner and Form as in the Indictment. Therefore it is considered that the said Hampton be hanged by the Neck till he be dead, and that he be afterwards cut in Quarters, and his Quarters hung up at the Cross Roads. And it is the Opinion of the Court that the said Sambo is guilty of a Misdemeanor. Therefore it is considered that the said Sambo be burnt in the Hand, and that he also receive thirty-one Lashes on his bare Back at the Whipping Post. Memo: That the said Hampton is adjudged at forty-five Pound which is ordered to be certified to the Assembly (that his owner may be remunerated according to law).’ That it was a convincing proof of his guilt, and not race prejudice, that led the court to impose this savage punishment is evident from the fact that in the same year a negro was tried for murder, another for poisoning, and a third for arson, and all were cleared.”—Quoted from the article by Mr. Page.

[49]. This evidence has been presented by the present writer in a communication to the Nation. See issue of May 21, 1903 (76: 415).

[50]. William Wirt: “Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry” (1818), p. 372. Mr. Matthews, in his article in the Nation, Dec. 4, 1902 (75: 439), remarks that it is uncertain whether the note was written by Roane or Wirt. In William Wirt Henry’s “Life of Patrick Henry,” Vol. II, p. 482, the “MS. Letter of Judge Roane to Mr. Wirt” is given, but the note is not included. The note was undoubtedly written by Wirt.

[51]. An act for dividing the county of Bedford into two distinct counties, the new county to be known by the name of Campbell, was passed by the General Assembly in 1782.—Hening’s Statutes at Large, X, 447; Journal of the House of Delegates, Jan. 5, 1782, p. 73. Howe says that Campbell County was formed from Bedford in 1784, and named in honor of General William Campbell, a distinguished officer of the American Revolution.—“Historical Collections of Virginia.” p. 210.

[52]. Published at Charleston, South Carolina, in 1845. See p. [212] for the quotation. See Mrs. Julia Mayo Cabell: “Sketches and Recollections of Lynchburg” (1858), pp. 9–10, for a similar account of the connection of Colonel Charles Lynch with the origin of “the celebrated code called ‘Lynch Law.’” This account is taken from the St. Louis Republican, but neither the author’s name nor the date of its publication is given.

[53]. Henry Howe: “The Great West” (Cincinnati, 1852), p. 183.

[54]. The writer is indebted to Mr. Matthews for the suggestion that Howe’s allusion to “Squire Birch” points to Judge James Hall’s “Letters from the West” as one such source. See Chapter III. p. [81].

[55]. There are two errors here. Lynchburg was not named for him but for his brother, John Lynch, and the plan was started later than “some seventy or eighty years ago.” Mr. Matthews disagrees with the writer in saying that this account is entirely independent of what Wirt had written on the subject. It seems to the writer, however, that these two inaccuracies indicate that Martin was drawing wholly from his own sources of information. He was, apparently, merely writing down what was considered a matter of common knowledge among the older men in that section of the country, many of whom were emigrants from Virginia.

[56]. “Publications of the Southern Historical Association,” November, 1900, (4: 463).

[57]. Charles Augustus Murray, in his “Travels in North America during the years 1834, 1835, and 1836” (2 vol., N. Y., 1839), gives a traditional account of the origin of the term “lynch-law,” such a one as might be given around a camp-fire. He also describes the operation of lynch-law at that time in the Mississippi Valley. See Vol II, p. 79. G. W. Featherstonhaugh, in his “Excursion through the Slave States” (N. Y., 1844), gives “An account of the first Judge Lynch, and the state of Legal Practice in his Court,” pp. 89–90. He speaks of a certain Judge Lynch in Arkansas and of “a famous Virginia ancestor of his.” He says that “this ancestor, the first Judge Lynch, was a miller and a justice of the peace in the back woods,” and then gives a traditional account of his methods of inflicting punishment. See also David Schenck: “North Carolina, 1780–81” (1889), pp. 309–310. L. P. Summers: “History of Southwest Virginia and Washington County” (1903), p. 243.

[58]. Mr. Matthews holds a somewhat different view. See article, “The Term Lynch Law,” Modern Philology, Vol. II, No. 2, October, 1904. This article should be consulted by any one desiring to investigate this matter further.

[59]. In the Salem Gazette, July 17, 1812, p. 3, the rise and domination of mobs in a community was characterized as “Mob Law.” (M.)

[60]. Jan. 9, 1819 (15: 384). (M.)

[61]. July 24, 1819 (16: 368). (M.)

[62]. June 1, 1822 (22: 224). (M.)

[63]. “Memorable Days in America” (1823), p. 304.

[64]. Ibid., p. 318.

[65]. Vol. 26, p. 326.

[66]. “An Excursion through the United States and Canada,” pp. 233–236. (M.) An extended extract is given in the following chapter on p. [79].

[67]. pp. 291, 292. A more extended extract is given in the following chapter on p. [81].

[68]. C. A. Hanna: “The Scotch-Irish” (1902), p. 60.

[69]. C. A. Hanna: “The Scotch-Irish” (1902), p. 60.

[70]. New Hampshire Provincial Papers, VI, 262–266. (M.)

[71]. W. H. Smith: “The St. Clair Papers” (1882), II, 351, 374, 376, 396–397. (M.)

[72]. New Jersey Archives (1897), XIX, 225–226. (M.)

[73]. New Jersey Archives (1897), XIX, 326–327. New York Gazette, December 31, 1753. (M.) This is the earliest use of the word regulate in connection with illegal punishment for corrective purposes that has come to the writer’s notice.

[74]. See monograph on “The Regulators of North Carolina,” by Professor John S. Bassett of Trinity College, N. C., for a full and complete account of this organization. It was published in the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1894.

[75]. F. X. Martin: “History of North Carolina” (1829), II, 218–219. H. Williamson: “History of North Carolina” (1812), II, 130–131, 261.

[76]. H. Williamson: “History of North Carolina” (1812), II, 262–263. J. H. Wheeler: “History of North Carolina” (1851), II, 306.

[77]. H. Williamson: “History of North Carolina” (1812), II, 270–271.

[78]. See Alexander Gregg: “History of the Old Cheraws” (1867), Ch. VII. This chapter contains quotations from original sources on the Regulation movement in South Carolina, and has, therefore, considerable value.

[79]. See Gregg’s “History of The Old Cheraws,” p. 134.

[80]. See Gregg’s “History of The Old Cheraws,” p. 134.

[81]. J. B. O’Neall: “The Annals of Newberry” (1859), pp. 75–76.

[82]. See Gregg’s “History of the Old Cheraws,” p. 136. This is the earliest use of the word Regulator in connection with the disturbances in the Carolinas known to the present writer.

[83]. On April 18, a Circuit Court Act was passed, but afterwards failed to become a law.

[84]. See Gregg’s “History of The Old Cheraws,” p. 138.

[85]. See Gregg’s “History of The Old Cheraws,” p. 139.

[86]. David Ramsay: “History of the Revolution in South Carolina” (1785), I, 63–64. According to this author these events took place “about the year 1770.” O’Neall says (Annals of Newberry, p. 75): “The Regulators and Scofelites, in 1764, met in battle array,” &c. Johnson says (Traditions and Reminiscences, p. 92): “In 1769 great commotions arose in the upper parts of the State, between what were called ‘Regulators’ and ‘Schofilites.’” In reality, the crisis in the strife between the Regulators and Schofilites occurred in March, 1769. This is shown by the following extract, dated Charlestown, (South Carolina), April 6, which appeared in the Boston Chronicle of May 11–15, 1769 (No. 92, II, 155): “The prudent conduct of government, in ordering Joseph Coffill, who had assumed the title of Colonel, and some extraordinary powers, and with his party had committed divers excesses, to disperse, has had the happy effect of once more restoring peace and good order amongst the inhabitants of the western settlements, who, exasperated by the tyrannical conduct of this man, has assembled in a large body towards the close of last month, in order to compel him to shew what powers he was invested with, and if they had found that he was not cloathed with authority, to have brought him to justice, at all events. Both parties were incamped within musket shot of each other, on Saludy river, when the orders to Coffill arrived, and thus a great deal of bloodshed was prevented. The Colonels Richardson, Thompson, and M’Girt, gentlemen of great reputation, and highly esteemed by the whole body of honest back settlers, we are told, exerted themselves upon this occasion, with great spirit, discretion, and success.”

[87]. Joseph Johnson: “Traditions and Reminiscences” (1851), p. 45.

[88]. Ibid.

[89]. See Gregg’s “History of the Old Cheraws,” pp. 151–152.

[90]. This is likewise Gregg’s view of the matter.

[91]. In the year 1765 and for several succeeding years the “Sons of Liberty” were particularly active in stirring up resistance to the acts of the British government, which were considered oppressive. The “Sons of Liberty,” elsewhere as well as in Boston, seem to have been regularly organized and to have held secret meetings at which resolutions were adopted and definite plans of action were determined upon for either driving away or punishing certain “Stamp Masters,” “infamous importers,” and “informers.” Warning notices were frequently posted and published, signed by “P. P., Clerk,” “M. Y., Secretary,” &c. Hanging and burning in effigy, flagellation, tarring and feathering, and ducking, were the punitive measures generally threatened and not infrequently carried into effect.—These statements are based on a collection of notes on “Sons of Liberty” which were loaned to the writer by Mr. Albert Matthews.

[92]. For an exposition of the condition of society, its state of dissolution and lack of organization, during the Revolutionary period and subsequent to that period, see W. G. Sumner: “Alexander Hamilton” (1890). On page 13 this statement is made: “The Union was from the start at war with the turbulent, anarchistic elements which the Revolution had set loose.”

[93]. A correspondent of the New England Gazette in 1776 asked “whether it would be featherable for a man to be detected with one of them (pardons from the king) in his pocket.”—Frank Moore: “Diary of the Revolution (1875), p. 226. Paul Leicester Ford, when writing his historical novel “Janice Meredith,” treated tarring and feathering as an ordinary incident of Revolutionary times. See Chapters XVII, XXXVIII.

[94]. John Drayton: “Memoirs of the American Revolution” (1821), I, 273. Frank Moore: “Diary of the Revolution” (1875), p. 44. Joseph Johnson: “Traditions and Reminiscences” (1851), p. 70. Edward McCrady: “South Carolina in the Revolution 1775–1780” (1901), p. 24. The date on which the tarring and feathering of Thomas Ditson of the town of Billerica took place was March 9, not March 8, as given by the above writers. For an explanation of the discrepancy in the date and for a description of the occurrence, see Boston Gazette, March 13, 1775 (No. 1039, p. 3); March 20, 1775 (No. 1040, p. 3).

[95]. Joseph Johnson: “Traditions and Reminiscences” (1851), p. 71. “The punishment of banishment, preceded by the more dreadful operation of tarring and feathering,” was put in execution by a “judicial Association” in the early days of a settlement on the Bay of Islands, New Zealand. See R. G. Jameson: “New Zealand, South Australia, and New South Wales” (London, 1842), pp. 190–191.

The Yankee, June 4, 1813, p. 4, cited one of the laws of the naval code established during the reign of Richard I as the “Origin of Tarring and Feathering.” By this law any one lawfully convicted of stealing should have his head shorn, and boiling pitch poured upon his head, and feathers or down strewed upon the same, whereby he might be known until the next landing place was reached, where he was to be left.—See Hakluyt’s “Voyages,” II, 21.

[96]. The writer is indebted to Mr. Albert Matthews for the facts which are here presented in regard to the practice of tarring and feathering previous to the year 1775.

[97]. Salem Gazette, Sept. 6–13, 1768 (No. 7, p. 27). Boston Evening Post, Sept. 12, 1768 (No. 1720, p. 3). “Diaries of B. Lynde & B. Lynde, Jr.” (1880), p. 192.

[98]. Boston Evening Post, Sept. 19, 1768 (No. 1721, p. 3).

[99]. Essex Gazette, Sept. 20–27, 1768 (No. 9, p. 37).

[100]. Boston Evening-Post, June 19, 1769 (No. 1760, p. 3).

[101]. Boston Gazette, Sept. 25, 1769 (No. 755, p. 3).

[102]. Boston Gazette, Oct. 16, 1769 (No. 758, p. 2).

[103]. No. 140, II, 351.

[104]. Boston Gazette, Jan. 1, 1770 (No. 769, p. 1); June 11, 1770 (No. 792, p. 2); July 2, 1770 (No. 795, p. 2); August 20, 1770 (No. 802, p. 1); Boston-Gazette Supplement July 30, 1770 (No. 799, p. 2); Aug. 6, 1770 (No. 800, p. 2); Boston News-Letter, June 21, 1770 (No. 3480, p. 3); Essex Gazette, June 19–26, 1770, II, p. 191; June 26–July 3, 1770, II, p. 195; Aug. 7–14, 1770, III, p. 11; London Gazetteer, Nov. 17, 1770 (No. 13016, p. 2); “The Letters of James Murray, Loyalist,” edited by Nina Moore Tiffany (1901), pp. 165, 175–178.

[105]. Boston Gazette, Nov. 1, 1773 (No. 969, pp. 1, 3). See also Boston News-Letter, Jan. 27, 1774 (No. 3669, p. 2).

[106]. Boston Gazette, Nov. 15, 1773 (No. 971, p. 3).

[107]. Boston News-Letter, Jan. 27, 1774 (No. 3669, p. 2); Feb. 3, 1774 (No. 3670, p. 2); Massachusetts Spy, Jan. 27, 1774 (No. 156, p. 3).

[108]. Boston Gazette, Jan, 31. 1774 (No. 982, p. 3); Massachusetts Spy, Feb. 3, 1774 (No. 157, p. 2).

On January 17 a handbill signed in the same way had been distributed, giving notice that any “Tea Consignees” who should come to reside again in Boston would be given “such a Reception as such vile Ingrates deserve.”—Boston Gazette, Jan. 17, 1774 (No. 980, p. 3); Boston Evening Transcript, Feb. 27, 1903, p. 14.

[109]. No. 976, p. 3.

[110]. Boston News-Letter, Nov. 18, 1773 (No. 3659, p. 2).

[111]. “History of Rhode Island” (1878), II, 308–309.

[112]. No. 761, p. 3.

[113]. Boston News-Letter, Jan. 27, 1774 (No. 3669, p. 2); Massachusetts Spy, Jan. 27, 1774 (No. 156, p. 2); Essex Gazette, Jan. 25–Feb. 1, 1774 (No. 288, VI, p. 107); March 1–8, 1774 (No. 293, VI, p. 127); Boston Gazette, Feb. 28, 1774 (No. 986, p. 2); March 14, 1774 (No. 988, p. 1). For a brief account of the whole affair see S. Roads, Jr.: “History and Traditions of Marblehead” (1880), pp. 91–94.

[114]. For an account of the doings of mobs in Massachusetts see Frank Moore: “Diary of the American Revolution” (1875), pp. 37–42.

[115]. John Drayton: “Memoirs of the American Revolution” (1821), I, 273–274. Frank Moore: “Diary of the Revolution” (1875), pp. 90–91. Edward McCrady: “South Carolina in the Revolution, 1775–1780” (1901), p. 24.

[116]. John Drayton: “Memoirs of the American Revolution” (1821), II, 17.

[117]. Frank Moore: “Diary of the Revolution” (1875), p. 138.

[118]. Ibid., p. 178.

[119]. Frank Moore: “Diary of the Revolution” (1875), p. 359.

[120]. W. M. Sloane: “The French War and the Revolution” (1893), p. 239.

[121]. “Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry” (1818), pp. 232–233.

[122]. Hening’s “Statutes at Large,” X, 195.

For an account of the measures taken which were not strictly warranted by law, see L. C. Draper: “King’s Mountain and its Heroes” (1881), pp. 384–387.

“An act to indemnify Thomas Nelson, Junior, esquire, late governor of this commonwealth, and to legalize certain acts of his administration,” was passed in 1781.—Hening’s “Statutes at Large,” X, 478.

[123]. Southern Literary Messenger, II, 389 (May, 1836).

This reference comes to the present writer through Mr. J. P. Lamberton of Philadelphia, Mr. Edward Ingle, the author of “Southern Sidelights” (See pp. [191]–193), and Mr. Albert Matthews.

[124]. The name of one of the younger sons of John Lynch, the founder of Lynchburg, was William, and Mrs. Cabell says that he was a “Colonel in the late war.” This William Lynch, however, married in early life and made his home in the city of Lynchburg. See Mrs. Julia Mayo Cabell: “Sketches and Recollections of Lynchburg” (1858), p. 20.

A writer in Harper’s Magazine for May, 1859 (p. 794) refers to a “Mr. Lynch” who “was for many years the senior and presiding Justice of the County Court of Pittsylvania.” This writer also says that Lynchburg was named for this Mr. Lynch, and that his advanced age prevented him from taking the field during the War of Independence. This, however, is an account from memory of a story heard when a mere boy from an old man, and, as there are inaccuracies in several particulars, it cannot be regarded as reliable.

[125]. Hening’s “Statutes at Large,” XI, 373.

[126]. “Memorable Days in America” (London, 1823), pp. 304, 305.

[127]. See pp. [96]–98 for this extract. (M.)

[128]. W. N. Blane: “An Excursion through the United States and Canada, 1822–1823” (London, 1824), pp. 233–236.

[129]. See pp. 291–292 for this extract. The letters which compose Judge Hall’s book were mostly printed in The Port Folio between 1821 and 1825, but the letter in which he speaks of lynch-law first appeared in the printed volume of 1828. (M.)

[130]. This expression is used in the Illinois agreement of 1820 (see below), and that document, if genuine, furnishes the earliest instance of its use known to the present writer.

[131]. This statement is made on the authority of McConnel (see below), but compare C. J. Latrobe: “Ramble in America,” (N. Y., 1836, 2d ed.), Let. VII, I, 96.

[132]. J. L. McConnel: “Western Characters or Types of Border Life in the Western States” (1853), pp. 244–245. (M.) This extract is copied verbatim, the names of the twelve men being omitted by McConnel. Of the genuineness of the document McConnel says: “I am not sure that I can vouch for its authenticity, but all who are familiar with the history of those times, will recognise, in its peculiarities, the characteristics of the people who then inhabited this country. The affectation of legal form in such a document as this would be rather amusing, were it not quite too significant; at all events, it is entirely ‘in keeping’ with the constitution of a race who had some regard for law and its vindication, even in their most high-handed acts. The technical phraseology, used so strangely, is easily traceable to the little ‘Justice’s Form Book,’ which was then almost the only law document in the country; and though the words are rather awkwardly combined, they no doubt gave solemnity to the act in the eyes of its sturdy signers.”

[133]. J. L. McConnel: “Western Characters,” &c., p. 176.

[134]. Niles’ Register, July 19, 1834 (46: 352).

[135]. The Liberator, Nov. 5, 1831 (1: 180).

The publication of this paper was begun in Boston in 1831, by William Lloyd Garrison, the enthusiastic agitator of the anti-slavery cause. His efforts to make his lists of “Southern Atrocities” as large as possible render his paper a valuable source of information on the subject of lynch-law, particularly lynch-law as applied to negroes prior to the Civil War.

[136]. Liberator, Oct. 29, 1831 (1: 174).

[137]. Ibid., Oct. 1, 1831 (1: 157).

[138]. Ibid., Dec. 3, 1831 (1: 194).

[139]. For the fullest and, on the whole, most trustworthy account of this insurrection, see W. S. Drewry: “Slave Insurrections in Virginia” (1900). This book has been very largely drawn upon for what is here said on the subject.

See also, Liberator, Oct. 1, 1831 (1: 159); Dec 10, 1831 (1: 198); Dec. 17, 1831 (1: 202); Dec. 24, 1831 (1: 206).

See also, Niles’ Register, Aug. 27, 1831 (40: 455); Sept. 3, 1831 (41: 4); Sept. 10, 1831 (41: 19); Sept. 17, 1831 (41: 35); Jan. 7, 1832 (41: 350).

[140]. See p. 84 in Drewry’s book.

[141]. The slavery question was the subject of prolonged debate at the next session of the Virginia House of Delegates. See Niles’ Register, Jan. 28, 1832 (41: 393).

In a speech made during the course of this debate, William H. Broadnax said: “I have certainly heard, if incorrectly, the gentleman from Southampton will put me right, that of the large cargo of emigrants lately transported from that county to Liberia, all of whom professed to be willing to go, were rendered so by some such severe ministrations as these I have described. A lynch club—a committee of vigilance—could easily exercise a kind of inquisitorial surveillance over any neighborhood, and convert any desired number, I have no doubt, at any time, into a willingness to be removed.” See W. L. Garrison: “Thoughts on African Colonization” (1832), p. 74. This reference comes to the present writer through Mr. W. P. Garrison and Mr. Albert Matthews.

[142]. See Niles’ Register for the year 1834.

[143]. Liberator, Oct. 18, 1834 (4: 168).

The New England Magazine, November, 1834 (7: 409), gives some comments on the times under the heading “The March of Anarchy.”

[144]. Liberator, Sept. 27, 1834 (4: 153).

[145]. Conditions were apparently much like those which existed recently in Memphis, Tennessee, when a Committee of Public Safety was organized and a crusade started against gambling. See New York Times, July 14, 1904; July 17, 1904.

[146]. See Niles’ Register, July 25, 1835 (48: 363); Aug. 1, 1835 (48: 381). Also Liberator, Aug. 8,1835 (5: 126–7).

[147]. For a brief account of the conspiracy led by Murrell, see Niles’ Register, Aug. 8, 1835 (48: 403–4). A complete account may be found in the American Whig Review, November, 1850 (12: 494); March, 1851 (13: 213).

[148]. See Liberator, Aug. 8, 1835 (5: 126–7).

[149]. The “South-West,” II, p. 185–7. In Mississippi, at this time, eleven crimes were punishable by death.

[150]. See Liberator, Aug. 1, 1835 (5: 123).

[151]. Boston Advertiser, Sept. 12, p. 2.

[152]. Similar punishments have been inflicted upon Mormons. Joseph Smith, Jr., and Sidney Rigdon were tarred and feathered on the night of March 25, 1832.—See W. A. Linn: “The Story of the Mormons” (1902), pp. 133–137.

[153]. Issue of Aug. 22, 1835 (48: 439).

[154]. Issue of Sept. 5, 1835 (49: 1).

[155]. See also Harriet Martineau “Society in America” (1837), I, 120, 121, 122.

[156]. Niles’ Register, Oct. 3, 1835 (49: 65).

For a caustic satire on the “proceedings of Judge Lynch,” see “The Enemies of the Constitution Discovered,” &c., by Defensor (N. Y., 1835), pp 48–52.

[157]. Liberator, Nov. 21, 1835 (5: 188).

[158]. See Liberator, June 8, 1838 (8: 89), for an editorial from the Philadelphia Daily Focus.

[159]. Liberator, April 16, 1836 (6: 63).

[160]. Leisure Hour, Nov. 24, 1877, p. 750.

[161]. This was Garrison’s view of the matter. See Liberator, Aug. 10, 1838 (8: 127).

[162]. Woodrow Wilson: “Division and Reunion” (Edition of 1898), pp. 115, 117.

[163]. W. G. Sumner: “Andrew Jackson” (1882), pp. 364–365; pp. 428–429, in edition of 1899 in American Statesmen series.

[164]. Liberator, July 4, 1835 (5: 108).

[165]. See Niles’ Register, June 4, 1836 (50: 234).

Also Liberator, May 14, 1836 (6: 79), and May 21, 1836 (6: 83).

A negro slave was burned to death in a similar way in Arkansas in November, 1836, for murdering his master and several negroes. See extract from the Arkansas Gazette in Niles’ Register, Dec. 31, 1836 (51: 275).

[166]. Liberator, June 25, 1836 (6: 102).

[167]. “Abraham Lincoln, Works,” I, pp. 9–10.

[168]. F. J. Grund: “The Americans in their moral, social, and political relations” (London, 1837), I, 323. (M.)

[169]. “Diary in America” (1839), III, 232–233.

[170]. Harriet Martineau: “Retrospect of Western Travel” (1838), I, 236–237. Marryat: “Diary in America” (1839), II, 201. Liberator, Aug. 24, 1838 (8: 135), &c.

[171]. See Chapter II.

[172]. Liberator, Oct. 27, 1837 (7: 174).

[173]. Niles’ Register, June 15, 1839 (56: 256).

[174]. Liberator, Sept. 14, 1838 (8: 146).

[175]. Liberator, March 16, 1838 (8: 44).

[176]. Liberator, Feb. 9, 1838 (8: 24).

[177]. This is not wholly in accord with the opinion expressed by Mr. Albert Matthews in the Nation, Dec. 4, 1902 (75: 441), but in a private letter to the writer Mr. Matthews has accepted this modification.

[178]. See Liberator, Dec. 19, 1835 (5: 204).

[179]. Philip Hone: “Diary 1828–1851” (1889), I, 150. (M.)

[180]. See Niles’ Register, Oct. 25, 1845 (69: 115).

[181]. Sir Charles Lyell, who was in Macon, Georgia, a short time after this occurred, gives an account of it in his book, “A Second Visit to the United States of America” (1850), II, 31–32.

[182]. Liberator, Oct. 19, 1855 (25: 168).

[183]. During the period 1830–1860 the word “slick” was occasionally used at places in the Mississippi Valley, in the same sense as “lynch.” See Liberator, Oct. 3, 1835 (5: 157), and compare Niles’ Register, Oct. 5, 1833 (45: 87).

[184]. Liberator, Sept. 14, 1860 (30: 146).

[185]. See Liberator, Oct. 2, 1857 (27: 160).

[186]. See Liberator, Aug. 24, 1860 (30: 160).

[187]. See Liberator, Jan. 18, 1856 (26: 12).

[188]. Liberator, Oct. 16, 1857 (27: 167).

[189]. Liberator, Sept. 24, 1858 (28: 155).

[190]. Liberator, April 3, 1857 (27: 56).

[191]. See Liberator, Dec. 19, 1856 (26: 204). It is possibly to this case that F. L. Olmsted refers in “A Journey in the Back Country” (N. Y., 1860), pp. 442–443. He says a negro killed his master “a few months since in Georgia or Alabama”; and “was roasted, at a slow fire, on the spot of the murder, in the presence of many thousand slaves, driven to the ground from all the adjoining counties.”

[192]. See H. H Bancroft: “Popular Tribunals” (1887), I, 749. In his two volumes on “Popular Tribunals” this author presents very forcibly the arguments and the conditions urged in justification of the acts of these “Tribunals.” He also exhibits the methods and inner workings of these organizations. In “Literary Industries” (1890), pp. 655–663, he tells how he obtained his knowledge of what went on behind the scenes.

For a somewhat different view of the Vigilance Committee movement in California, see Josiah Royce: “California” (1886), Chapters IV and V.

See also, John S. Hittell: “History of the City of San Francisco.”

[193]. Quoted from Bancroft: “Popular Tribunals” (1887), II, 666.

[194]. New York Tribune, June 7, 1858, p. 3.

[195]. In a message written by Governor Clarke of Mississippi in 1865, this passage occurs: “The terrible contest through which the country has just passed has aroused in every section the fiercest passions of the human heart. Lawlessness seems to have culminated in the assassination of Mr. Lincoln.”—Quoted in J. W. Garner’s “Reconstruction in Mississippi” (1901), p. 59. The message is printed in the New York Times of June 11, 1865.

[196]. See “Report on the Condition of the South,” No. 261 of Reports of Committees of House of Representatives for 2d Sess., 43d Cong., 1874–75.

See, also, article on “The Southern Question” by Charles Gayarré in North American Review, November and December, 1877 (125: 472).

For a comprehensive view, briefly stated, of the great social changes begun in the South during the reconstruction period, see editorial “The Way Out,” in Outlook, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).

[197]. See Reports of Committees of House of Representatives for 2d Sess., 42d Cong., 1871–72.

[198]. The best apparently reliable source for information as to the character and purpose of this organization is a little book entitled “The Ku-Klux Klan,” written by J. C. Lester and D. L. Wilson, and published at Nashville, Tennessee, in 1884. See also, article “The Ku-Klux Klan,” signed D. L. Wilson, published in the Century Magazine, July, 1884 (6: 398).

A less valuable but an interesting book is “K. K. K. Sketches,” by J. M. Beard, published at Philadelphia in 1877.

Many writers make incidental reference to the Ku-Klux Klan; for example, Charles Stearns: “The Black Man of the South and the Rebels” (1872), Chap. 39; James Bryce: “The American Commonwealth,” II, 479.

An account of “The Ku-Klux Movement” is given in W. G. Brown’s “Lower South in American History” (1902).

Some of the characteristic, possibly exaggerated, features of the “Ku-Klux Movement” have been presented in fiction. See, for example, A. Conan Doyle: “Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, The Five Orange Pips” (1902), p. 104; Thomas Nelson Page: “Red Rock, a chronicle of Reconstruction” (1898).

[199]. The committee appointed to select a name reported among others the name “Kukloi,” from the Greek word kuklos, meaning a band or circle. At mention of this some one cried out: “Call it ‘Ku Klux.’” The word “Klan” at once suggested itself, and was added to complete the alliteration. It has been said that the society was named in imitation of the click heard in cocking the rifle, but this seems to be without foundation in fact.

[200]. See, for example, Nation, March 23, 1871 (12: 192); New York Times, Feb. 15, 1871; New York Times, Aug. 26, 1873; New York Tribune, July 31, 1878.

[201]. For a list of the “Molly Maguire” outrages in the mining region of Pennsylvania, and for an exposition of the origin, growth, and character of that organization, see F. P. Dewees: “The Molly Maguires” (1877).

[202]. No claim for completeness is made in regard to these statistics. Particularly in the case of lynchings in the West they are doubtless incomplete.

[203]. Outlook, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).

[204]. Compare the opinion expressed in the Nation, Sept. 7, 1876 (23: 145) on the subject of “intimidation” at the South. In the year 1879, a “Negro exodus from the Southern States” took place, which, on account of its size and character, attracted considerable attention. Numerous reasons were assigned as the cause. See F. L. Hoffman: “Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro.”—Publications of the American Economic Association, August, 1896 (11: 1); Nation, April 10, 1879 (28: 239, 242); Report and Testimony of the Select Committee of the U. S. Senate to investigate the causes of the removal of the negroes from the Southern States to the Northern States, 2d Sess., 46th Cong. (Washington, 1880).

[205]. It is of interest to note that the Sons of Liberty of the period 1765–1775 seem to have had a regular organization and that in their use of disguises and in their methods they were not wholly unlike the Ku-Klux.

[206]. “Lynching and Mobs,” American Journal of Social Science, No. 32, p. 67 (November, 1894).

[207]. Edward Leigh Pell, writing on “Prevention of Lynch-law Epidemics,” in the Review of Reviews, March, 1898 (17: 321), questions the accuracy of the Tribune figures for Alabama, Florida, and Virginia in the year 1897. It is to be noted, however, that he refers to lynchings and seems to have regarded number of lynchings as synonymous with number of persons lynched.

[208]. In a recent article, entitled “The Facts about Lynching,” written by George P. Upton, who for a number of years has been associate-editor of the Tribune, a similar table may be found. [See the Independent, Sept. 29, 1904 (57: 719)]. In this table, however, there are numerous inaccuracies, and the fact that Mr. Upton does not discriminate between number of lynchings and number of persons lynched detracts materially from the value of all of his statistical summaries on the subject.

[209]. Compare p. [182].

[210]. The negro had escaped from the mob and gone to a neighboring county where he gave himself up to the authorities for protection. Later, according to a letter received by the writer from the mayor of the town where he sought protection, he was taken back by the sheriff and brought before a justice for a preliminary hearing. The evidence was considered insufficient to bind him over to the grand jury and he was released.

[211]. Principally New York City and New Haven, Conn., papers.

[212]. To be strictly accurate the number of lynchings should be taken rather than the number of persons lynched, but for the purpose of comparison from year to year the latter may be considered sufficiently exact. See p. [185].

[213]. Henry M. Boies has shown from the Tribune record of murders that there has been, within the last twenty years, “an alarming increase of homicides, accompanied by a proportionate decrease of executions by law and lynching.”—“Science of Penology” (1901), p. 120.

[214]. See W. S. Drewry: “Slave Insurrections in Virginia” (1900), pp. 22–25.

[215]. The liberty has been taken of coining this word to designate the cause for lynching the class of individuals known as desperadoes. No other word seems to express the idea so clearly. The word “brigandage” is too narrow in meaning and too nearly obsolete; the word “outlawry” is not sufficiently inclusive and is generally used only in its technical sense.

[216]. “Statistics and Sociology” (1900), p. 271.

[217]. This may be taken as an indication of the trustworthiness of the Tribune record of lynchings as a basis for statistical investigation.

[218]. See p. [164].

[219]. See the daily issues from July 23 to July 27, 1886.

[220]. These figures are taken from the Twelfth Census, where the term “illiterates” is used to designate all persons ten years of age and over who can neither read nor write, or who can read but cannot write.

[221]. The figures given by the Twelfth Census were used. The figures of the Eleventh Census would be more nearly typical for the period under consideration than those of the Twelfth Census, but a difficulty was met with in an attempt to use them, owing to the fact that new counties have been formed since 1890. It was found that counties in which lynchings have occurred did not appear at all in the Eleventh Census, and that for the sake of completeness it was necessary to use the Twelfth Census.

[222]. Alfred Holt Stone, In a paper read before the American Economic Association in December, 1901, attributed the amicable relations existing between the whites and the negroes in the Yazoo-Mississippi delta to the absence of a white laboring class, particularly of field laborers. In his opinion one of the gravest causes of trouble between the two races is contact on a common industrial plane.—“Publications of the American Economic Association,” February, 1902 (3d Ser., Vol. III, No. 1, p. 235).

[223]. See p. [109].

[224]. Liberator, April 19, 1839 (9: 63).

[225]. Liberator, April 30, 1836 (6: 72).

[226]. “Diary in America” (1839), III, 226–230.

For a description of the beginnings of legal procedure in isolated settlements on the frontier, see “Narrative of the Life of David Crockett,” written by himself (1843), pp. 132–135. (M.)

[227]. British and Foreign Review, 14: 29 (1843).

[228]. Cora Montgomery (Jane M. Cazneau): “Eagle Pass; or Life on the Border” (1852), pp. 153, 164–167.

Compare the justification of the frontier type of lynch-law given by Owen Wister in his recent novel, “The Virginian.” After describing the lynching of some Wyoming cattle-thieves, and emphasizing the fact that “many an act that man does is right or wrong according to the time and place which form, so to speak, its context,” the author puts into the mouth of “Judge Henry” these words: “They (the ordinary citizens) are where the law comes from, you see. For they chose the delegates who made the Constitution that provided for the courts. There’s your machinery. These are the hands into which ordinary citizens have put the law. So you see, at best, when they lynch they only take back what they once gave.... We are in a very bad way, and we are trying to make that way a little better until civilization can reach us. At present we lie beyond its pale. The courts, or rather the juries, into whose hands we have put the law, are not dealing the law. They are withered hands, or rather they are imitation hands made for show, with no life in them, no grip. They cannot hold a cattle-thief. And so when your ordinary citizen sees this, and sees that he has placed justice in a dead hand, he must take justice back into his own hands where it was once at the beginning of all things. Call this primitive, if you will, but so far from being a defiance of the law, it is an assertion of it—the fundamental assertion of self-governing men, upon whom our whole social fabric is based.”—pp. 435–436.

[229]. C. A. Murray: “Travels in America” (1839), II, 81.

[230]. Bancroft’s justification of popular tribunals and vigilance societies has been referred to above. See Chapter IV, p. [133].

[231]. “History of the Negro Race in America” (1883), I, 121, 131.

[232]. See J. A. Tillinghast: “The Negro in Africa and America”—Publications of the American Economic Association, May, 1902 (3d Ser., Vol. III, No. 2). This monograph presents an admirable historical perspective of the native characteristics and of the acquirements of the colored race in America.

[233]. Fanny Kemble, writing in 1838–39, attributed the “personal offensiveness” of negroes to dirt and habits of uncleanliness, asserting that the negroes had no respect for their personal appearance, and that this lack of respect was due to slavery. In her journal, these words are found: “The stench in an Irish, Scotch, Italian, or French hovel are quite as intolerable as any I ever found in any of our negro houses.” In another connection, however, when describing a certain negro named Isaac, she refers particularly to his strong physical resemblance to a monkey, and says that she is much comforted by the fact that this individual “speaks.” See “Journal of a Residence on a Georgian Plantation” (1863), pp. 23–24, 219.

In describing “The Negro in General,” Ratzel writes: “The specific, but hardly definable negro smell is certainly possessed by all, in varying degrees. Falkenstein refers it to the somewhat more oily composition of the sweat, which with uncleanly habits easily develops rancid acids.”—“History of Mankind” (Trans. from 2d German ed. by A. J. Butler, 1897), II, 315; see also II, 266, 301.

A practising physician in the city of New Haven, Conn., has assured the writer that the peculiar odor is again apparent very soon after a negro patient has been given a bath and a change of clothing.

[234]. Compare statements made in “An Apology for the Short Shrift”—Saturday Review, May 28, 1898 (85: 717).

The following passage is found in “The Selling of Joseph,” by Chief-Justice Samuel Sewall, printed in Boston, June 12, 1700, the first printed protest against slaveholding in Massachusetts: “and there is such a disparity in their Conditions, Colour & Hair, that they can never embody with us, and grow up in orderly Families, to the Peopling of the Land: but still remain in our Body Politick as a kind of extravasat Blood.”—See “Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society” for October, 1863 (Vol. 1863–64, p. 161).

[235]. William Wells Brown makes this statement in his book, “The Negro in the Rebellion,” pp. 361–362.

[236]. Compare the manifestation of race prejudice in South Africa, in Australia, and in the Philippines. See article “The Negro Problem in South Africa,” by Arthur Hawkes, Review of Reviews, September, 1903 (28: 325), and the editorial comments on pp. 264–265 of the same issue. See also, article “Race Prejudice in the Philippines,” by James A. Le Roy, Atlantic Monthly, July, 1902 (90: 100).

[237]. George W. Williams: “History of the Negro Race in America” (1883), II, 72.

[238]. Evidence for this statement has been presented above. See Chapter IV.

[239]. Outlook, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).

[240]. Outlook, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).

[241]. Outlook, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).

[242]. See p. 200 of monograph “The Negro in Africa and America,” referred to above. That this crime is of recent origin is either stated or assumed by almost every writer who discusses the lynching of negroes. See, for example, article by Thomas Nelson Page in The North American Review, January, 1904 (178: 33).

[243]. From a study of the prison statistics furnished by the United States census, Professor Walter F. Willcox came to the positive conclusion that “a large and increasing amount of negro crime is manifested all over the country.”—See an address on “Negro Criminality,” delivered before the American Social Science Association, on Sept. 6, 1899—“Journal of Proceedings,” No. 37, p. 97.

A like opinion is expressed by many writers. See, for example, Forum, October, 1898 (16: 167); Outlook, Oct. 31, 1903 (75: 493); Outlook, Dec. 26, 1903 (75: 984).

[244]. For a number of references on the subject of rape and its punishment, and also on the subject of burning alive as a legal punishment for crime, during the colonial period, the writer is indebted to Mr. Albert Matthews.

[245]. “Acts of Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania” (1775), pp. 45–46.

On May 5, 1722, it became the law of Pennsylvania that importers of servants who have been convicted of rape must pay a duty and enter security for good behavior for one year.—Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania, III, 264.

[246]. Colonial Laws of New York, I, 765–766.

Compare law of Aug. 8, 1688, in the Island of Barbadoes, which provided that two justices and three freeholders were to “give sentence of Death upon” negroes, for murder, rape, burning houses, &c.—Acts of Assembly Passed in the Island of Barbadoes, From 1648, to 1718 (1721), pp. 140–141.

[247]. Laws of the State of Delaware (1797), I, 102–105.

By an act passed in January, 1797, thirty-nine lashes well laid on were added to the punishment for an attempted rape on a white woman or maid.—Laws of the State of Delaware (1797), II, 1321–1324.

[248]. Laws of Maryland (1799), Chapter XIV.

[249]. See John S. Bassett: “Slavery and Servitude in the Colony of North Carolina”—Johns Hopkins Historical Studies (1896), XIV, 199. In Virginia the punishment of castration was so frequently inflicted upon slaves by the county courts that the Assembly deemed it necessary to enact that “it shall not be lawful for any county or corporation court, to order and direct castration of any slave, except such slave shall be convicted of an attempt to ravish a white woman, in which case they may inflict such punishment.”—See Hening: “Virginia Statutes at Large,” VI, 3; VIII, 358; Samuel Sheperd: “Virginia Statutes at Large” (New Series, 1835), I, 125.

[250]. “Records of the Court of Assistants of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay” (J. Noble, 1901), p. 74.

The following passage is taken from the Boston Chronicle, Sept. 26–Oct. 3, 1768 (No. 42, I, 383): “We hear that a negro fellow was tried at the Assizes held lately at Worcester, for a rape, and found guilty, and received sentence of death.—A white man was also tried and found guilty of the same crime, and sentenced to sit on the gallows.”

[251]. See “Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society” (1874), 2d Series, III, 178.

[252]. See J. R. Brackett: “The Negro in Maryland” (1889), p. 131.

[253]. Pennsylvania Gazette, Dec. 14, 1744 (N. J. Archives, XII, 244).

[254]. The basis for these statements is a collection of notes on legal burning alive made by Mr. Albert Matthews. Compare John Fiske: “Old Virginia and her Neighbours” (1897), II, 265.

[255]. Section LVI of “An Act for the better Ordering and Governing Negroes and other Slaves in this Province,” dated the 10th day of May, 1740, reads as follows: “And whereas, several negroes did lately rise in rebellion, and did commit many barbarous murders at Stono and other parts adjacent thereto; and whereas, in suppressing the said rebels, several of them were killed and others taken alive and executed; and as the exigence and danger the inhabitants at that time were in and exposed to, would not admit of the formality of a legal trial of such rebellious negroes, but for their own security, the said inhabitants were obliged to put such negroes to immediate death; to prevent, therefore, any person or persons being questioned for any matter or thing done in the suppression or execution of the said rebellious negroes, as also any litigious suit, action, or prosecution that may be brought, sued or prosecuted or commenced against such person or persons for or concerning the same; Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all and every act, matter and thing, had, done, committed and executed, in and about the suppressing and putting all and every the said negro and negroes to death, is and are hereby declared lawful, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, as fully and amply as if such rebellious negroes had undergone a formal trial and condemnation, notwithstanding any want of form or omission whatever in the trial of such negroes; and any law, usage or custom to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.”—“Statutes at Large of South Carolina” (edited by D. J. McCord, 1840), VII, 416–417.

[256]. Instances are recorded where Indians who had committed the crime of rape on white females were legally dealt with. See “Records of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay in New England,” II, 23; “New Haven Colonial Records” (Hoadly, 1858), p. 543; “Rhode Island Colonial Records,” II, 420, 427, 428; “Records of the Court of Assistants of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay” (J. Noble, 1901), pp. 21–22; “Plymouth Colony Records,” VI, 98.

[257]. Niles’ Register, Dec. 25, 1813 (5: 279).

[258]. Niles’ Register, Aug. 25, 1821 (20: 415–416).

[259]. Niles’ Register, June 8, 1822 (22: 238).

[260]. Niles’ Register, July 13, 1822 (22: 320).

[261]. Niles’ Register, Sept, 14, 1822 (23: 18). It was in the year 1741 that the thirteen blacks were burned at the stake in New York by judicial decree.

[262]. Additional evidence has been given above in another connection. See Chapter IV.

[263]. By an act passed the 11th day of May, 1754, power was given the justice to postpone the trial to such time as he thought proper, owing to the frequent difficulty of procuring the justice and the freeholders and the witnesses to attend the trial within the three days.—“Statutes at Large of S. C.” (edited by D. J. McCord, 1840), VII, 426–427.

[264]. “Statutes at Large of South Carolina” (edited by D. J. McCord, 1840), VII, 400–402. It was also provided by this act, which was passed the 10th day of May, 1740, that an oath for the faithful discharge of duty be taken by the freeholders when they assembled with the justices for the trial of prisoners, that the evidence of slaves, without oath, be admitted against slaves, that for certain offenses certain penalties be imposed, that compensation be allowed the owners of slaves executed, that masters and other persons be compelled to give evidence, that the constables execute or punish slaves according to the judgments rendered, &c., &c.

[265]. The laws of Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware have been cited above.

[266]. “Negro Outrage no Excuse for Lynching”—Forum, November, 1893 (16: 300).

[267]. Walter H. Page: “The Last Hold of the Southern Bully”—Forum, November, 1893 (16: 303).

[268]. “Lynching of Black People because they are Black”—Our Day, 13: 298 (1894).

[269]. The following passage is taken from an editorial in the Houston (Texas) Post of October 23, 1902: “From the same telegraph pole from which the two negroes were hanged at Hempstead on Tuesday, a rapist was hanged less than two months ago. The circumstances of the first execution were fully known to the victims of the second mob. This teaches very plainly that lynching does not deter.”

[270]. See “The Epidemic of Savagery,” Outlook, Sept. 7, 1901 (69: 9); also, “The Lynching of Negroes,” by Thomas Nelson Page, North American Review, January, 1904 (178: 33).

[271]. Compare the conclusion arrived at by a Georgia lawyer in an article in the Forum, October, 1893 (16: 176).

[272]. Even such a discriminating and estimable journal as the Nation still makes use of every possible occasion to preach the rights of man in general and of the negro in particular, utterly ignoring the question of capability and responsibility.

[273]. See, for example, J. H. Ingraham: “The South-West” (1835), II, 185–189.

[274]. See, for example, Southern Literary Messenger, March, 1839 (5: 219).

[275]. See Public Opinion, Feb. 11, 1893 (14: 448).

[276]. See Our Day, May, 1893 (11: 333).

[277]. See Haydn’s “Dictionary of Dates” (1898), p. 681. Also, “The Cyclopedic Review of Current History” (1894), p. 647.

[278]. The New York World secured “interviews” with nineteen governors on the subject of the proposed visit of the committee. See American Law Review, November-December, 1894 (28: 904).

[279]. See Literary Digest, July 14, 1894.

[280]. See Independent, May 16, 1901 (53: 1133).

[281]. See article by Edward Leigh Pell on “Prevention of Lynch-law Epidemics,” Review of Reviews, March, 1898 (17: 321).

[282]. See Georgia Code, 1895, Sections 356–359.

[283]. Public Laws of North Carolina, 1893, ch. 461.

[284]. Georgia Laws, 1895, Part I, Title 7, No. 209.

[285]. Constitution of South Carolina, Section 6, Article 6. This article of the constitution with additional provisions necessary to make its operation effective was passed by the legislature in 1896 as “An Act to Prevent Lynching.” See Acts of South Carolina, 1896, p. 213.

[286]. 92 Ohio Laws 136. In this the original act the amount of damages that could be recovered was fixed at a certain sum; for assault, “the sum of $1000,” for suffering lynching “the sum of $500,” &c. In thus fixing the amount of damages it was said that the legislature had assumed judicial power and had thus rendered the act unconstitutional. To remedy this defect, the legislature on April 21, 1898, amended the act so that the amount of damages that might be recovered should be, for assault “any sum not exceeding $1000,” for suffering lynching “any sum not exceeding $500,” &c. See 93 Ohio Laws 161. Being Sections 4426–4 to 4426–14 of the Revised Statutes.

[287]. 93 Ohio Laws 411. Being Section 6908 of Title I, Part Fourth, Revised Statutes, Crimes and Offenses.

[288]. Acts of Tennessee, 1897, Chapter 52. This act was approved March 24, 1897.

[289]. Laws of Kentucky, 1897, Chapter 20. For the amendment and re-enactment of this law see Laws of Kentucky, 1902, Chapter 25. In the above résumé of the law nothing has been included from the sections which were repealed in 1902.

[290]. Laws of Texas, 1897, Chapter 13. This act was approved June 19, 1897.

[291]. Acts of Indiana, 1899, Chapter 218. Being Sections 2065a–2065d, 2065f of the Revised Statutes (1901).

By an act approved Feb. 24, 1899, boards of county commissioners in Indiana are authorized to pay five hundred dollars reward for the arrest and conviction of a murderer or lyncher.—Acts of 1899, Chapter 100.

[292]. Acts of Indiana, 1901, Chapter 140. Being Section 2065e of the Revised Statutes (1901).

[293]. Public Acts of Michigan, 1899, No. 252. Repealed by Public Acts of Michigan, 1903, No. 26.

[294]. Constitution of Alabama, Section 138.

[295]. Acts of West Virginia, 1903, p. 305; Joint Resolution, No. 12, adopted Feb. 3, 1903.

[296]. See newspapers of the date Dec. 26, 1902, and subsequent dates.

[297]. Laws of Kansas, 1903, Chapter 407. This act was approved March 10, 1903.

[298]. Laws of Kansas, 1903, Chapter 221. This act was approved March 11, 1903.

[299]. As early as the year 1796, this measure was suggested as a means of preventing the administration of popular justice by extra-legal methods. In that year Governor St. Clair, in a report to the Secretary of State concerning “Official Proceedings in the Illinois Country,” after describing an affair in which some Indians were summarily put to death, the circumstances of which he characterized as “not only not blameable but laudable,” continued in these words: “I am sorry however, to add that, had the affair been ever so criminal in its nature, it would have been, I believe, impossible to have brought the actors to punishment. The difficulties that have occurred in cases of that nature in various parts of the United States, as well as in this Territory, and the stain it fixes on the national character, has often led me to consider whether justice could not be secured to the Indians by adding some sanction to the law beyond what is usual between the citizens, and it has occurred to me that, were a pretty heavy pecuniary fine to be set upon the murder of an Indian, and a proportional one for lesser injuries, to be levied upon the counties where the offense was committed if the offenders were not brought to justice, it would probably have the effect, for it is often seen that the minds of men little tinctured with justice or humanity, have a pretty strong sympathy with their pockets, and I believe it to be a subject within the province of the general legislature.”—The St. Clair Papers (1882), Vol. II, p. 397.

[300]. For the purpose of obtaining accurate and complete information on the subject of anti-lynching laws the writer asked the following questions of thirty-three attorneys-general in the United States, inclosing in each letter a self-addressed and stamped envelope for reply:

1. What anti-lynching laws have been enacted in your State since 1890? (Please give citation to statutes.) If there are no anti-lynching laws in your State, mention any attempts that have been made to enact such laws.

2. Have any cases been tried under any of such laws or any attempts been made to that effect, and what has been the record and the outcome in each case?

3. Are such laws effective in any respect?

Twenty-four replies were received to the thirty-three letters sent, and upon examination a fact became evident which is probably rather more than a coincidence—the nine unanswered letters were the ones which were sent to the attorneys-general of the States, with one exception, in which the greater number of lynchings have occurred. The exception is scarcely worth noting, however, because it was a reply which was very tardy and very non-committal.

[301]. See p. [234].

[302]. Brown v. Orangeburg Co., 55 S. C. 45; 32 S. E. 764. The decision of the Supreme Court was rendered on April 20, 1899.

[303]. See p. [235].

[304]. Mitchell was a negro and was lynched on June 4, 1897, for the crime of rape.

[305]. Caldwell lost again in the common pleas and circuit courts, and went no further.—Deputy Clerk of Cuyahoga County in letter to the writer.

[306]. See note, p. [236]. The supreme court by this decision upheld the act in its original form.

[307]. 62 O. S. 318.

[308]. 68 N. E. 899.

[309]. See p. [185]. Compare Chart I.

[310]. New York Times, Jan. 21, 1904. Governor Sayers of Texas made similar statements in his annual message to the legislature of Texas on Jan. 16, 1903.

[311]. New York Times, Nov. 3, 1903.

[312]. New York Times, Sept. 7, 1903.

[313]. Richmond (Va.) Planet, Feb. 14, 1903.

[314]. Governor’s message to the legislature, Jan. 14, 1903.

[315]. New York Evening Sun, June 5, 1903.

[316]. After a trial which lasted three months, the first man tried was acquitted.—Denver (Colo.) Republican, Feb. 28, 1902.

[317]. Attorney-general of Wyoming in letter to the writer.

[318]. A woman whose husband was hanged by a mob has recently filed suit against twenty-six “prominent citizens” of Fleming County, Kentucky, for $50,000 damages, claiming that they were members of the mob which lynched her husband.—New York Times, July 14, 1904.

[319]. Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times, July 27, 1902. It will be remembered that by the Tennessee act any person guilty of direct or indirect participation in a lynching was declared to be incompetent to serve on a jury, and that the court was to carefully exclude all such persons from both grand and petit juries. See p. [237].

[320]. Despatch from Lewisburg, Tennessee, in New York Commercial Advertiser, Jan. 8, 1903.

In October, 1903, a grand jury in Moore County, Tennessee, indicted twenty-two members of a lynching mob.—See Outlook, Oct. 24, 1903 (75: 427).

[321]. Atlantic Monthly, February, 1904 (93: 155).

[322]. See bills introduced during 57th Congress, 1st Session: Senate Bill 1117; House bills 21, 4572.

[323]. Congressional Record, 57th Congress, 1st Session, p. 636.

[324]. See Green Bag, September, 1900 (12: 466).

[325]. New York Tribune, April 15, 1892.

[326]. Some of these indemnities cover loss of property and bodily injuries as well as loss of life.

[327]. See, in addition to New York Tribune, April 15, 1892, United States Statutes at Large, 49th Cong., 2nd Sess., Ch. 253; 50th Cong., 1st Sess., Ch. 1210; 54th Cong., 1st Sess., Ch. 373; 55th Cong., 1st Sess., Ch. 9; 55th Cong., 2d Sess., Ch. 571; 56th Cong., 2d Sess., Ch. 831; 57th Cong., 2d Sess., Ch. 1006.

[328]. American Law Review, September-October, 1900 (34: 709).

[329]. See Congressional Record, 57th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 5902–5905, 5956, 6214.

[330]. Leslie’s Weekly, Aug. 20, 1903; Independent, Oct. 29, 1903 (55: 2547).

[331]. See Harvard Law Review, March, 1904 (17: 317).

[332]. On the work of the courts in the State of New York, see “Report of the Commission on Law’s Delays,” January, 1904.

[333]. Review of Reviews, March, 1898 (17: 321).

[334]. Governor Newton C. Blanchard, at his inauguration on May 16, 1904, at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, stated his position with reference to lynchings in unmistakable language. “Lynchings,” he said, “will not be permitted under any circumstances, if it be possible for the military at the command of the Governor to get there in time to prevent them. And if they occur before the intervention of the Executive can be made effective, inquiry and investigation will be made and prosecution instigated. Sheriffs will be held to the strictest accountability possible under the law for the safety from mob violence of persons in their custody.... The courts are adequate to the prompt vindication of the law and the punishment of crime.”—Outlook, May 28, 1904 (77: 197).

[335]. Governor Vardaman ordered out two companies of militia and went himself to the scene of the trouble in a special train, bringing the negro away in his private car, at a cost to the State, it was said, of $250,000. See New York Times, Feb. 29, 1904.

[336]. Vigilance and prompt action on the part of the officers of the law, together with the presence of the militia, probably prevented the lynching of the three negroes who assaulted Mrs. Biddle at Burlington, New Jersey, on July 5, 1904.—See New York Times, July 16, 1904.

[337]. Governor Jelks, of Alabama, in his message of Jan. 14, 1903, said in reference to the lynching in Pike County of a negro who was taken away from a constable: “His offense was probably swearing contrary to one of his white neighbors in a justice trial on a proof of character. This was a cold-blooded murder and without excuse at all.... The murderers go about. None of them will be hanged as they should be.”

[338]. The News-Observer, Raleigh, North Carolina, Aug. 27, 1902.

[339]. American Law Review, March—April, 1900 (34: 238).

[340]. For a discussion of the problem of punishing lynchers and for some statistics with reference to the punishment of persons who participated in lynchings during the first six months of the year 1892, see paper by George C. Holt, on “Lynching and Mobs,” American Journal of Social Science, No. 32, p. 67 (November, 1894).

[341]. Carroll D. Wright: “Outline of Practical Sociology” (1899), p. 357.

[342]. This view of the matter is ably set forth in the Green Bag for September, 1900 (12: 466), by O. F. Hershey of the Maryland Bar.

The same idea is expressed in a different way in an article on “American Quality,” by N. S. Shaler. See International Monthly, July, 1901.

[343]. Francis J. Grund: “The Americans in their moral, social, and political relations” (London, 1837), I, 323. (M.)

[344]. Quoted from the Journal of Jurisprudence (Edinborough). See American Law Review, May—June, 1891 (25: 461).

[345]. For a comprehensive discussion of the “native question,” see “A Sociological View of the ‘Native Question,’” by Albert G. Keller, Yale Review, November, 1903.

[346]. W. E. B. DuBois: “The Souls of Black Folk” (1903), p. 143.

[347]. William Hayne Levell: “On Lynching in the South.”—Outlook Nov. 16, 1901 (69: 731).

[348]. “Lynching and the Franchise Rights of the Negro,” Annals of the American Academy of Science, May, 1900 (15: 493).

[349]. On the suggestibility of crowds, see Gustave LeBon: “The Crowd. A Study of the Popular Mind” (2d ed., 1897).

See also Boris Sidis: “The Psychology of Suggestion” (1898), Part III.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

  1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in spelling.
  2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.
  3. Re-indexed footnotes using numbers and collected together at the end of the last chapter.