THE TRUTH ABOUT
LYNCHING and THE
NEGRO IN THE SOUTH

IN WHICH THE AUTHOR PLEADS THAT THE
SOUTH BE MADE SAFE FOR THE WHITE RACE

BY

WINFIELD H. COLLINS, A.M., Ph.D.

Author of
The Domestic Slave Trade of the Southern States

THE NEALE PUBLISHING COMPANY

440 FOURTH AVENUE, NEW YORK

MCMXVIII

Copyright, 1918, by
The Neale Publishing Company

THE TRUTH ABOUT LYNCHING
AND
THE NEGRO IN THE SOUTH

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
[Preface]
CHAPTER
IThe Lynching of Negroes in the South Previous to the Civil War[9]
IILynching During the Civil War and the Carpet-Bag Rule[29]
IIILynching from the End of Carpet-Bag Rule to the Present Time[48]
IVThe Criminality of the Negro[72]
VSegregation of the Negro[101]
VINegro Wealth or Poverty,—Which?[123]
VIIThe Future of the Negro[141]

PREFACE

In the preparation of these pages an effort has been made to discover and present the truth in regard to the Negro in the South. The first three chapters need not be considered an attempt at justification of lynching nor an effort at palliation of the disorder, but rather as a setting forth of the facts, conditions, and extenuating circumstances in such connection. The purpose of the other four chapters is to throw light upon the mental, moral, and material condition of the Negro.

W. H. C.

Reids Grove, Md.,
January 30, 1918.

The Truth About Lynching
and the Negro in the South

CHAPTER I
THE LYNCHING OF NEGROES IN THE SOUTH PREVIOUS TO THE CIVIL WAR

It is generally supposed that the custom or practice of lynching in this country had its origin in the method of punishment used by a Virginian farmer named Lynch, who during the Revolutionary War sought in this way to maintain order in his community or section,—hence, Lynch’s Law, and Lynch law, from which comes the word “lynching.”

In the beginning, however, the term seldom, if ever, conveyed the meaning “to put to death”; nor does it appear that Negroes were lynched even so often as whites. The methods of punishment in the majority of cases consisted of riding the victim on a rail, beating or whipping him, and often of giving him a coat of tar and feathers.

Moreover, it does not appear that lynching in

any form was very common in the early history of the country. Indeed, in 1839 a writer in the Southern Literary Messenger[10:1] began a brief article on the subject with the following:

“Forty years ago the practice of wreaking private vengeance or of inflicting summary or illegal punishment for crime actual or pretended which has been glossed over by the name Lynch law was hardly known except in sparse, frontier settlements beyond the reach of courts and legal proceedings.”

Newspapers, periodicals, and other literature of the time show,—as the years pass,—an interesting change in the meaning of the term Lynch law. As the practice of lynching increased, the methods of the executors of this law became more severe, and it grew more often to mean “a putting to death.” Possibly the change in meaning was partly due to the fact that lynching came to be a favorite means of punishment for abolitionists, their Negro dupes, and for both Negroes and whites who might be found guilty of unusual or shocking crimes.

The change from the mild to the severer meaning of the term was gradual. From 1830 to 1840

it seldom meant “to put to death”; from 1850 to 1860 it very often had that meaning, and by 1870, or 1875,—this became the almost exclusive interpretation of “lynching,” even as at present.

The “New English Dictionary” defines Lynch law as “the practice of inflicting summary punishment upon an offender, by a self-constituted court armed with no legal authority; it is now limited to the summary execution of one charged with some flagrant offense.” So this is about the sense (unless otherwise indicated) in which I shall use the expression “Lynch law,” or “lynching,” in these pages.

In seeking a cause for the great increase of lynching, whether in its milder or severer form, from about 1830, I think one need not hesitate to give first place to the Anti-Slavery agitation; and the Southampton Slave Insurrection is also to be considered as contributory.

When, about 1830, the Anti-Slavery agitation began to attract some attention there were a number of anti-slavery societies in the South. These, however, soon broke up as those formed in the North became unreasonable. The net effect of the societies in the North was to produce distrust and even hatred at the South. It could hardly have been otherwise, for the Northern anti-slavery propagandists during the whole period of such

agitation seemed to have regard for neither law nor common sense. Nothing better could have been expected from them, however, as, for the most part, the abolitionists were poor, misguided men and women. Instead of adopting persuasive methods and of showing a fair and conciliatory spirit, they were dictatorial, inflammatory and menacing. And by whatever of higher law or Divine inspiration they may have claimed to be actuated, they failed to recognize the fact that they had to deal with human beings and human institutions.

Again, on whatever lofty plane of morality they professed to stand, their propaganda did not comprehend even ordinary honesty. Indeed, it appears as only another illustration,—for history affords so many instances,—of self-elected good men endeavoring to impose their own half-blind perception of the way of the Lord, or their own ideas of what constitutes righteousness on their open-eyed and superior fellow-men, and exerting themselves to the utmost of their ignorance in such efforts,—thus, as is usual in such cases, making hell on earth. Even the Kaiser claims to be the agent of the Lord.

William Lloyd Garrison, the leading exponent of the abolition movement, called the Constitution of the United States “An Agreement with

Death and a Covenant with Hell.” In the beginning his most earnest supporters were some pious old women, who doubtless with fair intelligence and good intentions, like many professed good people, let their emotions aided by their imagination get the better of their heads. They seemed to enjoy criticizing the South, with the occasional diversion of holding prayer-meetings for Negroes.

However, it was a long while (even in the North) before the abolition movement gained much headway. Garrison himself was treated with scarcely more consideration in the North than awaited those Apostles of anti-slavery that should go South, having persuaded themselves that they were called to preach the “gospel” of abolition in that benighted section. Indeed, once, in 1835, he hid himself in order to escape from a mob of some thousands of people,—including many of the leading citizens of Boston,—that had collected in front of his office. Some of the crowd found him and soon had a rope around his neck, but he was rescued by the mayor of the city. About two years later, however, a noted abolition editor, Rev. E. P. Lovejoy, was killed by a mob in Illinois.

In 1856 The Liberator made the following remarkable statement in regard to the treatment of abolitionists in the South:

“A record of the cases of Lynch-Law in the Southern States reveals the startling fact that within twenty years over three hundred white persons have been murdered upon the occasion—in most cases unsupported by legal proof—of carrying among the slaveholders arguments addressed to their own intellects and consciences as to the morality and expediency of slavery.”[14:2]

This is evidently a great exaggeration. If it were alleged that over three hundred had been “lynched,” bearing in mind that during those years the word, more often than otherwise, meant giving the victim a coat of tar and feathers, and so on, it would not even then be in accord with what is indicated by better evidence. Books of travel and other literature of the time fail to show that any great number of abolitionists in the South met death by lynching during the period in question.

Indeed, a booklet, “The New Reign of Terror,” published early in 1860,—and in all probability compiled by Garrison himself,—is weighty evidence against the truth of this statement. According to The Liberator, the booklet gave “multiplied newspaper accounts of lynchings, murders, and mob raids of the Black Power of the Slave States within the past year [1859].” Although

this was a time of intense excitement throughout the South,—a time when a more bitter feeling was manifested against abolitionists than in any previous period, a careful examination of the “New Reign of Terror” failed to reveal more than one case in which an abolitionist was put to death by lynching.

There is much evidence of a law-abiding spirit in the South (especially in the eastern part) at the beginning of the Anti-Slavery agitation. Indeed, even when lynching was resorted to, it seems to have been done with great reluctance.

Another thing that had some effect on lynching was the Southampton Slave Insurrection, which occurred in 1831. About sixty white men, women, and children were murdered in cold blood by Negroes. However, not more than one of the fifty or more Negroes concerned in it was lynched. Instead, they were given a fair trial, and disposed of according to law. The Insurrection may have caused an increase in the lynching of Negroes by the fact that it begat a kind of fear and distrust of the blacks everywhere, caused them to be more carefully looked after, and more severely dealt with when refractory or guilty of crime.

This was no more than could be expected. In 1835 there were four great fires in the city of Charleston,—all supposed to have been the work

of slaves. Moreover, up to 1860 there were rumors of insurrections, and many minor insurrections did take place. The abolitionists, not without reason, were accused of trying to set the slaves against their masters and of fostering outbreaks of the bondmen.

Such things could hardly be considered lightly, for in many places the whites were practically at the mercy of the Negroes. A quotation from Murray,[16:3] an English traveler, may be interesting as it gives an example of the situation in many of the Slave States:

“The farms of the two gentlemen whom I visited occupied the whole of the peninsula formed by the James River; they had each two overseers: thus (their families being young) the effective strength of white men on their estates amounted to six: the Negroes were in number about two hundred and fifty: nor was there a village or place within many miles from which help could be summoned.”

Could one reasonably expect that any man so situated would be inclined to be too ceremonious with any person, black or white, however innocent or saintlike his looks, who might be caught tampering with the Negroes and thereby jeopardize

the safety of his family and those of his neighbors as well? When one considers the exasperating circumstances, the wonder is not that there were so many lynchings but rather that there were so few, comparatively.

Some interesting lynchings occurred in 1835. They were widely commented upon at the time. One, the case of a mulatto from Pennsylvania, who was supposed to have some connection with the abolitionists, was burned at St. Louis for killing an officer who was trying to arrest him for some crime he had committed. The judge’s charge to the grand jury in reference to the matter is worth consideration as it indicates the attitude toward lynching shown at the time by those in authority:

“He told the jury that a bad and lamentable deed had been committed in burning a man alive without trial, but that it was quite another question whether they were to take any notice of it. If it should prove to be the act of a few, every one of those few ought undoubtedly to be indicted and punished; but if it should be proved to be the act of the many, incited by that electric and metaphysical influence which occasionally carries on a multitude to do deeds above and beyond the

law, it was no affair for the jury to interfere with.”[18:4]

The same year, 1835, two Negroes were burned near Mobile.[18:5] The circumstances were these:

Upon the failure of a certain little girl and her brother to return from school at the proper time a search was made and the body of the girl at last found. It appeared that she had been violated, then murdered, and her body hid in order to conceal the crime. Soon after this, two young ladies of Mobile were seized by two Negroes near the place where the body of the little girl was found. The young ladies escaped. At once suspicion pointed to these Negroes as the murderers of the children. They were arrested, tried by the court, and found guilty. The gentlemen of Mobile, it is said, then seized the Negroes, took them to the place of their crime, and burned them. For it was felt that the law did not furnish adequate means of punishment for such fiendish criminality.

Another noted instance of lynching took place at Vicksburg in the same year. This time it was not a Negro but whites that were lynched.

For many years the population of the Mississippi Valley had been increasing rapidly. The courts of law were so few, weak, or dilatory, that

the better citizens sometimes found it necessary to take the law into their own hands in order to insure for themselves protection. Such was the case at Vicksburg. Some gamblers had lately made this town their home and had established themselves at the low taverns to which they decoyed the young men of the vicinity. These, after being plundered and debauched, often cast their lot with the gamblers and became almost as desperate as their corrupters. After a while all restraint was thrown off, and the gamblers went about the streets even in the daytime armed with deadly weapons, and by their insults, drunkenness, and crimes, made themselves a terror to the inhabitants.

At length the people, having decided to put an end to such conditions, held a meeting and passed resolutions, giving the gamblers notice to leave within twenty-four hours. But, instead of doing so, they garrisoned themselves in a house. This the men of the town surrounded, and breaking open a door, they were fired upon from within, one of the most prominent men of the town being killed. This so enraged the people that they took the house by storm. Five of the gamblers were made prisoners. Then a procession, headed by the leading men of the town, led the gamblers to execution, hung them, and buried them together in a ditch.

Featherstonhaugh, an English traveler, in writing of the Mississippi gamblers, says:

“In various travels in almost every part of the world, I never saw such a collection of unblushing, low, degraded scoundrels.”[20:6]

He also quotes a passage from a justification of the above lynching, which was drawn up by the people of Vicksburg, and is as follows:

“Society may be compared to the elements, which, although, ‘order is their first law,’ can sometimes be justified only by a storm. Whatever, therefore, sickly sensibility or mawkish philanthropy may say against the course pursued by us, we hope that our citizens will not relax the code of punishment which they have enacted against this infamous, unprincipled, and baleful class of society; and we invite Natchez, Jackson, Columbus, Warrenton, and all our sister towns throughout the State, in the name of our insulted laws, of offended virtue, and of slaughtered innocence, to aid us in exterminating this deep-rooted vice from our land. The revolution has been conducted here by the most respectable citizens, heads of families, members of all classes and professions and

pursuits. None have been heard to utter a syllable of censure against either the act or the manner in which it was performed; and so far as we know, public opinion, both in town and country, is decidedly in favor of the course pursued. We have never known the public so unanimous on any subject.”

Only a few days before the Vicksburg affair two white men and seven Negroes were lynched about forty miles from Vicksburg on the charge of attempting to organize an insurrection of slaves. Featherstonhaugh quotes the following account of it from a newspaper:

“Twenty miles from this place [Jackson, in Madison County] a company of white men and Negroes were detected before they did any mischief. On Sunday last they hung two steam doctors, one named Cotton and the other Saunders; also, seven Negroes without law or gospel, and from respectable authority we learn that there were two preachers and ten Negroes to be hanged this day.”

That such lynchings were exceptional in the South before about 1855, or even before the war, is shown by the fact that these cases were

mentioned by several different travelers and the papers of the time as well. I examined with more or less care books of travel too numerous to mention,—scores of them,—for the period between 1830 and 1860. Those travelers, especially, who visited the South between 1838 and 1854 are eloquently silent on the subject. I examined The Liberator[22:7] for 1839 and 1840, but found mention of only one Negro who was put to death by a mob. No State was given so I am not sure whether it was in the North or the South. However, it gave five instances of Negroes legally executed in the South; one for rape, one for arson, one for firing on two white men and threatening two others, and two for connection with an attempt at insurrection. Two more cases may be given: that of a Negro in New Orleans suspected of rape and murder, and one sentenced in Kentucky for rape upon two white women.

Again, a search of The Liberator for 1848 and 1849; Niles’ Register, July, 1845-January, 1849; The Vicksburg Sentinel, and The Augusta (Va.) Democrat, July, 1846-January, 1849, reveal but two lynchings: One a Negro “hung by a committee of citizens” at Bentonville, Arkansas;

the other, a white man named Yeoman, in Florida, for robbery. The latter was given both by Niles’ Register and a book of travel. However, one Negro was sentenced to death in the South for rape, and ten legally executed, the majority for murder.

As one might naturally expect, The Liberator for 1855 and 1856 shows several lynchings in the South. At least six Negroes were lynched in the South during these years,—two for rape (one of whom was burned) and four for murder (one of whom also was burned). Two of these criminals were lynched in Arkansas by a mob,—after being acquitted by the court,—led by the sons of their master, whom they had killed. Two white men were also lynched: one, in Texas, for stealing Negroes, and the other, in Missouri, for poisoning a spring. Moreover, eighteen Negroes were legally executed in the South: two for rape, and nearly all the others for murder. In addition, seven Negroes were mentioned as under sentence of death.

A quotation from Bancroft clearly shows that the number of lynchings in the South at this time hardly compares with the number in the West:

“Out of 535 homicides which occurred in California during the year 1855,” he says, “there were

but seven legal executions and forty-nine informal ones.”[24:8]

One does not need to go far in order to find the causes of the increase of lynching in the South after 1850, or for the disorder and commotion both North and South as well.

In 1850 the Fugitive Slave law was passed. The endeavor to enforce it gave great impetus to the abolition cause in the North; this reacted on the South. Indeed, many of the same men who were ready to hang Garrison in 1835, now became his earnest adherents. This great change in the feeling of the North opened the way for the enthusiastic reception of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” when, in 1852, it was published in book form. The author of this book ingeniously made the isolated and exceptional incidents of slavery appear as the general condition of the institution; however, as for the chief character of the book, Uncle Tom, it is very doubtful whether the pure Negro race ever produced such an individual. Nevertheless, this piece of fiction was read by hundreds of thousands both in the North and in foreign countries as if it were “Gospel truth.”

Another thing that added to the excitement and helped the abolitionists was the Dred Scott Decision,

given in 1857. Then, in 1859, came “Helpers’ Impending Crisis,” a book of great influence. At last, in 1859, as if to “cap the climax,” the whole country was startled by John Brown’s Raid. After this, the greater part of the South, suddenly, became an extremely unhealthful place for both abolitionists and unruly, criminal, or insurrectionary Negroes.

“The New Reign of Terror,” mentioned above, published early in 1860, not many months after John Brown’s Raid, has the following, which indicates the then feeling in the South:

“In almost every city, town, and village south of the border slave-holding States, Vigilance Committees have been appointed to put to inquisition every Northern man who makes his appearance in the place, whether as foe or friend. Even harmless young women, who have gone from Northern boarding schools to be teachers of Southern children have been waited upon by respectable and even clerical gentlemen with the polite hint that the sooner they leave the State the better for their safety.”

The Augusta Dispatch[25:9] warned the South against “strange loafing white men, and especially

the one-horse invalid preachers from the North,” for it said:

“We would guard well against imposition from transient ‘candles of the Lord’ lest we suffer them to light the fires of insurrection, instead of bearing aloft the light of the Gospel.”

Indeed, in many Southern States there were rumors of Negro insurrections. In Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama plots of Negro insurrections were discovered in 1860. In Texas, however, the greatest excitement prevailed. What was supposed to be a State-wide insurrection was discovered. Dallas and other towns were partly burned before it was checked.

The excited state of the public mind in some instances may have suspected plots of insurrection when none existed. However that may be, wherever and whenever such a plot was discovered, investigation nearly always pointed to the abolitionists as the instigators. Indeed, even when Negroes were insubordinate and refractory on a plantation, it was often found that they had been tampered with by abolitionists.

Occasionally, when such things were proved against an abolitionist beyond the possibility of a doubt, he would be immediately hanged to the

limb of some convenient tree. Several were so dealt with in connection with the insurrection in Texas. As a rule, however, when the proof was not so conclusive, a severe whipping, or a coat of tar and feathers, would be given him, and then he would be forcefully admonished to leave the South.

One cannot but reach the conclusion that the anti-slavery agitation was detrimental to the happiness and welfare of the slaves, and to the free Negroes as well. Of the latter there were in the slave States (by the fifties) something like 225,000. The majority of these were indolent, miserable, and often vicious. Finally some States passed laws giving them the option of leaving such State or of being sold into slavery.

Nearly everywhere more stringent regulations and laws[27:10] were made both for slaves and for free Negroes. The slaves were deprived of many former privileges, the enjoyment of which by the Negroes might be dangerous for the white people. They were more closely guarded and much more harshly dealt with when guilty of offenses or crimes. Indeed, three Negroes in as many States were burned in 1859 for the murder of their

masters,—one of these was burned before 1,500 or 2,000 people.

Nevertheless, it is quite evident that throughout the period from 1830 to 1860 the lynching of Negroes was sporadic,—and usually was resorted to only for exceptional reasons. Generally the law was allowed to take its course. However, it is also plain that after 1850 the law was relied on less and less, while the people more and more assumed the initiative in such matters as the excitement increased. What was true as regards the Negro was undoubtedly true also as regards the treatment of the abolitionists.

FOOTNOTES:

[10:1] Vol. V, p. 218.

[14:2] The Liberator, Dec. 19, 1856.

[16:3] Murray, “Travels in North America,” Vol. I, p. 166.

[18:4] Harriett Martineau, “Retrospect of Western Travel,” pp. 30-1.

[18:5] Ibid., “Society in America,” Vol. II, pp. 141-2.

[20:6] G. W. Featherstonhaugh, “Excursion through the Slave States,” pp. 136-9.

[22:7] In using The Liberator one needs to be careful, for the same instance is often found to be given two or three different times,—weeks, even months apart.

[24:8] H. H. Bancroft, “Popular Tribunals,” Vol. I, p. 749.

[25:9] Quoted by Liberator, Aug. 24, 1860.

[27:10] The attitude toward both slaves and free Negroes varied in different Southern States; but as a result of the anti-slavery agitation, as we approach 1860 the more severe it becomes.

CHAPTER II
LYNCHING DURING THE CIVIL WAR AND THE CARPET-BAG RULE

It is said that an Abolitionist Society by a bribe of $3,000 induced the slave valet of Henry Clay to leave him and go North. The Society thought that this large sum would be well spent in producing what would appear to be such a noteworthy example of dissatisfaction with the condition of slavery. Though the Negro accepted the money and left, he soon repented and returned to his master. Thereupon Clay gave him $3,000 (for the Negro had long since spent the bribe), telling him that when he had returned the sum to those who had tried to corrupt him that he would be restored to his master’s service. The money was given back as directed and Clay then took the Negro back as his valet.

Such a case was, no doubt, exceptional. In one way or another, however, the abolitionists produced more or less dissatisfaction among the slaves and were almost wholly responsible for the

escape to the North of something like an average of 2,000 a year. The Negroes did not always find conditions in the North so favorable as they had been led to suppose. As a consequence it did not infrequently happen that a “runaway” Negro would become dissatisfied and return of his own free will to his master in the South.

During the Civil War those slaves who for any reason had become dissatisfied with their condition embraced the first opportunity to gather in the wake of the Union army,—mainly, no doubt, to shun work.

While this was true as an exception, the great mass of the slaves remained quietly at work on the plantations. Thus, instead of creating antagonism between the two races, the War served rather to foster and cement a good feeling between them; indeed, throughout its darkest days they lived harmoniously side by side. Elizabeth Collins, an Englishwoman, who was in South Carolina the greater part of the War, says:

“In regard to the slave population of Charleston, I may say that they appear to be, almost without exception, happy and contented.”[30:1]

Indeed, an examination of several Southern

newspapers and some books of travel[31:2] revealed but two possible cases of lynching of Negroes in the South during the War: A Mr. Harris, Uchee, Alabama, was murdered by six of his Negroes, whereupon:

“The citizens of the county about ninety in number, after consultation, determined upon the immediate execution of the murderers.”[31:3]

The other case was in Mississippi: Some Negroes were hung, seemingly, for trying to get on a steamboat in order to escape from slavery.[31:4] The Liberator[31:5] mentions two instances of Negroes being lynched in New York in 1863: A negro in jail at Newburg, on suspicion of rape, was taken out by a mob “who pounded him almost to death and then hung him on a tree until he was finished.” Two were also lynched in the City of New York, one of whom, it seems, was roasted alive.

In no place was there any mention of any Negroes being lynched for rape in the South during the War. Indeed, it is often said that during the

Civil War when the white men were nearly all away from home, leaving the white women almost at the mercy of the slaves, no Negro was guilty of a criminal outrage against them.[32:6] It may be true. Viewed in the light of the sporadic occurrence of the crime under the restraining influence of slavery before the War, and of its quite frequent occurrence sometime after, it is both remarkable and suggestive.

It may truly be regarded as evidence not only of the generally fair treatment that, according to unprejudiced travelers, they were receiving in slavery, as well as a tribute to their fidelity, but it also makes it obvious that the Negro and the Southern white man might have continued in harmony mutually advantageous after the War, had both been free from outside influences.

Almost immediately after the War, however, the South began to “swarm” with harebrained preachers and teachers from the North, ostensibly to elevate the Negro; as a rule, though, they served no better purpose than to aid in setting the Negro against his former master. For, it seems, they cared not what became of the white man so they secured the “salvation” of the Negro, entirely ignoring that saying of Scripture which is to the effect that those who fail to serve first their

own house or people have denied the faith and are worse than infidels.[33:7]

Such a condition of affairs was promoted by Congress, who, at about the close of the War established the so-called “Freedmen’s Bureau,” and shortly after passed the Civil Rights bill, both of which tended to cause friction between the two races. However, as compared with that of a few years later, the trouble does not appear to have been very serious notwithstanding exaggerated accounts which were reported to Northern papers. In most parts of the South and at most times for something like two years after the War, there was comparative quiet and safety.

The crimes of the Negroes during these years were for the most part of a trifling kind,—petty thievery and robbery. However, it is true they committed crimes of a very serious nature, also. Notwithstanding, the law was generally allowed to have its way. Harriett Martineau observes in one of her books that nothing struck her more than the patience of the slave-owners of the South with their slaves. Even during the first years after the War a patient and even indulgent spirit was often manifested by the leading whites toward the Negroes as to their shortcomings and sometimes it extended to their serious crimes.

For instance, in 1866, near Rome, Georgia, a whole family consisting of a man, wife, and two daughters, were murdered, and one of the women, ravished. The newspaper account ends with:[34:8]

“It was difficult to restrain the people from inflicting summary punishment upon them.”

For such a crime now, a Negro would likely be burned alive. The same paper quotes the following from The Raleigh Progress:[34:9]

“Charles Wethers, the rascally Negro, who attempted to commit a rape upon a highly respectable young lady of this county some weeks ago, was placed in the stocks this morning for the last time, having completed his sit still in the burning sun for two hours during each day of this week. He was returned to jail and will remain in the custody of the sheriff till the workhouse is ready, in which institution he will labor at five dollars per month until the fine, $200, and the cost of the trial have been liquidated by muscle.”

Would it now be possible for any one to take such a tolerant, if not even good-natured,—view of such an affair?

In order to make a comparison I have selected for study, here, two three-year periods: First, 1866-7-8, including the year before and year after the passing of the Reconstruction Act of 1867 for the South; second, 1873-4-5, when the carpet-bag rule, which resulted from the Reconstruction policy of Congress, was in full operation. Although the number of lynchings during the first and second periods are in striking contrast, even this but faintly indicates the great change from the comparative tranquillity of the first (as illustrated by newspapers)[35:10] to the confusion, chaos, and crime of the second.

In 1866, one Negro was lynched in the South for attempted rape, another was sentenced to death for rape, and one was sentenced to the penitentiary for a like crime. Also, near Smithfield, Ohio, Negroes committed outrages on two girls. In Kentucky three white men were lynched for murder, and three more were put to death by a

band of regulators. No doubt Kentucky was influenced in such matters by the example of the West.

The following occurred in 1867: one Negro lynched in Missouri by Germans for the murder of a German; a Negro given sixty lashes in Delaware for assaulting two white women; three Negroes legally hanged at Charleston, S. C., for outrage. In the North, two or more Negro soldiers, deserters, lynched in Kansas for the rape of a white woman; four white men lynched in Indiana for murder and robbery; thirty men hanged in three Kansas counties by Vigilantes during the winter and spring.

For 1868: Two Negroes who confessed to the horrible murder of a white family in Mississippi were taken from a sheriff by a band of Negroes and burned;[36:11] one Negro was lynched in Kentucky for rape and another in Maryland for attempted rape; two Negroes, in jail for murder, lynched in Mississippi after boasting that the Loyal League would prevent their execution, even if convicted; a man lynched in Tennessee after he

had confessed to the murder of three men at different times. In North Carolina over thirty Negro desperadoes, who confessed to several murders and robberies, were captured and put in jail. Ten Adam’s Express robbers were lynched in Indiana; two men lynched for murder in Illinois and one for stealing horses in Colorado.[37:12]

In 1873, however, six Negroes were lynched in the South for rape; three were legally executed for the same crime; one, condemned to be hung, and three awaiting trial—in all, thirteen Negroes charged with rape. In Louisiana, three Negroes were lynched in the presence of 1,000 people for an atrocious murder; four men were also lynched in Louisiana for cattle-stealing, and another in the same State for arson. Also, one white man was lynched in Tennessee by fifteen Negroes. Two Negroes were legally hanged for murder,—one in Kentucky, the other in Virginia. In the North: One white man was lynched in Ohio for rape; a Negro and a white man were lynched in Nebraska for robbery, also a Negro for murder; two men were lynched in Montana for murder and two in Kansas for supposed murder.

During the year 1874, eleven Negroes and one

white man were lynched in the South for rape, while two Negroes were legally executed for the crime. In two instances,—one in Arkansas, the other in Missouri,—both Negroes and whites took part in lynching Negroes. Three Negroes were also lynched in the South for murder and two for riot; and four Negroes in Tennessee for threatening to kill some whites and to sack and burn a town. In addition, ten white men were lynched, four in Arkansas and one in Missouri for horse-stealing, the others in the States of the Southwest for scandalous murders. In the North, two Negroes were lynched for murder, and two Negroes in Pennsylvania and one white man in Kansas for rape. In the North, also, seven white men, one Mexican and one Chinaman were lynched for murder, and one white man for horse-stealing and another for thievery.

In 1875, the last year of the second period,—nine Negroes were lynched in the South for rape and four for attempted rape; also, one Negro guilty of rape, and another who attempted rape, escaped,—in all, fifteen rape cases.[38:13] One man and two Negroes were lynched for murder. Also one Negro was legally executed for rape, eleven

for murder, and one case cause not given. In the North, one Negro was lynched, cause not given, and one Negro guilty of rape, escaped. Three men, also, were lynched for murder, one for arson, and one in New York for robbery.

By comparing the two three-year periods it will be found that during 1866-8 there were seven cases of rape or attempted rape by Negroes in the South. In three instances they were lynched and in four, the law was allowed to take its course. While for 1873-5, twenty-six Negroes were lynched for rape, and four for attempted rape. Six Negroes were legally executed for rape, one was under sentence of death for the crime, three were awaiting trial and two escaped—in all forty-two Negroes in the South were charged with rape during the second period. This was just six times as many as for the first period. Further, ten times the number of Negroes were lynched for rape in the South during 1873-5 as during 1866-8, or but 43- per cent of those charged with the crime during the first period as against 73+ per cent for the second.

That this wonderful change was due almost wholly to misgovernment at Washington, no one can doubt. Surely, History was never obliged to record a more colossal blunder in statesmanship than that of Congressional Reconstruction. Nor

is it likely that any civilized people were ever before called upon to endure a system of misrule and legalized plunder equal to that which such legislation, maybe unwittingly, paved the way for inaugurating at the South.

The confusion, turmoil, and strife that it created is only too well known. Not only did it result in a cleavage of the social structure, setting one part against the other, but it also caused as much or more financial damage to the South than the War itself. For instance, four and one-half years of Reconstruction, it is said, cost the State of Louisiana alone over $106,000,000; while the assessed valuation of property in New Orleans dropped from $147,000,000 to $88,500,000 during eight years of carpet-bag rule.

It was made easy for political-fortune hunters from the North, with little concern for the good of either the whites or the blacks of the South, to gain position and power through cultivating the friendship of the ignorant, credulous, newly enfranchised Negroes. This they assiduously did from the start. At the same time they left nothing undone which might create and foster among the Negroes a feeling of ill will against and distrust of the Southern whites. If their former masters came into power, the Negroes were sometimes told, they would be reduced to slavery. The

Negroes’ love of display was appealed to by encouraging them to form secret societies, to make public parades, and hold celebrations which tended to create a race consciousness and race solidarity. This, of course, was for the purpose of helping the carpet-baggers in perpetuating their power. If one considers the conditions, what else could be expected but riots and lynchings?

If the control of the Negroes in slavery times, with all the advantages to such end embodied in the institution of slavery, had often been one of anxiety to the South, how fearful must have been the conditions now that they were not only free from such control but enfranchised and taught by their new friends to be self-assertive, even if not sometimes encouraged in acts of violence against the Southern white people? It does, indeed, seem that a great part of the Negroes almost ran wild—for they were free, but did not understand how to use their freedom. So, lazy, worthless, robbing, murdering gangs of them went prowling through the South. For it is as natural for the Negro to sit in idleness, or shoot crap, to go on marauding expeditions or connive at insurrections, as it is for the white man to establish courts, collect libraries, and found schools.

Can History prove that the Negro, during his thousands of years of contact with superior races,

has ever yet risen to the dignity of stable and progressive self-government? Even Liberia, with all the help that has been given her, is gradually sinking to the level of the surrounding barbarism. And what of San Domingo? Indeed, everywhere the tendency of the pure Negro is to fall when the white man’s props are removed.

To return: If there ever was a time when the best elements in a society were justified in taking the law into their own hands, that time was during carpet-bag rule. The wonder now is that such a people as those of the South should have acted with even the moderation that appears.

That some of the carpet-bag governments were absolutely corrupt goes without saying. “Get all you can in any way you can” seemed to be the idea. Justice was for sale. In some instances, it is said, the criminal elements knew that any one could commit crime and escape punishment for a money consideration. A few examples may be of interest:[42:14] A man who was accused of outrageously murdering a woman, although caught and imprisoned, was released, it is said, without even a trial, for $800. Moreover, a Negro who had been sentenced by a court to the penitentiary was released and returned home on the same train as the sheriff who took him there. Indeed, the

accusation was made that a certain carpet-bag governor, in order to help the Republican Party, connived at the killing of a number of Negroes in such a way that the blame might fall on the Southern whites. At one place,[43:15] a court in passing judgment on a convicted Negro rapist merely sent him to the penitentiary, which so enraged the people of the community that they took him from jail and hanged him near the place of his crime.

In order that one may the better understand the reason for the development of the lynching spirit in the South the following quotations are given:

I. “New Iberia, La., Sept. 13, the Parish of Vermillon for years has been infested with cattle thieves. The people have been unable to obtain redress by process of law and last month they organized a vigilant committee as a last resort. A large number of thieves and their confederates were given notice to leave within a specified time but instead of doing so armed themselves and threatened to destroy the town of Abbeville. The Vigilantes pressed them and they scattered. It is reported that three of the band were hung on Friday. . . . All kinds of vague rumors are afloat concerning the number executed.”[43:16]

II. “The right of a robbed people to revolt against robbery. . . . In Edgefield, S. C., a few days ago the country was startled by a resolution adopted at a meeting of the citizens of the county, which declared that, ‘Parties black or white who may be caught in the act of firing any house in this county shall be dealt with in accordance with the precedents of Lynch law, which is a part of the unwritten law of America.’

“Edgefield people present a statement of facts which while not justifying resort to Lynch law shows a strong provocation for it. Just before the November election, the most prominent white Radical of the county is said to have advised the Negroes to burn the houses of the whites; and that this advice was not lost on them seems to be proved by the fact that thirteen citizens were burned out of their homes by incendiaries between the 7th and 19th of December. The Radicals have a large majority and they have used their power without mercy.

“No security for persons or property, for the Negroes and poor whites who act with them had a majority on every jury so that it was impossible to convict one of their number no matter how plain the evidence. And even if convicted was promptly pardoned by the infamous executive, Moses. To such an extent was this carried that Carpenter,

the Republican Judge of the circuit, announced that he would not permit the State to be put to the expense of trying criminals who were pardoned as soon as convicted. The citizens assert that Lynch law is the only remedy for the evils they endure and therefore they proclaim it. They may be wrong but they are more sinned against than sinning.”[45:17]

III. “Augusta, Ga., Aug. 23.—Several prominent Negroes connected with the troubles in the counties below have made confessions. Jake Moorman, First Lieutenant of a Negro company, testifies on oath that 19 counties were to be embraced in the insurrection. All white men and ugly white women were to be killed. Pretty white women were to be spared and the land and spoils were to be divided among the Negroes.[45:18] All who have so far confessed testify to substantially the same as Jake Moorman.”[45:19]

However, in some States,—for instance, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware,—where the Southern whites had control, order was preserved and comparative quiet prevailed, while the lynching of Negroes was sporadic, not only during this early period, but even until the present. Discord and collisions between the two races have been almost unknown.

It is doubtful if any greater mistake was made in dealing with the South after the War than in disfranchising the leading Southern whites and granting the Negro suffrage. The Negro might have been given the ballot gradually as he proved himself fitted for it without any detriment. But considering the race as a whole—it may be putting it too mild—it may be too great a compliment to the Negro,—too disparaging to the intelligence of the average white boy,—to say that the Negroes, with some exceptions, at that time were no more fit for the ballot than seven-year-old boys. Nor was it any more reasonable to expect them to act the part of men in using it, or in political affairs, than to expect it from seven-year-old boys. They were, and to a large extent are yet, a race in its childhood.

President Lincoln, however, seems to have understood better than any one else of his party what was for the best interest of both races: That

the Negroes, at least, for a while, with proper guarantees and restrictions, should be in a position of tutelage or apprenticeship to the whites. Indeed, there is little doubt that he expected the Southern States to make some such temporary arrangements, for in a proclamation, December 8, 1863, in reference to the reëstablishment of State governments by several States of the farther South, he says:

“That any provision which may be adopted by such State government, in relation to the freed people of such State which shall recognize and declare their permanent freedom, provide for their education, and which may yet be consistent as a temporary arrangement with their present condition as a laboring, landless and homeless class, will not be objected to by the National Executive.”

But unfortunately for both races in the South, Lincoln was assassinated.

FOOTNOTES:

[30:1] Elizabeth Collins, “Memories of the Southern States,” p. 46.

[31:2] The Frankfort (Ky.) Commonwealth, The Charleston (S. C.) Mercury, The Louisville (Ky.) Democrat for 1863 and 1864, The Daily News (Savannah), for 1862 and one Northern paper, The Liberator (Boston) for 1863. The books of travel include Elizabeth Collins’ “Memories of the Southern States.”

[31:3] Savannah News, June 9, 1862.

[31:4] The Liberator, Feb. 22, 1863.

[31:5] Ibid., June 26 and July 24, 1863.

[32:6] Grimke, “Lynching of Negroes,” p. 29.

[33:7] I Timothy, V, 8.

[34:8] Richmond Times, Oct. 24, 1866.

[34:9] Ibid., Sept. 11, 1866.

[35:10] Newspapers examined for first period: Richmond Times, 1866; Richmond Times, Baltimore American, and the New Orleans Times, 1867; and the Sun (Baltimore), Leader (Baltimore) and Atlanta News Era, 1868; second, Missouri Republican, Baltimore American, 1873; Richmond Enquirer, Baltimore American, St. Louis Republican, 1874; Baltimore American, St. Louis Republican, Richmond Enquirer, and New Orleans Republican, 1875. I do not claim that I found every case of lynching in the South for either period, but as the same case would often be found in two or three different papers, I believe that I found practically all.

[36:11] This lynching of the two Negroes by Negroes is the only case I found where Negroes alone did the lynching in cases of crime against the whites. Several times during the seventies, however, Negroes are found helping the whites to lynch some Negro guilty of crime. It shows, I believe, that in some places, at least, the Negroes were yet in accord with the Southern whites.

[37:12] So far as the North and West are concerned, I simply happened to find such without any special search. I was searching carefully for lynchings in the South, etc.

[38:13] In 1875, there was another interesting case in which both Negroes and whites, about equal in number, lynched a Negro for attempted rape of a white woman.

[42:14] St. Louis Republican, Sept. 14, 1875.

[43:15] St. Louis Republican, July 22, 1875.

[43:16] Missouri Republican, Sept. 14, 1873.

[45:17] Editorial, St. Louis Republican, Jan. 1, 1875.

[45:18] This recalls an account of the Texan Negro insurrection of 1860 as quoted by The Liberator of July 21, 1860: “The old females were to be slaughtered along with the men, and the young and handsome women were to be parcelled out among those infamous scoundrels. They had even gone so far as to designate their choice. . . . The Negroes have been incited to these infernal proceedings by the abolitionists.”

[45:19] St. Louis Republican, Aug. 24, 1875. Accounts of riots in Mississippi, in which several were killed, were given by the same paper, Sept. 5, 7, 1875.

CHAPTER III
LYNCHING FROM THE END OF CARPET-BAG RULE TO THE PRESENT TIME

Beginning in 1885, The Chicago Daily Tribune[48:1] has kept a record of lynchings to the present time. Although statistics are to many very dry reading, nevertheless, to others, who are more impressed by facts than fancy, they are of the most intense interest. However that may be, here they

appear to be indispensable to any satisfactory consideration of the subject.

The following statistics which are based upon the records of The Chicago Daily Tribune are compiled by periods: excepting the last which is for four years, these periods were taken almost indiscriminately for two years together, beginning with 1885 and 1886: