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

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:

LYNCHINGS AND LEGAL EXECUTIONS FOR 1885 AND 1886

In the United States there were 314: 159 whites, 149 Negroes, and 6 Chinamen; 62 in the North, 252 in the South. Of those lynched in the South, 144 were Negroes; nearly all the whites were lynched in the Southwest for horse-stealing and murder; the Negroes were lynched for the following causes: 51, rape; 65, murder; 12, incendiarism; 6, arson; 3, cattle and horse-stealing; 1, self-defense; 1, robbery; 1, threat of political exposures; 1, assault; 2 cutting levees; 1, cause not mentioned. There were also 191 legal executions in the country; 72 Negroes in the South, 63 for murder and 9 for rape.

LYNCHINGS AND LEGAL EXECUTIONS FOR THE YEARS 1892 AND 1893

The whole number for the country was 436: 309 Negroes, 110 whites, 5 Mexicans, and 8 Indians. 53 lynchings in the North. 287 Negroes in the South: 74, rape; 18, attempted rape; 5, alleged rape; 1, attempted rape—total, 88 for rape. 99, murder. Nearly all the remainder for murderous assault, alleged or complicity in murder, arson, etc. 231 legal executions. 127 of these were Negroes in the South: 118, murder; 6, rape; 3, arson. In the North, 9 Negroes were legally executed for murder.

LYNCHINGS AND LEGAL EXECUTIONS FOR 1901 AND 1902

Lynchings for the country, 231. 29, North; 202, South. 194 Negroes; 35 whites; 2 Indians; 1 Chinaman. 185 Negroes lynched in the South: 40, rape; 19, attempted rape—total, 59 for rape; 63, murder; 7, murderous assault; 4, complicity in murder; 3, suspected murder; 3, implicated in murder; 2, sheltering murderers; 1, attempted murder; 6, theft; 5, Negroes’ quarrel of profit sharing; 4, race prejudice; 1, making threats; 1, lawlessness; 1, mistaken identity; remainder,

causes not given. In the North, 9 Negroes were lynched, 5 for rape and 4 for murder. There were 262 legal executions, of which 162 were Negroes. Execution of Negroes in South: 128, murder; 14, rape; 4, attempted rape. In the North, 16 Negroes were executed for murder, nearly all in Pennsylvania.

LYNCHINGS AND LEGAL EXECUTIONS FOR 1906 AND 1907

For the United States, 132. 3, North; 129, South. Negroes lynched in the South, 129: 27, rape; 25, attempted rape; 2 rape and murder; 1, suspected rape—total, 55 for rape;[51:2] 32, murder; 13, murderous assault; 5, race riot; remainder, minor causes. There were also 189 legal executions. Of these 115 were Negroes in the South,—15 for rape and 100 for murder.

LYNCHINGS AND LEGAL EXECUTIONS FOR 1911-1914, INCLUSIVE

During these four years there were 235 lynchings in the United States. 11, North; 224, South.

In the North, 5 Negroes and 6 whites were lynched; in the South, 215 Negroes, 8 whites, and 1 Mexican. The causes for the lynching of Negroes in the South were as follows: 33, rape; 8, attempted rape; 2, alleged rape,—total, 43 for rape; 117, murder; 14, murderous assault; 3, complicity in murder; 1, suspicion of murder; 1, alleged murder; 5, arson; 5, race prejudice; 8, insulting white women; 11, by night riders in Kentucky; 1, refusal to pay note; 1, race troubles; 1, threat to kill; 1, assault and robbery; 1, horse-stealing; 1, annoying white women; remainder, cause not given. The number of legal executions in the whole country for the four years, were 381. Of these 136 were Negroes, 112 in the South, and 24 for murder in the North. In the South: 93, murder; 10, rape; 2, attempted rape; 1, burglary; 4, cause not given.

Now, adverting to the statistics for 1873-5,—not far removed from the beginning of the Negro-lynching disorder,—it is found that of the 44 Negroes lynched in the South during the three years, 30, or 70- per cent, were lynched for rape; while but 14, or 30+ per cent, were lynched for all other causes combined. Thus it is seen that at this time rape was practically the only cause for the lynching of Negroes in the South.

Moreover, it is quite evident from the statistics above given, beginning with 1885, that rape has continued to be, if not the whole cause for the lynching of Negroes in the South, anyhow almost that, with other crimes as merely incidental:

The three pairs of years,—1885-6, 1901-2, and 1906-7,—show 165 Negroes lynched in the South for rape, 160 for murder, and 127 for all other causes. Here rape takes the lead. Adding to these figures the statistics for 1892-3, the numbers for the four pairs of year are: 259, murder; 253, rape; and 227, minor causes. Again, adding for the four years 1911-14, the result for the twelve years, is: 376, or 39+ per cent, murder; 296, or 31+ per cent, rape; and 282, or 29+ per cent, minor causes. This would seem to indicate that rape was not even the leading cause.

However, according to the statistics for the twelve years under consideration, 502, or 57+ per cent of the Negroes in the South who committed murder during these years were legally executed, and but 376, or 43- per cent were lynched; while for rape, only 60, or 16+ per cent were legally executed, and 296, or 84- per cent were lynched.[53:3] The proportion may be stated thus:

57:43::16:84=7+. This shows that a Negro is more than seven times as liable to be lynched in the South for rape than even for murder.

Indeed, the belief of the average white man of the South that lynching is the most effective way of dealing with the Negro for his crime against white women also seems to be borne out by the statistics: In 1892-3, 88 Negroes were lynched for rape; in 1901-2, 59; while for the four years 1911-14, only 43. That this great reduction in rape cases and lynchings was not due to legal executions is shown by the fact that during the same time but 36 Negroes were legally executed, only 12 of these being for the four years 1911-14. Thus as a consequence of a reduction in the crime of rape by Negroes is noted a great reduction in the lynching of Negroes,—from 287 in 1892-3; 185, 1901-2; 129, 1906-7; to 91 for 1913-14.

However, during 1915 and 1916, 104 Negroes were lynched in the South as compared with 91 for 1913 and 1914. The increased number lynched for rape is very marked: being only 13 for 1913 and 1914, but twice the number, or 26, for 1915 and 1916. During the former two years, also, 6 Negroes were legally hanged for rape as compared to 12 for the latter. The proportion remains the same: thus during 1913 and

1914, 19 Negroes in the South were put to death for rape as compared with 38 for 1915 and 1916.

Although the legal execution of 12 Negroes in the South for rape during 1915 and 1916 may show a tendency to allow the law to take its course in such cases, may not the above statistics also indicate that when for a few years but few lynchings occurred, especially for the crime of rape, that the effect of such immediate and fearful punishment—consisting of burning as it sometimes does—gradually fades from the mind of the Negro inclined to such crime, with a great increase of rape as a consequence?

Again, in extenuation of lynching, it is important to observe, that, as a result of most crimes against the body, such as murder, but little, if any, humiliation attaches. But it is quite different in rape cases. Not only is there often great physical injury, but also an unutterable humiliation. Our civilization teaches that one should hold certain personal rights and considerations even more dear than life itself. To have in mind such ideas and live up to them measures our reach above lower peoples. That this feeling or spirit should be encouraged, rather than risk its check, is not to be questioned. Therefore, the average Southern white man does not believe that the innocent rape victim of a Negro should be

obliged to endure further humiliation incident upon her appearance in a court of law.

In this connection, a set of resolutions published by those who lynched a Negro at Annapolis, Md., in 1875, are interesting. These resolutions, which set forth the causes of the act, were drawn up before the lynching took place and show serious consideration. I quote:[56:4]

“Fellow Citizens: In view of the fact that we are about to take into our hands the sword of justice to do to death one who is now incarcerated in our county jail, it is meet that we should give some reason for the purpose we hope to consummate. First, then: While we can but honor the deep feeling of interest manifested by those who are the proper guardians of our lives, our property, and our honor; and while we, as true and loyal citizens of the State of Maryland, and of Anne Arundel County, do bend to the supreme majesty of the law and acknowledge trials by jury as the very arch-stone in the grand edifice of human rights, still we know the vilest criminal is accorded the same rights under the law that belong to the petty thief, nor can this devil incarnate, should he claim his rights, be denied the privilege of a change of venue, such a circumstance might

probably rob the gallows of its due and foil the aims of the law. Before God we believe in the existence of a higher code than that which is dignified by the great seal of a Commonwealth and that the high and holy time to exercise it is when the chastity of our women is tarnished by the foul breath of an imp from hell and the sanctity of our homes invaded by a demon.

“Secondly, admitting that in the event of a trial by a jury he shall be hanged—a highly probable result—yet would his execution be as illegal as though done by a band of wronged citizens; for must not a juror be a peer, and with a mind free of bias, and where can a man be found competent to try this case? Who can be found of his level, and who that has heard has not already convicted him in his mind? At best, that which would be done under the semblance of law would be a more sham by force of all the circumstances connected with this horrible deed, and if under the law the penalty is death, and we know the deed was committed by him—we claim that there is no moral difference in the means of destroying him, and we act upon this conviction.

“Thirdly, we are not willing that the victim shall be dragged into court to tell over and over again the story of her terrible wrongs, or that her name shall be entered upon the records of

our criminal jurisprudence for future reference.”

Further comment on this lynching is unnecessary—unless indirectly: the Negro, child of Africa, but lately removed from the jungle, because of the necessity of the habitat of his origin, has had developed in him by nature, possibly, stronger sexual passion than is to be found in any other race.[58:5] But he is infinitely lacking in the high mental, moral, and emotional qualities that are especially characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon, and it is a grievous mistake to attribute such high qualities to him. When proper restraint is removed from the Negro he gets beyond bounds. The Anglo-Saxon, indeed, or members of that race, has a way of meeting extraordinary conditions with extraordinary means—hence lynching in order to hold in check the Negro in the South.

Indeed, a country occupied by two races so widely apart in origin, characteristics, and development as the whites and the Negroes of the Southern States—one race of the highest mental endowments and culture, the other of the lowest—one having a civilization that reaches back hundreds, if not thousands, of years, the other in the early dawn of civilization—might reasonably have two codes of law suited, as nearly as possible, to each race, respectively.

A mode of punishment that would be out of place as to the white man may be well suited to the Negro. Small-pox is not to be treated as chicken-pox. Barbarous criminals require barbarous laws. The innocent and law-abiding citizens of a State have rights as well as the criminals—at least, the right to protection from the criminals. But let some crafty scoundrel finally get in jail, and he will be flooded with letters of consolation and sympathy from sentimental women and soft-headed men.[59:6] And let some Negro brute, guilty of rape, suffer the punishment he so richly deserved at the hands of an outraged community, and one would think, if he considered the bitter censure from distant quarters, that the foundations of the government were being undermined, or that a poor lamb was set upon by a pack of howling wolves, thirsting for its blood, but not a word of commiseration for the family, or the victim, of the fiendish Negro’s unbridled bestiality.

Moreover, instead of a Negro’s being over-awed by the solemn deliberations of a court, rather, as he is the center of interest, he all but

enjoys it. For once in his life he finds himself in a position of prominence. It would be contrary to the Negro nature if he were not somewhat elated at being the object of so much attention. Even were this not the case, he has no such appreciation of his degradation as the white man feels under similar circumstances. Indeed, it would sometimes appear as almost a triumphal procession for him from the time he gets in jail until he reaches the gallows. The two quotations below may help to justify this idea:

“Joe Clark, colored, . . . was hanged at this place on Friday forenoon, in the presence of about 3,000 persons, mostly Negroes. Clark spoke about fifteen minutes, giving a detailed account of the murder and fully confessing the crime. He advised all present to live an upright life. . . . After he had shaken hands with his friends the trap was sprung, and thus the sentence of the court was duly executed. Clark’s last request was that the black cap be kept off, so that all might see how easy he could meet death.”[60:7]

The second one is taken from accounts of the execution at Denton, Md., of “Wish” Shepperd, colored, for the outrage of a fifteen-year-old white girl:[60:8]

“He told his spiritual advisers that he had a message for the public: ‘Tell all the young men to avoid the fate that awaits me by joining the church and attending its services.’ [Evidently inspired by his preacher advisers] . . . He slumbered soundly, the guards noticed, and awoke early this morning apparently indifferent to his doom. . . . With a firm step he accompanied the officers and his spiritual advisers to the scaffold which was erected near the Choptank River. Passing undismayed through the throng which had gathered along the way from the prison to the gallows. His gaze passed fearlessly around surveying the people.” . . .

Again, in connection with the lynching of Negroes in the South, one must not lose sight of the conditions that are peculiar to that section. The greater the number of Negroes in proportion to the whites in any State or community the easier it is for the Negro to commit crime and escape. And the Negro criminal does often escape. Seldom is it found that the Negro will aid in the detection of the Negro criminal, rather otherwise. Even the hope of escape is a wonderful encouragement to the criminally inclined.

Now, before the War, as is well known, the South was almost entirely an agricultural section.

It had but few cities and these were small. In the last thirty or forty years, however, it has been rapidly developing manufacturing industries. Some of the cities have become great industrial centers.

Nor is manufacturing confined at all to the large cities. Indeed, almost every town in some parts has a cotton mill or other establishment. As illustrations, I may mention Hickory, N. C., and La Grange, Ga. Hickory, with a population of about 5,000, has two large cotton mills; the Piedmont Wagon Shops, which employs hundreds of men; several furniture factories, saw mills, and other industrial interests. La Grange, a city of about 6,000, has ten cotton mills, one of which is valued at $1,000,000, and four of the others at $500,000, each. In the manufacture of cotton alone the South has increased from 316,000 bales in 1885 to 3,193,000 bales in 1915.

As a consequence the white people have largely been drawn to the towns and cities: the wealthier own and control the various business interests while the poorer ones contribute their help or labor. Few Negroes work in the factories, for the Negro seems to lack the qualities necessary: namely, punctuality, dependability, and a certain amount of mental alertness. So, in some parts of the South the whites are nearly all living in the towns

and cities, while the country districts are filled with Negroes. However, even in such places there are some whites in the country, and as is evident, in additional danger.

Moreover, the population of several Southern States is nearly half Negro, while in two,—South Carolina and Mississippi,—it is even more than half Negro, being 55+ per cent and 56+ per cent, respectively. Indeed, in 53 counties of the South the Negro population of each exceeds 75 per cent. In Tensas Parish, La., and Isoquena County, Miss., the Negro population is 91.5 per cent and 94.2 per cent, respectively. That is, in every 1,000 persons one meets in Isoquena County, Miss., 942 are Negroes and but 58, white. Such conditions should be readily appreciated. Is it any wonder that the white man thinks it necessary to strike terror into the soul of the possible or incipient Negro criminal by any method that may cause him to stand in fear of an immediate and dreadful death?

Further, the origin of a great part of these Negroes, especially those of the farther South, is, also, worthy of consideration.

During the operation of the internal slave trade, it was usually the most undesirable, unruly, and the criminally inclined Negroes of the border slave States that were sold to the States of the

farther South; nor should it be forgotten that between 1808 and 1860 the farther South received around 270,000 Negroes from outside the United States.[64:9] It seems likely that the greater part of these were barbarous Negroes, directly from Africa. It was these criminal and barbarous Negroes, along with their children and grand-children, who by the fortune of war, without home or master, were turned loose on the South.

Thus it is that the white woman is obliged to be constantly on her guard against the Negro,—otherwise rape cases would be multiplied.[64:10] An idea of the necessity of this and the hardship of it may be had from the following quotation:

“In a population about evenly divided in North Carolina was a family of unpretending intelligent people.

“There was a school house only a mile and a half away, but they could not let their two daughters go to it. They could not let them stir away from home unprotected. They had to pay for their education at home, while at the same time they were being taxed for the education of the Negro children of the district.

“‘Do you think,’ was asked a leading Negro educator, ‘that those girls could safely have gone to school?’

“‘It would depend upon the district,’ was the reply. ‘In some districts the girls could have gone to school safely enough; in others, no.’

“This I think was a terrible admission.”[65:11]

As the world is to be made safe for democracy, so ought the South to be made free for white women. Is it not the business of the South to endeavor to make the South safe for white women by whatever method appears to be most effective? The women of the South should be just as free to go when, where, and as they please as women in other sections of the country and not be, as has been so aptly put by John Temple Graves, “prisoners to danger and fear”:

“In a land of light and liberty, in an age of enlightenment and law, the women of the South are prisoners to danger and fear. While your women may walk from suburb to suburb, and from township to township, without escort and without alarm, there is not a woman of the South, wife or daughter, who would be permitted or who would dare to walk at twilight unguarded through

the resident streets of a populous town, or to ride the outside highways at midday.

“The terror of the twilight deepens with the darkness, and in the rural regions every farmer leaves his home with apprehension in the morning, and thanks God when he comes from the fields at evening to find all well with the women of his home.”[66:12]

A few words now as to the minor causes of lynching. In reading the annual summary of lynchings given by the Chicago Tribune, one may get the impression that Negroes are often lynched for very trifling things. Investigation, however, is apt to show that back of any such lynching was something much more serious than what appears on the face. Many illustrations might be given but one may suffice: thirteen Negroes lynched in Arkansas, March 26, 1904, cause, race prejudice.[66:13] The following account of this affair is abbreviated from an Arkansas paper:[66:14]

“Dewitt (Ark.), March 25.—Five Negroes who had been arrested as a result of the race troubles at St. Charles, were taken from the

guards by a crowd of men last night and shot to death. . . . The five victims make nine Negroes that have been killed within the past week in the vicinity of St. Charles. . . .

“A few days ago a difficulty occurred over a trivial matter at St. Charles between a white man by the name of Searcy and two Negroes by the names of Henry and Walker Griffin. One of the Negroes threatened to knock Searcy in the head with a beer bottle. The trouble was stopped for the time being, but on Monday last the two Negroes met Searcy and his brother in the store of Woolfords and Marsworthy in St. Charles, and the difficulty was renewed. One of the Negroes without warning, struck both of the Searcy boys over the head with a table leg, rendering them unconscious and fracturing their skulls, one of them to such an extent that he may die. The Deputy Sheriff, . . . James Kirkpatrick, attempted to arrest the Negroes and he, too, was knocked down.

“The Negroes then gathered and defied the officers, declaring that ‘No white man could arrest them.’ Their demonstrations aroused the fear of the citizens of St. Charles and they phoned to this place for a posse to come out and protect the town. P. A. Douglass, deputy sheriff, went out with five men, Wednesday morning. Constable

L. C. Neely went forward with a posse of several men to capture the Griffin Negroes. The constable met three Negroes . . . in the road. He inquired of them if they knew where the Griffins were and one of them replied that they did, but ‘would tell no —— white ——’ the Negroes then attempted to draw their pistols, but the posse fired, killing all three of them.

“Yesterday sixteen men left this place for the scene of the trouble. . . . Large crowds in from Roc, Ethel, and Clarenden. During the day while the Sheriff’s posse was searching for the Griffin Negroes, they were fired upon by a Negro . . . from ambush. Three of the posse were hit, but the shot used were small, and no serious damage resulted. The posse returned the fire, and a shot . . . felled the Negro to the ground. Several other shots were fired into him, killing him instantly.

“Five other Negroes . . . who were the Negroes that had defied the officers, were arrested, and last night a crowd of men took them away from the guards and shot them to death.” The next issue of the same paper stated that two more Negroes had been killed, and the Daily Arkansas Democrat, March 29, reported that the Griffins who were the cause of the original trouble had been killed, completing the list of thirteen.

The above quotation is given merely as an example of a state of affairs so apt to exist in connection with what usually passes as trivial causes for lynching. May those at a distance from such conditions the better understand!

Thus far I have not discussed lynching in the North, nor do I purpose to do so; but a few words in passing seem pertinent. There is no basis for the assumption, which some seem innocently to hold, that the people of the North are inherently good and law-abiding, while those of the South are inherently wicked and lawless. Indeed, statistics would seem to indicate the opposite.[69:15] In 1910 over 750 persons to the 100,000 population were committed to prison in New England as against less than 450 in the South. I take it that the people of the North are neither better nor worse than those of the South. The same conditions in either section would produce about the same results. The statistics of lynching I gathered for the North were merely incidental. However, for 1901 and 1902, I find that nine Negroes were lynched in the North, four for murder and five for rape.

Further evidence that the people of the North will engage in lynching when necessity dictates may be had from the early history of California.

Vigilance committees for the protection of the better class of citizens against the disorderly and criminal elements, were organized without warrant of law. In writing of one of these committees H. H. Bancroft says that it was well represented by men of wealth, intelligence and industry, and that “the largest element comprised men from the Northeastern part of the United States.”[70:16]

Of remedies for lynching I have none. Of proposed remedies, I have only to say that those which seem in any way practicable might result in unmerited hardship to whites and an increase in rape cases as well. Any hope of escape or mitigation of punishment that even unintentionally may be held out to the criminal serves as a wonderful stimulant to crime. The positive knowledge on the part of those criminally inclined that punishment will be immediate, sure, and adequate, is the best deterrent. The Negro is a creature that lives in the present and even postponement of punishment robs it of much of its force. The law sanctions personal self-defense. The white man in lynching a Negro does it as an indirect act of self-defense against the Negro criminal as a race.

When the abnormally criminal Negro race (partly so, no doubt, because he is not yet

adjusted to his environment) puts himself in harmony with our civilization, if ever, through assimilating our culture and making our ideals its own, then may it be hoped that his crimes will be reduced to normal and lynching will cease, the cause being removed.

FOOTNOTES:

[48:1] Lynchings in the country for the past thirty-two years according to The Chicago Daily Tribune, Dec. 30, 1916:

[51:2] It seems fair to count rape, alleged rape, attempted rape, and so on,—all as rape; for it often happens that a Negro commits rape and escapes entirely. As an example, see account of the lynching of Ed. Berry (Baltimore Sun, Aug. 27, 1915). Berry confessed to twelve cases of criminal assault, each victim being a white woman.

[53:3] This argument assumes, of course, that all Negroes who murdered whites in the South were either lynched or legally executed, and that all Negroes caught who committed rape against white women were likewise dealt with. It seems to be about as fair in one case as the other to assume this.

[56:4] Baltimore American, June 15, 1875.

[58:5] To make up for the high death rate.

[59:6] Joliet, Ill., Sept. 10 (1917), Riot in State Prison. Rioters numbered about fifty. Had become angered at impositions of restrictions. “Among the privileges previously enjoyed by the convicts was an almost unlimited correspondence with sentimental women.”—Washington (D. C.) Star, Sept. 10, 1917.

[60:7] Taken from Richmond Enquirer, May 4, 1775.

[60:8] Baltimore Sun, August 27-28, 1915.

[64:9] W. H. Collins, “The Domestic Slave Trade,” p. 20.

[64:10] It is unlikely that all rape cases get in the papers. An intelligent resident of Rapides Parish, La., told the writer that four cases of rape occurred in that parish once within a month.

[65:11] William Archer, “Through Afro America,” London, 1910, p. 22.

[66:12] Address: John Temple Graves, New York Times, Sept. 4, 1903.

[66:13] The Chicago Daily Tribune, Dec. 31, 1904.

[66:14] Arkansas Gazette (Little Rock), March 26, 1904. See also Daily Arkansas Democrat, March 29, 1904.

[69:15] Statistical Abstract of the U. S., 1915, p. 55.

[70:16] H. H. Bancroft, “Popular Tribunals,” Vol. II, pp. 666-7.

CHAPTER IV
THE CRIMINALITY OF THE NEGRO

The present criminal status of the Negro,—and his criminal record since the Civil War as well,—should cause every member of the race in America to hang his head in shame.

Yet, may it not be that, after all, the Negro is, to a large extent, an irresponsible creature of circumstances, and that his crimes are upon the heads of those who unwisely placed him in a position that he was unable to occupy,—except with injury to all concerned?

Scholars hold that the average citizen of the ancient Athenian Democracy, the greatest of ancient democracies, was as intelligent as the average member of the British Parliament, or of the American Congress. The Negro, however, with all his barbarism and ignorance, totally unrelated to the white man in origin, character, and race, directly after his emancipation, was made a full-fledged citizen in the greatest of modern democracies. The fact is appalling.

Stupidity unsurpassed, unless by the pacifist visionaries of the present day who seek to usher in the millennium by proclamation,—peace treaties, world federations, or leagues to enforce peace. Human nature cannot be changed overnight by edict. When the sun fails to rise wars will cease. It is to be hoped that enough sanity yet remains in the American people to save them from such nonsensical vagaries of sentimental dreamers.

But the Negro, son of a wild and tropical race, content for thousands of years to roam the jungles of Africa, supplied by bountiful nature with all his heart’s desire, failing thus to develop any controlling trait of character, or mental stamina, and although civilizations rose and fell beside him, it meant nothing to him. And even now in the midst of American civilization he is moved to action, mainly, by the gusts of primitive emotion and passion. This is the creature that was expected to take an equal share in the government of the most enlightened and progressive people that the world has ever known.