What were the crime rates In the American Old West?

What were the crime rates In the American Old West?

Hollywood filmography presented a violent and morally complex vision of the American West during circa 1850 to 1900, according to which the West was a place where life was insecure and where property was precariuos: rapes, burglaries and robberies were common.

How closely did the history of the West match the filmography constructed by Hollywood? How common were these crimes?


The biggest issue regarding comparing crime between then and now is that you just have to guess at a lot of it. This paper - unfortunately all I have access to is the abstract - talks about some of those reasons:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=74706

In a nutshell:

  1. Investigative techniques were much different than they are today. I'd highly recommend the book The Poisoner's Handbook by Deborah Blum, which is all about the birth of modern forensic analysis. During the time of the Old West, doing something like slowly poisoning someone to death with arsenic was nearly a perfect crime: if nobody was tipped off, the poisoned person just looked like they had "the consumption" (the 19th century term for tuberculosis and a number of other wasting diseases). In fact, one of the treatments for consumption was to move to a drier climate for a few months, and one of the reasons it is believed that this was effective was that it got patients out of a bedroom lined with arsenic-laced wallpaper.

  2. A lot of crime just plain went unreported. This was true with the lower class in the cities - I believe The Jungle talks of a person who was dumped into a meat grinder, either by accident or because they'd run afoul of the wrong people - but also with an area like the Wild West, where a person could be killed and left out in the wilderness with relative ease. If that person didn't have any family around - not an uncommon occurrence on the frontier - their disappearance might not have been investigated at all.

  3. A lot of what was reported was modified into an accidental death or a suicide. Police departments understandably did not like to call something a murder when it wasn't obvious that it was a murder, or if they couldn't pin the case on someone quickly and easily. Cold case departments were a thing of the far future. If a guy might have hit his head on a rock or the rock might have been thrown at him, it was in the best interests of the police/sheriff to assume the former.

The available evidence that we do have indicates that crime rates were quite a bit higher in the Old West, as they tend to be in areas without good, far-reaching law enforcement. How much higher? I'm not sure that's a question we'll ever be able to get an answer for.


This question is the subject of a lively debate among professional historians (non-professionals are also pitching in, but I'd rather not discuss their contributions at this stage, as per my impression they range from thought-stimulating cherry-picking to outright hackery).

There is a recent (2009) review paper by Robert R. Dykstra: Quantifying the Wild West: The Problematic Statistics of Frontier Violence. Alas, I cannot access it now.

The first page of another article by Dykstra is available for free and I'll quote a bit from it to indicate some points:

As an expression of this, it is now widely believed that the frontier West experienced interpersonal homicide of Homeric proportions. Once the intellectual property of film director Sam Peckinpah and his imitators, this conviction overtook western historians in the 1980s. [… ] Dissenters from the reigning paradigm, although few, have occasionally been heard. Thomas M. Marshal, Lynn I. Perrigo, and Michael N. Canlis contested the portrait of violent, anarchic frontier mining camps drawn by Bret Harte, Mark Twain, and other writers. None in early Gilpen County, Colorado, said Perrigo, resembled "a traditional 'Wild West' settlement, with each man a law unto himself." This reviewercontributed the information that Dodge City, Abilene, and the other fabled Kansas cattle towns were only intermittently violent and hardly lawless; they averaged only one and a half adult homicides per cattle-trading season. Harry H. Anderson revealed that literally lawless Deadwood, South Dakota experienced only four killings in its notorious first year. Frank Richard Prassel concluded from his survey of frontier law enforcement that a westerner "probably enjoyed greater security in both person and property than did his contemporary in the urban centers of the East." W. Eugene Hollon agreed, contending that the frontier "was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society is today."

As a professional should, Dykstra also warns from committing the fallacy of small numbers.

I also found in a Texan blog an example, apparently drawn from the first-mentioned paper:

Dykstra believes that "the fallacy of small numbers," which results in over-inflated generalizations based on statistics from small localities, is the unresolved weakness on the violent West side of the debate. Thus, based on a single homicide in 1880, Dodge City, population 996, had a murder rate three times that of Miami, in 1980, which saw 515 murders among a population of 1.57 million. But was Dodge City more violent than Miami?

So the jury is still out, as far as I can tell.


History of Bank Robberies

Robbery, the act of entering an open bank and extracting money by force or threat of force, is distinct from burglary, which constitutes breaking into a closed bank.

The first notable period of bank robbery in American history coincides with the country’s expansion westward. Roaming gangs of outlaws like Butch Cassidy’s Wild Bunch and the James-Younger Gang swept across the fabled, lawless Wild West, robbing banks, holding up trains, and killing law-enforcement officers. Historians believe the first bank robbery in the United States occurred when associates of Jesse and Frank James robbed the Clay County Savings Association in Liberty, Missouri on February 13, 1866. The bank was owned by former Republican militiamen and the James brothers and their associates were staunch and bitter ex-Confederates. The gang escaped with $60,000 and wounded an innocent bystander in the getaway process. Soon after, the James brothers joined forces with outlaw Cole Younger and a few other former Confederates to form the James-Younger Gang. They traveled across the southern and western United States, choosing to rob banks and stagecoaches often in front of large crowds of people. They became larger-than-life anti-heroes of the West and the old Confederacy. The Wild Bunch, operating in the early 1900s and featuring Butch Cassidy, the Sundance Kid, and Ben Kilpatrick, was another iconic outlaw gang of the Wild West. While they primarily robbed trains, The Wild Bunch was responsible for several bank robberies including one at the First Nation Bank in Winnemucca, Nevada for over $32,000.

As increasing numbers of people settled and developed the West, the era of the bank-robbing outlaw waned, only to be replaced by the “Public Enemy” era of the 1930s. The increase in bank robberies and organized crime during the 1920s and 1930s forced J. Edgar Hoover to develop an enhanced Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He appropriated the term “public enemy” as a publicity stunt referring to wanted criminals already charged with crimes. Hoover passed down the dubious distinction of being “Public Enemy No. 1″ to outlaws John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson, and Alvin “Creepy” Karpis respectively, as each were either killed or arrested. Set against the backdrop of the Great Depression, the bank robberies of each “public enemy” loomed large and glamorous. Nearly forgotten today, Harvey John Bailey, whose bank robbing between 1920 and 1933 netted him over $1 million, was called “The Dean of American Bank Robbers.” John Dillinger and his associated gang robbed dozens of banks between 1933 and 1934 and may have accumulated over $300,000. While Dillinger occupied an almost Robin Hood-like place in American culture, his partner, Baby Face Nelson, was the antithesis. Nelson was notorious for shooting both lawmen and innocent bystanders, and holds the record for killing more FBI agents in the line of duty than any other criminal. The success of these “public enemies” was short lived in 1934 the FBI trapped and killed Dillinger, Nelson, and Floyd.

While bank robberies remained common in the early 1900s with perpetrators like Bonnie & Clyde, the evolution of anti-robbery technology has made it much more difficult to rob a bank and get away with it in the modern era. Exploding dye packs, security cameras, and silent alarms have all contributed to the drop in successful bank robberies. Although the heyday of the American bank robber is behind us, the crime continues to be attempted by many who are looking for easy money.


How common were stagecoach robberies in the Old West?

How common were stagecoach robberies in the Old West?

In Arizona alone, 129 stage robberies took place between 1875 and 1903. Or maybe the number is 134, since five of them involved two coaches each.

During that period, more than 200 people engaged in the stage robbing business in Arizona. Since more than half of those holdups were unsolved, most of the miscreants remain unknown. Eighty of them were identified-—79 men and one woman, Pearl Hart, the “Girl Bandit,” who, in 1898, pulled one of the last stage heists in the American West.

The worst areas for stagecoach robberies were around Tombstone and the Black Canyon Stage Line from Phoenix to Prescott, which follows I-17 today.

The movies usually portray stage robberies as involving a number of mounted men chasing down their target—and that’s wrong. Only three of the Arizona holdups went down that way. The rest were robbed by highwaymen afoot. They’d select a site where the stagecoach had to slow down, and they’d walk up to the vehicle with guns drawn.

Related Posts

Stagecoach robberies were frequent occurrences, especially during the post-Civil War era. In my home state,&hellip

How were stagecoach robberies usually executed? Phillip Payne Scottsdale, Arizona Most stagecoach robberies were done&hellip

How common were common-law marriages in the Old West? Joel ConwayDoraville, Georgia On the remote&hellip


From the Archives

Many new law enforcement officers are genuinely surprised to learn that America’s railroads employ full time law enforcement personnel to protect their interests. Use of personnel in such a role goes back many years to 1855 when Allen Pinkerton had the distinction of becoming the first railroad law enforcement officer hired to protect railroad interests. As the rails were laid westward in the 1860’s, railroad law enforcement experienced rapid growth and became a vital link between the railroads and other law enforcement agencies.

Pinkerton encouraged the use of burglarproof safes in all railroad express cars. By using such a heavy safe, any outlaws intending to rob the train had to use a large charge of black powder or dynamite to blow it open. The resulting blast’s magnitude usually destroyed the contents of the safe, as well as the roof and sides of the express car. Pinkerton also recommended the employment of express guards heavily armed with high-powered rifles.

The infamous “Hole-in-the-Wall Gang” first struck a defenseless railroad in August 1878, when they held up and robbed a Union Pacific train at a site near Carbon, Wyo. Several days later, the gang reportedly killed two posse members—a deputy sheriff from Rawlins, Wyo., and a Union Pacific detective—who had been in pursuit disguised as prospectors.

“The Wild Bunch”

Probably the most colorful and best known “Wild West” railroad crime occurred on June 2, 1899, near Wilcox, Wyo. The Wild Bunch, consisting of the roughest elements of the Hole-in-the-Wall Gang (primarily Harvey Logan, alias “Kid Curry,” Robert Leroy Parker, alias “Butch Cassidy,” and Harry Longbaugh, alias “The Sundance Kid”), forced the Union Pacific Overland Limited crew to uncouple the express car and remove it some distance from the passenger cars. Once this was done, the safe in this car was dynamited, and in the process, the entire express car was destroyed. Thereafter, a select group of railroad special agents formed a posse called the “Rangers” and chased after The Wild Bunch. 

Thomas W. Gough Staff Assistant to the General Director, Security and Special Service Department, Union Pacific Railroad Co. Omaha, Nebraska.

This special outlaw-hunting posse (perhaps one of the first “SWAT” teams) had a specially equipped baggage car designed to carry eight members and their horses. The group was led by a former Lincoln County, Wyo., sheriff who later became the chief special agent for the Illinois Central Railroad. Upon notification that a train robbery had occurred, the Rangers were promptly taken to the scene by train in their special car. Upon arrival, they relentlessly pursued the outlaws on horseback.

Express car blown up by “The Wild Bunch” at Wilcox, Wyo., June 2, 1899.

Outlaw members of the gang all reportedly met violent deaths in diverse locations in Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Utah, Colorado, and South America. Harvey Logan, the gang leader, was arrested at Knoxville, Tenn., in 1902 on a Federal charge stemming from another crime. He escaped in 1903 and pulled his last job on June 7, 1904. He, along with two other masked men, reportedly held up a Denver & Rio Grande train near Parachute, Colo. Their only loot consisted of a worn gold watch taken from an express guard. The next day, members of a posse wounded Logan, and he reportedly thereafter took his own life.

Other Bandits

There were other gangs, too. Sam Bass and the “Collins Gang” made a big strike against the Union Pacific on September 18, 1877, at Big Springs, Nebr. On this occasion, they robbed the express car, obtaining $60,000 in 20-dollar gold pieces.

Less well known, but every bit as troublesome, were the lone bandits such as “Parlor Car Bill Carlisle,” who hit the Union Pacific four times. Carlisle once wrote a Denver newspaper and identified himself as the culprit after two hoboes were falsely accused of perpetrating one of his crimes. He also announced to the newspaper his plans for his next holdup, specifying the train he intended to rob. As a result, special guards were assigned to this train, but Bill disarmed one of them near Hanna, Wyo. and then forced him to collect the loot.

“Shoot Fast and Ride Hard”

From the beginning, the railroad special agents’ responsibilities have been similar to those of public law enforcement—the protection of society (both life and property) and the prevention and detection of crime. The railroad special agent was a colorful part of the old Wild West. Being able to shoot fast and ride hard were important skills in the late 1800’s. In addition to train robbers, there were also station holdup crooks, pickpockets, con men, and bootleggers to contend with. Because of his mission in countering such problems, the railroad special agent of the old West was considered as nearly a duly commissioned law enforcement officer as is his modern-day counterpart.

Modern Railroad Police

The railroad special agent of today is educated and well trained and equipped. Many railroads utilize the Association of American Railroads (AAR) National Railroad Police Academy at Jackson, Miss., to provide formal law enforcement training for new personnel. The director of training of the AAR’s Police and Security Section coordinates entry level and advanced law enforcement training related to railroad needs. Approximately 500 railroad police attend training at this academy each year. It is located at the Mississippi State Law Enforcement Officers’ Training Academy, one of the finest institutions and facilities of its type in the country.

Railroad police student attend two 2-week sessions covering areas germane to railroad law enforcement. Basic law enforcement subjects covered include: Criminal law, mechanics of arrest, crime scene search, coordination with other law enforcement agencies, and firearms proficiency. Academy instructors include enforcement and security experts from the various railroads, as well as representatives of the Mississippi State Highway Patrol and special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Boxcars are usually sealed with a small metal seal which provides proof-of-load security only. Some form of additional security is usually applied, and in this case, a 60-penny nail is applied to the door hasp to prevent easy entry.

While attending the academy, railroad special agents participate in a particularly excellent firearms training program. Many railroads require their special agents to fire a minimum score of 60 out of a possible 100 on the Practical Pistol Course during the training. This stimulates many special agents to become interested in competitive combat shooting, and several railroads are usually represented at police pistol competition championship matches held each year at Jackson, Miss.

Another training medium is the International Railroad Police Academy Course. This consists of a 2-week session designed for management-level personnel held annually in Chicago for the past 26 years. Training time is divided between a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art of railroad law enforcement and management training.

Various States specifically recognize individual railroad’s efforts in training. In California, the Commission of Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) issues a basic POST certificate to railroad special agents successfully completing the Southern Pacific Railroad’s 240-hour academy. This certificate indicates that the holder has completed the necessary basic training required for a law enforcement officer in that State.

Responsibilities

The railroad special agent’s responsibilities include the protection of personnel, cargo, and property. Investigations relating to thefts of cargo, burglaries of company property, and acts of vandalism occupy most of the agent’s time. However, train derailments, extortion attempts, crimes of violence, and many other felony and misdemeanor crimes that involve railroad interests are also investigated by railroad special agents.

Theft losses from rail shipments in 1974 amounted to $15.2 million and in 1975 rose to $20.7 million. It may be surprising, but often cargo worth thousands of dollars is loaded on one coast and transported across the country protected only by a small and fragile metal seal. The seal’s purpose is to show proof-of-load security only. To cover such weaknesses in security, railroad police, marketing, and traffic sales departments all work with the various shippers to develop security awareness. Cargo crime is often reduced after the railroad police have helped the shipper analyze his transportation security needs and the shipper has thereafter taken necessary protective actions. This analysis includes security considerations relating to methods of packaging the product, shipping schedules, routes of shipment, and the desirability of applying a security device designed to prevent casual theft.

Frequently, if a thief is smart enough to close the railroad boxcar door following a theft, the loss is not discovered until the boxcar reaches its destination. Claims for theft or loss are paid by the railroads based on the records maintained regarding the car seals—from the last good record to the first bad record. “No record” is considered a bad record. Therefore, it benefits each railroad handling a load to maintain proper inspection records concerning such cargo throughout its transit.

Just a few of the various devices used by the railroads and shippers to seal loads, and in some instances, to assist in preventing easy entry.

Cargo Security

Security of cargo is a high-priority interest of the railroads however, the problem must be approached from a cost-effective basis. It is often financially unrealistic to apply $10 worth of security devices to a boxcar every time it is loaded.

By utilizing the computer, and through faster methods of handling claims, the railroads are identifying loads with high-theft risks. They can then be afforded special security. Physical inspection of loads at intervals en route helps the railroads identify theft prone routes and areas where special attention must be given to prevent theft. Sometimes altering train schedules or making route changes solve particular theft problems.

Railroad police provide vehicle and foot patrols for their yards and industrial areas where freight cars are located. These patrols place special emphasis on discouraging trespassing on railroad property. In some instances, railroads are using dog and handler patrols to deter crime in railroad yards. When high-value or risk loads have to remain for a period in areas with a crime potential, a stakeout is often provided to insure their protection. Onsite teams may stakeout a particular cargo load or a group of loads. Remote surveillance can be accomplished through the use of radio transmitters with noise-activated microphones. Closed-circuit television and high-powered infrared optical devices also are employed in certain instances.

Obviously, railroad special agents cannot provide continuous protection for approximately 2 million freight cars scattered over more than 200,000 miles of mainline track. The Eastern United States provides the greatest security challenge to the railroads as rail yards are often located in densely populated areas where socioeconomic conditions are a factor in breeding crime.

Hiring security personnel is only one aspect of a program for protecting cargo on railroad property. The use of adequate fencing and extensive lighting, as well as a program of good housekeeping and other measures, can also be complementary theft deterrents. It is recognized that fences are a costly budget item and they frequently stop only the casual thief. Fencing of rail yards has proven ineffective in some areas as the fences have been vandalized or destroyed faster than maintenance crews can repair them. However, keeping company property in good repair with an uncluttered and orderly appearance, as well as the availability of lots of artificial light during darkness hours, have been effective security aids in some areas. The brightness and neat appearance avoids creating an image which could be capitalized on by would-be thieves.

Stealing railcar journal brass has been a source of income for some thieves for many years. The railroad car axle pictured has a brass journal on each end. Pictured are several different pieces of journal brass, and each may weigh from 10 to 30 pounds.

Outsiders Usually Involved

Other modes of cargo transportation find that many of their losses are due to thefts perpetrated by employees. Railroad thefts, however, usually involve outsiders. This phenomenon may be attributed to the industry’s early development of an internal security element and firm support of prosecution of any persons determined to be involved in criminal acts.

Once a theft from a load is ascertained, agents are assigned to establish where the theft occurred. Unless there is evidence that the load was entered where the theft was discovered, there is usually little chance of apprehending and prosecuting the parties responsible as just locating where the crime occurred can be quite difficult. Occasionally when stolen cargo is recovered, investigators find they are unable to prove that the cargo had been stolen from a particular car because some shippers do not record the serial numbers of the products they ship. This problem can be solved only if the shipper is convinced that accurate documentation is a necessity. Whenever available, serial numbers of stolen cargo are entered into the National Crime Information Center.

Precious Metal Thefts

Railroads are often victims of precious metal thefts which involve losses of copper communications wire and railcar journal brass. Often, the same thieves that steal copper wire from telephone and electric companies also steal it from the railroads, who utilize extensive telephone networks and rely on thousands of miles of communication lines to relay train signals.

Stealing journal brass requires more effort on the thief’s part than snipping copper wire. Brass thieves remove journal brass bearings from the car wheel axle by lifting the car to remove the weight from the axle. After removing the journal brass, it is usually sold for scrap. The initials of the railroad installing the brass are always stenciled on it. Fortunately, this type of car axle is being replaced by new roller bearing equipment, and such actions should eventually eliminate this particular theft problem.

Support From Others

The railroads greatly appreciate the support received from public law enforcement agencies. America’s estimated 4,500 railroad police could not begin to protect such a vast responsibility without a tremendous cooperative effort from all law enforcement agencies.

Railroad agents work closely with the FBI on appropriate theft from interstate shipment cases. As most cargo thefts and losses of company property are usually within the purview of local jurisdictions, a close working liaison is maintained with many city and county law enforcement officers, as well as with local prosecutors. 

On the national level, the Association of American Railroads, through member railroads, participates in various national efforts striving to reduce cargo crime. In this regard, 12 of the anti-cargo-crime “City Campaigns” 1 have active railroad representation on their steering committees.

Vandals broke this van window with a rock. Railroad personnel record the damaged load, make temporary repairs, and attempt to stop any acts of vandalism observed.

A representative group of different railroad chief special agents comprise the AAR’s Police and Security Section Committee of Direction. This committee provides guidance for the industry and is responsible for arranging the annual railroad police conference held in conjunction with the International Association of Chiefs of Police National Conference. This railroad conference provides a medium for top railroad security and enforcement people to discuss common problems and to seek sound solutions.

Some railroads approach cargo crime from yet another angle—by participation in activities of the American Society for Industrial Security. Through this organization, professional security personnel employed by shippers and carriers exchange valuable information relating to their common cargo-theft problem.

Railroad police also participate in local, regional, and national seminars and panel discussions called to discuss various aspects of the cargo problem. And, of course, through informal contacts during the transaction of regular business, railroad police exchange information with representatives of various agencies which have a mutual interest in reducing cargo security problems.

Public law enforcement agencies assist the railroads in many areas. These include investigation of railroad crossing accidents, internal crime problems, and vandalism or theft of company property.

Without the valuable aid and assistance of the public sector of law enforcement, railroad security personnel would have a much tougher job, and vice versa. The true value of this relationship is mutually beneficial.

Illegal Trespassing

A traditional area of railroad law enforcement relates to efforts to control the railroad-riding hobo or knight-of-the-road. The prevalence of this colorful figure is almost a thing of the past. Today’s illegal train rider often has a better chance playing Russian roulette as the speed of today’s trains, combined with the frequent unfamiliarity of the rider with the train’s movement, presents a most dangerous situation. Many young people have never ridden a passenger train and yet, surprisingly, some of them will not hesitate to hop a freight train and ride under the dual wheels of a piggy-back trailer mounted on a railroad car. “Riding the rails” is illegal in most States, and due to this factor and the many serious hazards involved, it should be discouraged whenever possible.

Train derailments are not as prevalent as they once were. Railroad police with the assistance of local law enforcement agencies provide protection against looting.

Another form of trespass stems from the urban congestion prevalent in many regions. Invariably, if people are allowed to travel across, or play on, railroad property, problems will eventually develop. The excitement of placing objects on the tracks or attempting to impede or stop a powerful locomotive and train has often attracted the interest of people of different ages. Many think it’s harmless fun to see trains run over objects placed on the track. This game for many is limited to placing small coins on the track. For others, however, it sometimes progresses to large objects such as rail crossties, oil drums, or even automobiles. Track obstruction sometimes even of a small nature, can cause serious train derailments.

Malicious vandalism of railroad signals and switches costs the railroads millions of dollars each year and in many instances poses potential or actual hazards for the trains. Vandalism to cargo carried by the railroads is also a serious problem. The total claim payout for cargo vandalism exceeds that paid out for actual thefts. Throwing of rocks and other objects at trains is a fairly common problem and this sometimes progresses to shooting at trains, their cargoes, and signals.

Strict enforcement of trespassing laws and maintenance of a record of previous offenders discourage trespassing and attendant vandalism. Presenting informational programs to children attending schools near rail yards and tracks has been a successful means of preventing railroad property from becoming a playground. When the hazards of trespassing and the illegal nature of related activities are illustrated and emphasized, the problem usually is substantially eliminated.

Train Wrecks

Under the Federal Train Wreck Statute (title 18, U.S.C., sec. 2153), the FBI has jurisdiction when a person (or persons) willfully attempts to, or actually does, derail, disable, or wreck a train engaged in interstate or foreign commerce. Violations under the act could also be present under various specified conditions if a person (or persons) willfully damages or attempts to damage railroad property or facilities used in connection with interstate or foreign commerce.

If a train is wrecked, disabled, or derailed, regardless of cause, railroad special agents provide for security and crowd control at the scene during these serious situations. They also, of course, offer their assistance to appropriate public officials who may have jurisdiction for investigating such incidents.

Local law enforcement agencies and railroad police in most areas have a close working relationship. In this scene, two Union Pacific special agents discuss a mutual problem with a Kansas City, Mo., patrolman.

The next time you are waiting for a train to clear a road crossing, remember this article and scan the train with a professional eye. You might see or think of something related to railroad security that hadn’t been noticed before. If so, contact the railroad involved (many cities are served by several railroads) and someone will be able to direct you to the railroad police or special agent or investigator. Most cities with rail yards also have a railroad special agent in residence. Usually the territory between major terminals is assigned to a special agent working out of the major terminal. When there is a railroad track, somewhere not too distant there is usually a railroad special agent assigned. Your input will be appreciated and could contribute to improving the security of an important element of America’s transportation system.

The railroad police appreciate the frequent assistance they readily receive from various law enforcement agencies. They in turn are willing to assist law enforcement agencies, whenever and wherever possible, consistent with their railroad responsibilities. Through cooperation and effective communication, everyone’s job in this area is made easier and more efficient.

From the Archives is a new department that features articles previously published throughout the 80-year history of the Bulletin. Topics include crime problems, police strategies, community issues, and personnel, among others. A link to an electronic version of the full issue will appear at the end of each article.


Contents

Prior to the Civil War most of the victims of lynching in the South were white men. [4] During the Reconstruction era lynchings were used to enforce white supremacy and intimidate blacks by racial terrorism. [5] The rate of lynchings in the South has been strongly associated with economic strains, [6] although the causal nature of this link is unclear. [7] Low cotton prices, inflation, and economic stress are associated with higher frequencies of lynching.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declared that all born in the United States were citizens, and the Fifteenth that all citizens could vote, regardless "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." These were regarded as self-destructive mistakes by many white Southerners. Some blamed freedmen for their own wartime hardships, post-war economic problems, and loss of social and political privilege. During Reconstruction, freedmen, and white people working in the South for civil rights, were attacked and sometimes lynched. Black voting was suppressed by violence as well as by poll taxes and literacy tests. Whites regained control of state legislatures in 1876, and a national compromise resulted in the removal of federal troops from the South in 1877. In later decades, violence continued around elections until blacks were disfranchised by the states from 1885 (see Florida Constitution of 1885) to 1908 through constitutional changes and laws that created barriers to voter registration across the South.

White Southern Democrats enacted Jim Crow laws to enforce blacks' second-class status (see Nadir of American race relations). During this period that spanned the late 19th and early 20th centuries, lynchings reached a peak in the South. Georgia led the nation in the number of lynchings from 1900 to 1931 with 302 incidents, according to The Tuskegee Institute. However, Florida led the nation in lynchings per capita from 1900 to 1930. [8] [9] [10] Lynchings peaked in many areas when it was time for landowners to settle accounts with sharecroppers. [11]

There is no count of recorded lynchings that claims to be precise, and the numbers vary depending on the sources, the years considered, and the definition used to define an incident. The Tuskegee Institute has recorded the lynchings of 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites between 1882 and 1968, with the peak occurring in the 1890s, at a time of economic stress in the South and increasing political suppression of blacks. [12] A five-year study published in 2015 by the Equal Justice Initiative found that nearly 3,959 black men, women, and children were lynched in the twelve Southern states between 1877 and 1950. Over this period Georgia's 586 lynchings led all states. [13] [14] [15]

African Americans mounted resistance to lynchings in numerous ways. Intellectuals and journalists encouraged public education, actively protesting and lobbying against lynch mob violence and government complicity. Anti-lynching plays and other literary works [ which? ] were produced. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and related groups, organized support from white and black Americans, publicizing injustices, investigating incidents, and working for passage of federal anti-lynching legislation (which as of 2019 has still not passed). African-American women's clubs raised funds and conducted petition drives, letter campaigns, meetings, and demonstrations to highlight the issues and combat lynching. [16] In the great migration, particularly from 1910 to 1940, 1.5 million African Americans left the South, primarily for destinations in northern and mid-western cities, both to gain better jobs and education and to escape the high rate of violence. From 1910 to 1930 particularly, more blacks migrated from counties with high numbers of lynchings. [17]

From 1882 to 1968, "nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law." [18] None succeeded in gaining passage, blocked by the Solid South—the delegation of powerful white Southerners in the Senate, which controlled, due to seniority, the powerful committee chairmanships. [18] During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, black activists were attacked and murdered throughout the South. The 1964 Mississippi Burning murders galvanized public support for passage of civil rights legislation that year and the next.

The term "Lynch's Law" apparently originated during the American Revolution when Patriot Charles Lynch, a Virginia justice of the peace, ordered extralegal punishment for Loyalists. [19] In the Pre-Civil War South, members of the abolitionist movement and other people opposing slavery were sometimes targets of lynch mob violence. [20]

During the Civil War, Confederate Home Guard units sometimes lynched white Southerners whom they suspected of being Unionists or deserters. One example of this was the hanging of Methodist minister Bill Sketoe in the southern Alabama town of Newton in December 1864.

A major motive for lynchings, particularly in the South, was the white society's efforts to maintain white supremacy after the emancipation of slaves following the American Civil War. It punished perceived violations of customs, later institutionalized as Jim Crow laws, which mandated racial segregation of whites and blacks, and second-class status for blacks. A 2017 paper found that more racially segregated counties were more likely to be places where whites conducted lynchings. [21] Economic competition was another major factor independent black farmers or businessmen were sometimes lynched or suffered destruction of their property. In the Deep South, the number of lynchings was higher in areas with a concentration of blacks in an area (such as a county), dependent on cotton at a time of low cotton prices, rising inflation, and competition among religious groups.

Whites sometimes lynched blacks for financial gain, and sometimes to establish political or economic dominance. These lynchings emphasized the new social order constructed under Jim Crow whites acted together, reinforcing their collective identity along with the unequal status of blacks through these group acts of violence. [22] In much of the Deep South, lynchings peaked in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as white racists turned to terrorism to dissuade blacks from voting in a period of disenfranchisement. In the Mississippi Delta, lynchings of blacks increased beginning in the late 19th century as white planters tried to control former slaves who had become landowners or sharecroppers. Lynchings had a seasonal pattern in the Mississippi Delta they were frequent at the end of the year when sharecroppers and tenant farmers tried to settle their accounts.

In the 1890s, African-American journalist and anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells conducted one of the first thorough investigations of lynching cases. She found that black lynching victims were accused of rape or attempted rape about one-third of the time (although sexual infractions were widely cited as reasons for the crime). The most prevalent accusation was murder or attempted murder, followed by a list of infractions that included verbal and physical aggression, spirited business competition, and independence of mind among victims. Lynch mob "policing" usually led to white mobs murdering persons suspected of crimes or more casual infractions.

Lynchings also occurred in Western frontier areas where legal recourse was distant. In the West, cattle barons took the law into their own hands by hanging those whom they perceived as cattle and horse thieves. This was also related to a political and social struggle between these classes. [ citation needed ]

Lynchings were in part intended as a voter suppression tool. A 2019 study found that lynchings occurred more frequently in proximity to elections, in particular in areas where the Democratic Party faced challenges. [23]

Historians have debated the history of lynchings on the western frontier, which has been obscured by the mythology of the American Old West. In unorganized territories or sparsely settled states, law enforcement was limited, often provided only by a U.S. Marshal who might, despite the appointment of deputies, be hours, or days, away by horseback.

People often carried out lynchings in the Old West against accused criminals in custody. Lynching did not so much substitute for an absent legal system as constitute an alternative system dominated by a particular social class or racial group. Historian Michael J. Pfeifer writes, "Contrary to the popular understanding, early territorial lynching did not flow from an absence or distance of law enforcement but rather from the social instability of early communities and their contest for property, status, and the definition of social order." [24]

It is not known the exact number of people in the Western states/territories killed by lynching during the times of their occurrences. For Mexicans, there are, however, estimates of thousands of deaths that have gone undocumented and peaked in the 1850s and 1870s, then again in the 1910s, most likely due to the Mexican Revolution. The most recorded deaths were in Texas, with up to 232 killings, then followed by California (143 deaths), New Mexico (87 deaths), and Arizona (48 deaths) [ citation needed ] . Lynch mobs killed Mexicans for a variety of reasons, with the most common being accusations of murder and robbery.

California Edit

In September 1850, California became the 31st state of the United States.

Many of the Mexicans who were native to what would become a state within the United States were experienced miners, and they had great success mining gold in California. [25] Their success aroused animosity by white prospectors, who intimidated Mexican miners with the threat of violence and committed violence against some. Between 1848 and 1860, white Americans lynched at least 163 Mexicans in California. [25] On July 5, 1851, a mob in Downieville, California, lynched a Mexican woman named Josefa Segovia. [26] She was accused of killing a white man who had attempted to assault her after breaking into her home. [27]

The San Francisco Vigilance Movement has traditionally been portrayed as a positive response to government corruption and rampant crime, but revisionist historians have argued that it created more lawlessness than it eliminated. [28] [ page needed ] Four men were executed by the 1851 Committee of Vigilance before it disbanded. When the second Committee of Vigilance was instituted in 1856, in response to the murder of publisher James King of William, it hanged a total of four men, all accused of murder. [29]

During the same year of 1851, just after the beginning of the Gold Rush, these Committees lynched an unnamed thief in northern California. The Gold Rush and the economic prosperity of Mexican-born people was one of the main reasons for mob violence against them. Other factors include land and livestock, since they were also a form of economic success. In conjunction with lynching, mobs also attempted to expel Mexicans, and other groups such as the indigenous peoples of the region, from areas with great mining activity and gold. As a result of the violence against Mexicans, many formed bands of bandits and would raid towns. One case, in 1855, was when a group of bandits went into Rancheria and killed six people. When the news of this incident spread, a mob of 1,500 people formed, rounded up 38 Mexicans, and executed Puertanino. [ who? ] The mob also expelled all the Mexicans in Rancheria and nearby towns as well, burning their homes. [ citation needed ] [30]

On October 24, 1871, a mob rampaged through Old Chinatown in Los Angeles and killed at least 18 Chinese Americans, after a white businessman had inadvertently been killed there in the crossfire of a tong battle within the Chinese community.

After the body of Brooke Hart was found on November 26, 1933, Thomas Harold Thurman and John Holmes, who had confessed to kidnapping and murdering Hart, were lynched on November 26 or November 27, 1933. [31] [32]

Texas Edit

"Lynching in Texas", a project of Sam Houston State University, maintains a database of over 600 lynchings committed in Texas between 1882 and 1942. [33] Many of the lynchings were of people of Mexican heritage.

During the early 1900s, hostilities between Anglos and Mexicans along the "Brown Belt" were common. In Rocksprings, Antonio Rodriguez, a Mexican, was burned at the stake for allegedly killing a white woman, Effie Greer Anderson. This event was widely publicized and protests against the treatment of Mexicans in the U.S. erupted within the interior of Mexico, namely in Guadalajara and Mexico City. [34]

Members of the Texas Rangers were charged in 1918 with the murder of Florencio Garcia. Two rangers had taken Garcia into custody for a theft investigation. The next day they let Garcia go, and were last seen escorting him on a mule. Garcia was never seen again. A month after the interrogation, bones and Garcia's clothing were found beside the road where the Rangers claimed to have let Garcia go. The Rangers were arrested for murder, freed on bail, and acquitted due to lack of evidence. The case became part of the Canales investigation into criminal conduct by the Rangers. [35] : 80

Arizona Edit

In 1859, white settlers began to expel Mexicans from Arizona. The mob was able to chase Mexicans out of many towns, southward. Even though they were successful in doing so, the mob followed and killed many of the people that had been chased out. The Sonoita massacre was a result of these expulsions, where white settlers killed four Mexicans and one Native American.

In 1915, the lynching of the Leon brothers by deputies Fenter and Moore were no different than past or future lynching violence. However, the aftermath of this event was unusual. The perpetrators were arrested, tried, and convicted for the murders. Including the fact that these deaths were recorded, since, before 1915, there were no records of lynching. The conviction of the Rangers resulted in more mob violence where an estimated 500 Mexicans were killed. This was known as La Hora de Sangre or the Hour of Blood. No perpetrators were convicted for these deaths, which continued up until 1920. [36]

Wyoming Edit

Another well-documented episode in the history of the American West is the Johnson County War, a dispute in the 1890s over land use in Wyoming. Large-scale ranchers hired mercenaries to lynch the small ranchers.

Oregon Edit

Alonzo Tucker was a traveling boxer who happened to be heading north from California to Washington. Part of his travels led him to stay in Coos Bay, Oregon where he was lynched by a mob on September 18, 1902. He was accused by Mrs. Dennis for assault. After the lynching, Mrs. Dennis and her family quickly left town and headed to California. Alonzo Tucker is the only documented lynching of a black man in Oregon. [37]

Other lynchings include many Native Americans. [38]

After the Civil War, nearly four million slaves were emancipated in the South. They constituted a majority in some states, and in numerous counties in several states. The first Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by confederate veterans in Tennessee chapters were formed by armed veterans throughout the South. Members were associated with insurgent violence against freedmen and their allies that included lynchings, but it more often consisted of direct, isolated attacks by secret groups against individuals. The first severe period of violence in the South was between 1868 and 1871. White Democrats attacked black and white Republicans to suppress their voting in elections. [40] To prevent ratification of new constitutions formed during Reconstruction, the opposition used various means to harass potential voters. Failed attacks led to a massacre during the 1868 elections, with the insurgents' murders of about 1,300 voters across various southern states ranging from South Carolina to Arkansas.

The lynchers sometimes murdered their victims, but sometimes whipped or physically assaulted them to remind them of their former status as slaves. [41] Often night-time raids of African-American homes were made in order to confiscate firearms. Lynchings to prevent freedmen and their allies from voting and bearing arms were extralegal ways of trying to enforce the previous system of social dominance and the Black Codes, which had been invalidated by the 14th and 15th Amendments in 1868 and 1870.

Although some states took action against the Klan, the South needed federal help. President Ulysses S. Grant and Congress passed the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, intended to suppress the vigilante violence of the Klan. This authorized the government to prosecute crimes committed by groups such as the Klan, as well as the use of federal troops to control violence. The administration began holding grand juries and prosecuting Klan members. In addition, it used martial law in some counties in South Carolina, where the Klan was the strongest. [42] Under attack, the Klan dissipated. Vigorous federal action and the disappearance of the Klan had a strong effect in temporarily reducing the numbers of murders. [42]

From the mid-1870s onward, violence rose as insurgent paramilitary groups in the Deep South worked to suppress black voting and turn Republicans out of office. In Louisiana, the Carolinas, and Florida especially, the Democratic Party relied on paramilitary "White Line" groups, such as the White Camelia, White League and Red Shirts to terrorize, intimidate and assassinate African-American and white Republicans in an organized drive to regain power. In Mississippi and the Carolinas, paramilitary chapters of Red Shirts conducted overt violence and disruption of elections. In Louisiana, the White League had numerous chapters they carried out goals of the Democratic Party to suppress black voting. Grant's desire to keep Ohio in the Republican aisle and his attorney general's maneuvers led to a failure to support the Mississippi governor with Federal troops. [43] The campaign of terror worked. In Yazoo County, Mississippi, for instance, with an African-American population of 12,000, only seven votes were cast for Republicans in 1874. In 1875, Democrats swept into power in the Mississippi state legislature. [43]

Once Democrats regained power in Mississippi, Democrats in other states adopted the Mississippi Plan to control the election of 1876, using informal armed militias to assassinate political leaders, hunt down community members, intimidate and turn away voters, and effectively suppress black suffrage and civil rights. In state after state, Democrats swept back to power. [44] From 1868 to 1876, there were 50–100 lynchings annually.

Following white Democrats' regaining political power in the late 1870s and the end of Reconstruction, legislators gradually increased statutory barriers to voter registration and voting. [ citation needed ] From 1890 to 1908, most of the Southern states, starting with Mississippi, created new constitutions with further provisions: poll taxes, literacy and understanding tests, and increased residency requirements, that effectively disfranchised most blacks and many poor whites. [ citation needed ] Forcing them off voter registration lists also prevented them from serving on juries, whose members were limited to voters. [ citation needed ] Although challenges to such constitutions made their way to the Supreme Court in Williams v. Mississippi (1898) and Giles v. Harris (1903), the states' provisions were upheld.

Most lynchings from the late 19th through the early 20th century were of African Americans in the South. [12] [45] Other victims included white immigrants, and, in the Southwest, Latinos. Of the 468 lynching victims in Texas between 1885 and 1942, 339 were black, 77 white, 53 Hispanic, and 1 Native American. [46]

The murders reflected the tensions of labor and social changes, as the whites imposed Jim Crow rules, legal segregation and white supremacy. The lynchings were also an indicator of long economic stress due to falling cotton prices through much of the 19th century, as well as financial depression in the 1890s. In the Mississippi bottomlands, for instance, lynchings rose when crops and accounts were supposed to be settled. [11]

In the Mississippi Delta region Edit

The late 1800s and early 1900s in the Mississippi Delta showed both frontier influence and actions directed at repressing African Americans. After the Civil War, 90% of the Delta was still undeveloped. [11] Both whites and blacks migrated there for a chance to buy land in the backcountry. It was frontier wilderness, heavily forested and without roads for years. [11] Before the start of the 20th century, lynchings often took the form of frontier justice directed at transient workers as well as residents. [11] Thousands of workers were brought in by planters to do lumbering and work on levees. [ citation needed ]

Whites accounted for just over 12 percent of the Delta region's population, but made up nearly 17 percent of lynching victims. So, in this region, they were lynched at a rate that was over 35 percent higher than their proportion in the population, primarily due to being accused of crimes against property (chiefly theft). Conversely, blacks were lynched at a rate, in the Delta, lesser than their proportion of the population. However, this was unlike the rest of the South, where blacks comprised the majority of lynching victims. In the Delta, they were most often accused of murder or attempted murder, in half the cases, and 15 percent of the time, they were accused of rape, meaning that another 15 percent of the time they were accused of a combination of rape and murder, or rape and attempted murder. [11]

A clear seasonal pattern to lynchings existed with colder months being the deadliest. As noted, cotton prices fell during the 1880s and 1890s, increasing economic pressures. "From September through December, the cotton was picked, debts were revealed, and profits (or losses) realized. Whether concluding old contracts or discussing new arrangements, [landlords and tenants] frequently came into conflict in these months and sometimes fell to blows." [11] During the winter, murder was most cited as a cause for lynching. After 1901, as economics shifted and more blacks became renters and sharecroppers in the Delta, with few exceptions, only African Americans were lynched. The frequency increased from 1901 to 1908 after African Americans were disfranchised. "In the twentieth century Delta vigilantism finally became predictably joined to white supremacy." [48]

Conclusions of numerous studies since the mid-20th century have found the following variables affecting the rate of lynchings in the South: "lynchings were more numerous where the African American population was relatively large, the agricultural economy was based predominantly on cotton, the white population was economically stressed, the Democratic Party was stronger, and multiple religious organizations competed for congregants." [49]

Other ethnicities Edit

According to the Tuskegee Institute, of the 4,743 people lynched between 1882 and 1968, 1,297 were listed as "white". The Tuskegee Institute, which kept the most complete records, documented victims internally as "Negro", "white", "Chinese", and occasionally as "Mexican" or "Indian", but merged these into only two categories of black or white in the tallies it published. Mexican, Chinese, and Native American lynching victims were tallied as white. Particularly in the West, minorities such as Chinese, Native Americans, Mexicans, and others were also lynching victims. The lynching of Mexicans and Mexican Americans in the Southwest was long overlooked in American history, when attention was focused on the treatment of African Americans in the South. [50] [51] [25]

In modern scholarship, researchers estimate that 597 Mexicans were lynched between 1848 and 1928. Mexicans were lynched at a rate of 27.4 per 100,000 of population between 1880 and 1930. This statistic was second only to that of the African-American community, which endured an average of 37.1 per 100,000 of population during that period. Between 1848 and 1879, Mexicans were lynched at an unprecedented rate of 473 per 100,000 of population. [25]

After their increased immigration to the U.S. in the late 19th century, Italian Americans in the South were recruited for laboring jobs. On March 14, 1891, 11 Italian immigrants were lynched in New Orleans, Louisiana, for their alleged role in the murder of David Hennessy, an ethnic Irish New Orleans police chief. [52] This incident was one of the largest mass lynchings in U.S. history. [53] A total of twenty Italians were lynched during the 1890s. Although most lynchings of Italian Americans occurred in the South, Italians did not comprise a major portion of immigrants or a major portion of the population as a whole. Isolated lynchings of Italians also occurred in New York, Pennsylvania, and Colorado.

On February 21, 1909, a riot targeting Greek Americans occurred in Omaha, Nebraska. Many Greeks were looted, beaten and businesses were burnt.

Between the 1830s and 1850s the majority of those lynched were whites. More whites were lynched than blacks for the years 1882–1885. By 1890s, the number of blacks lynched yearly grew to a number significantly more than that of whites and vast majority of victims were black from then on. White people were mostly lynched in the Western states and territories, although there were over 200 cases in the South. According to the Tuskegee Institute, in 1884 near Georgetown, Colorado, there was one instance of 17 "unknown white men" being hanged as cattle thieves in a single day. In the West, lynchings were often done to establish law and order. [54] [12] [55]

Enforcing Jim Crow Edit

After 1876, the frequency of lynching decreased somewhat until the later 19th century. White Democrats had regained political control of the state legislatures. Lynching was extrajudicial punishment, used by the society to terrorize freedmen and whites alike. Southern Republicans in Congress sought to protect black voting rights by using Federal troops for enforcement. But a congressional deal to elect Ohio Republican Rutherford B. Hayes as President in 1876 (in spite of his losing the popular vote to New York Democrat Samuel J. Tilden) included a pledge to remove Federal troops from the South. The Redeemers, many of whom had been members of such paramilitary groups as the White Cappers, the Knights of the White Camelia, the White League, and the Red Shirts, which supported white Democrats, had used terrorist violence and assassinations in order to suppress black and Republican voting and regain control of the state legislatures.

Lynchings were public demonstrations of white power and a means to exert social control. Racial tensions had an economic base. In attempting to reconstruct the plantation economy, planters were anxious to control labor. In addition, agricultural depression was widespread, and the price of cotton kept falling after the Civil War into the 1890s. A labor shortage occurred in many parts of the Deep South, most especially in the Mississippi Delta, which was being rapidly developed for agriculture. Southern attempts to recruit immigrant labor were unsuccessful, as immigrants would quickly leave field labor. Lynchings erupted when farmers tried to terrorize the laborers, especially when time came to settle and they were unable to pay wages, but tried to keep laborers from leaving. [ citation needed ]

More than 85 percent of the estimated 5,000 lynchings in the post–Civil War period occurred in the Southern states. With economic strains across the Deep South and a low price for cotton, 1892 was a peak year when 161 African Americans were lynched. The passage of Jim Crow laws, beginning in the 1890s completed the revival of white supremacy in the South. Terror and lynching were believed to be used to enforce both these formal laws and a variety of unwritten rules of conduct meant to assert white domination. In most years from 1889 to 1923, 50 to 100 lynchings occurred annually across the South. They were at a peak in the last decade of the 19th century, but remained high for years. [ citation needed ]

The frequency of lynchings rose during years of poor economy and low prices for cotton, demonstrating that more than social tensions generated the catalysts for mob action against the underclass. [6] Researchers have studied various models to determine what motivated lynchings. One study of lynching rates of blacks in Southern counties between 1889 and 1931 found a relation to the concentration of blacks in parts of the Deep South: where the black population was concentrated, lynching rates were higher. Such areas also had a particular mix of socioeconomic conditions, with a high dependence on cotton cultivation. [59]

The stated ideology of whites about lynching was directly connected with denial of political and social equality, and sexual fears of white men it was expressed by Benjamin Tillman, a South Carolina governor and U.S. Senator, speaking on the floor of the Senate in 1900:

We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be the equal of the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him. [60]

Henry Smith, an alcoholic African-American handyman accused of murdering a policeman's daughter, was a noted lynching victim because of the ferocity of the attack against him and the huge crowd that gathered. [61] He was lynched at Paris, Texas, in 1893 for killing Myrtle Vance, the three-year-old daughter of a Texas policeman, after the policeman had assaulted Smith. [62] Smith was not tried in a court of law. A large crowd followed the lynching, as was common then in the style of public executions. Henry Smith was fastened to a wooden platform, tortured for 50 minutes by red-hot iron brands, and burned alive while more than 10,000 spectators cheered. [61]

Fewer than one percent of lynch mob participants were ever convicted by local courts and they were seldom prosecuted or brought to trial. By the late 19th century, trial juries in most of the southern United States were all white because African Americans had been disenfranchised, and only registered voters could serve as jurors. Often juries never let the matter go past the inquest.

Such cases happened in the North as well. In 1892, a police officer in Port Jervis, New York, tried to stop the lynching of a black man who had been wrongfully accused of assaulting a white woman. The mob responded by putting the noose around the officer's neck as a way of scaring him, and completed killing the other man. Although at the inquest the officer identified eight people who had participated in the lynching, including the former chief of police, the jury determined that the murder had been carried out "by person or persons unknown". [63]

In Duluth, Minnesota, on June 15, 1920, three young African-American traveling circus workers were lynched after having been accused of having raped a white woman and were jailed pending a grand jury hearing. A physician's subsequent examination of the woman found no evidence of rape or assault. The alleged motive and action by a mob were consistent with the "community policing" model. [ further explanation needed ] [64]

Although the rhetoric surrounding lynchings frequently suggested they were to protect the virtue and safety of white women, the actions basically arose out of white attempts to maintain domination in a rapidly changing society and their fears of social change. [55] Victims were the scapegoats for peoples' attempts to control agriculture, labor, and education, as well as a reaction to economic stresses during downturns when cotton prices dropped, and larger disasters such as the boll weevil. [ citation needed ] In 1903, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported a new, popular children's game: "The Game of Lynching". "Imaginary mayor gives order not to harm imaginary mob, and an imaginary hanging follows. Fire contributes realistic touch." "It has crowded out baseball", and if it continues, "may deprive of some of its prestige the game of football." [65]

Photographic records and postcards Edit

At the start of the 20th century in the United States, lynching was photographic sport. People sent picture postcards of lynchings they had witnessed. A writer for Time magazine noted in 2000,

Even the Nazis did not stoop to selling souvenirs of Auschwitz, but lynching scenes became a burgeoning subdepartment of the postcard industry. By 1908, the trade had grown so large, and the practice of sending postcards featuring the victims of mob murderers had become so repugnant, that the U.S. Postmaster General banned the cards from the mails. [70]

In the post–Reconstruction era South, lynching photographs were printed for various purposes, including postcards, newspapers and event mementos. [71] Typically these images depicted an African-American lynching victim and all or part of the crowd in attendance. Spectators often included women and children. The perpetrators of lynchings were not identified. [72] At one particular lynching, it is said that nearly 15,000 people were in attendance. [71] Often lynchings were advertised in newspapers prior to the event in order to give photographers time to arrive early and prepare their camera equipment. [73] After the lynching, photographers would sell their pictures as-is or as postcards, sometimes costing as much as fifty cents a piece, or $9, as of 2016. [72]

Though some photographs were sold as plain prints, others contained captions. These captions were either straightforward details—such as the time, date and reasons for the lynching—while others contained polemics or poems with racist or otherwise threatening remarks. [73] An example of this is a photographic postcard attached to the poem "Dogwood Tree," which says: "The negro now/By eternal grace/Must learn to stay in the negro's place/In the Sunny South, the land of the Free/Let the WHITE SUPREME forever be." [74] Such postcards with explicit rhetoric such as "Dogwood Tree" were typically circulated privately or mailed in a sealed envelope. [75] Other times these pictures simply included the word "WARNING". [73]

In 1873, the Comstock Act was passed, which banned the publication of "obscene matter as well as its circulation in the mails". [73] In 1908, Section 3893 was added to the Comstock Act, stating that the ban included material "tending to incite arson, murder, or assassination". [73] Although this act did not explicitly ban lynching photographs or postcards, it banned the explicit racist texts and poems inscribed on certain prints. According to some, these texts were deemed "more incriminating" and caused their removal from the mail instead of the photograph itself because the text made "too explicit what was always implicit in lynchings". [73] Some towns imposed "self-censorship" on lynching photographs, but section 3893 was the first step towards a national censorship. [73] Despite the amendment, the distribution of lynching photographs and postcards continued. Though they were not sold openly, the censorship was bypassed when people sent the material in envelopes or mail wrappers. [75]

Resistance Edit

African Americans emerged from the Civil War with the political experience and stature to resist attacks, but disfranchisement and imposition of Jim Crow in the South at the turn of the 20th century closed them out of the political system and judicial system in many ways. Advocacy organizations compiled statistics and publicized the atrocities, as well as working for enforcement of civil rights and a federal anti-lynching law. From the early 1880s, the Chicago Tribune reprinted accounts of lynchings from other newspapers, and published annual statistics. These provided the main source for the compilations by the Tuskegee Institute to document lynchings, a practice it continued until 1968. [76]

In 1892, journalist Ida B. Wells-Barnett was shocked when three friends in Memphis, Tennessee, were lynched. She learned it was because their grocery store had competed successfully against a white-owned store. Outraged, Wells-Barnett began a global anti-lynching campaign that raised awareness of these murders. She also investigated lynchings and overturned the common idea that they were based on black sexual crimes, as was popularly discussed she found lynchings were more an effort to suppress blacks who competed economically with whites, especially if they were successful. As a result of her efforts at education, black women in the U.S. became active in the anti-lynching crusade, often in the form of clubs that raised money to publicize the abuses. When the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was formed in 1909, Wells became part of its multi-racial leadership and continued to be active against lynching. The NAACP began to publish lynching statistics at their office in New York City.

In 1898 Alexander Manly of Wilmington, North Carolina, directly challenged popular ideas about lynching in an editorial in his newspaper The Daily Record. He noted that consensual relationships took place between white women and black men, and said that many of the latter had white fathers (as he did). His references to miscegenation lifted the veil of denial. Whites were outraged. A mob destroyed his printing press and business, ran black leaders out of town and killed many others, and overturned the biracial Populist-Republican city government, headed by a white mayor and majority-white council. Manly escaped, eventually settling in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

In 1903, writer Charles W. Chesnutt of Ohio published the article "The Disfranchisement of the Negro", detailing civil rights abuses as Southern states passed laws and constitutions that essentially disenfranchised African Americans, excluding them wholesale from the political system. He publicized the need for change in the South. Numerous writers appealed to the literate public. [77]

In 1904, Mary Church Terrell, the first president of the National Association of Colored Women, published an article in the magazine North American Review to respond to Southerner Thomas Nelson Page. She analyzed and refuted with data his attempted justification of lynching as a response to assaults by black men on white women. Terrell showed how apologists like Page had tried to rationalize what were violent mob actions that were seldom based on assaults. [79] African American newspapers such as the Chicago Illinois Newspaper "The Chicago Whip" [80] and the NAACP magazine The Crisis would not just merely report lynchings, they would denounce them as well. Indeed in 1919, the NAACP would publish "Thirty Years of Lynching" and hang a black flag outside its office. [ citation needed ]

Federal action limited by the Solid South Edit

In 1900, as the 56th Congress considered proposals for apportioning its seats among the 45 states following the 1900 Federal Census, Representative Edgar D. Crumpacker (R-IN) filed an independent report urging that the Southern states be stripped of seats due to the large numbers of voters they had disfranchised. He noted this was provided for in Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provided for stripping representation from states that reduced suffrage due to race. [81] However, concerted opposition of the Southern Democratic bloc was aroused, and the effort failed.

From 1896 until 1900, the House of Representatives with a Republican majority had acted in more than thirty cases to set aside election results from Southern states where the House Elections Committee had concluded that "black voters had been excluded due to fraud, violence, or intimidation". However, in the early 1900s, it began to back off, after Democrats won a majority, which included Southern delegations that were solidly in Democratic hands.

President Theodore Roosevelt made public statements against lynching in 1903, following George White's murder in Delaware, and in the 1906 State of the Union Address on December 4, 1906. When Roosevelt suggested that lynching was taking place in the Philippines, Southern senators (all white Democrats) demonstrated their power by a filibuster in 1902 during review of the "Philippines Bill". In 1903 Roosevelt refrained from commenting on lynching during his Southern political campaigns.

Durbin had successfully used the Indiana National Guard to disperse lynchers, and publicly declared that an African-American man accused of murder was entitled to a fair trial. Roosevelt's efforts cost him political support among white people, especially in the South. Threats against him increased so that the Secret Service added to the size of his bodyguard detail. [82]

Great Migration Edit

In what has been viewed as multiple acts of resistance, tens of thousands of African Americans left the South annually – especially from 1910 to 1940 – seeking jobs and better lives in industrial cities of the Northeast and Midwest in a movement that was called the "Great Migration". [55] More than 1.5 million people went North during this phase of the Great Migration. They refused to live under the rules of segregation and the continual threat of violence, and many secured better educations and futures for themselves and their children, while adapting to the drastically different requirements of industrial cities. Northern industries such as the Pennsylvania Railroad and others, and stockyards and meatpacking plants in Chicago and Omaha, vigorously recruited southern workers. For instance, by 1923, the Pennsylvania Railroad had hired 10,000 black men from Florida and Georgia to work at their expanding yards and tracks. [83]

The rapid influx of blacks disturbed the racial balance within Northern cities, exacerbating hostility between black and white Northerners. The Red Summer of 1919 was marked by hundreds of deaths and higher casualties across the U.S. as a result of race riots that occurred in more than three dozen cities, such as the Chicago race riot of 1919 and the Omaha race riot of 1919. Stereotypic schemas of Southern blacks were used to attribute issues in urban areas, such as crime and disease, to the presence of African Americans. Overall, African Americans in Northern cities experienced systemic discrimination in a plethora of aspects of life. Within employment, economic opportunities for blacks were routed to the lowest-status and restrictive in potential mobility. Within the housing market, stronger discriminatory measures were used in correlation to the influx, resulting in a mix of "targeted violence, restrictive covenants, redlining and racial steering". [84]

Resistance Edit

African-American writers used their talents in numerous ways to publicize and protest against lynching. In 1914, Angelina Weld Grimké had already written her play Rachel to address racial violence. It was produced in 1916. In 1915, W. E. B. Du Bois, noted scholar and head of the recently formed NAACP, called for more black-authored plays.

African-American women playwrights were strong in responding. They wrote ten of the 14 anti-lynching plays produced between 1916 and 1935. The NAACP set up a Drama Committee to encourage such work. In addition, Howard University, the leading historically black college, established a theater department in 1920 to encourage African-American dramatists. Starting in 1924, the NAACP's major publications The Crisis and Opportunity sponsored contests to encourage black literary production. [85]

New Klan Edit

In 1915, three events highlighted racial and social tensions: distribution of D.W. Griffith's film, The Birth of a Nation the lynching of Leo Frank, a Jewish factory manager, in Atlanta, Georgia and the revival of the Ku Klux Klan near Atlanta.

D. W. Griffith's 1915 film, The Birth of a Nation, glorified the original Klan as protecting southern women during Reconstruction, which he portrayed as a time of violence and corruption, following the Dunning School interpretation of history. The film aroused great controversy. It was popular among whites in the South, but was protested against by the NAACP and other civil rights groups, who achieved banning it in some cities, and it garnered much national publicity.

In 1915, Leo Frank, an American Jew, was lynched near Atlanta, Georgia. Frank had been convicted in 1913 for the murder of Mary Phagan, a thirteen-year-old girl employed by his pencil factory. There were a series of appeals, but all failed. The final appeal was a 7-2 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. After Governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank's sentence to life imprisonment, a group of men, calling themselves the Knights of Mary Phagan, kidnapped Frank from a prison farm in Milledgeville in a planned event that included cutting the prison's telephone wires. They transported him 175 miles back to Marietta, near Atlanta, where they lynched him in front of a mob.

On November 25, 1915, two months after Frank was lynched, a group led by William J. Simmons burned a cross on top of Stone Mountain, inaugurating a revival of the Ku Klux Klan. The event was attended by 15 charter members and a few aging survivors of the original Klan. [86]

The Klan and their use of lynching was supported by some public officials like John Trotwood Moore, the State Librarian and Archivist of Tennessee from 1919 to 1929. [87] Moore "became one of the South's more strident advocates of lynching." [87]

The Klan grew after that due to majority of white Protestants' anxieties and fears over the rapid pace of change and economic and social competition. It promoted itself as a fraternal organization for ethnic Northern Europeans in new urban environments. Many African-American migrants moved north in the Great Migration, resulting in labor shortages in most of the rural South. In addition, they also migrated to some rapidly growing Southern industrial cities. At the same time, the United States was receiving millions of immigrants from Mexico, the Middle East, East Asia, and southern and eastern Europe who settled in northeastern, midwestern, and western industrial cities. As a result, the Klan grew rapidly and became most successful and strongest in those cities that had a rapid pace of growth from 1910 to 1930, such as southern cities of Atlanta, Georgia Birmingham, Alabama and Dallas, Texas and non-southern cities of Detroit, Michigan Indianapolis, Indiana Chicago, Illinois Portland, Oregon and Denver, Colorado. It reached a peak of membership and influence about 1925. In some cities, non-Protestant leaders' actions to publish names of Klan members and override its secrecy provided enough publicity to sharply reduce membership. [88]

1919 was one of the worst years for lynching with at least seventy-six people were killed in mob or vigilante related violence. Of these, more than eleven African American veterans who had served in the recently completed war were lynched in that year. [89] : 232

Continuing resistance Edit

The NAACP mounted a strong nationwide campaign of protests and public education against The Birth of a Nation. As a result, some city governments prohibited the release of the film. In addition, the NAACP publicized production and helped create audiences for the 1919 releases, The Birth of a Race and Within Our Gates, African-American–directed films that presented more positive images of blacks.

On April 1, 1918, U.S. Representative Leonidas C. Dyer of St. Louis, Missouri, introduced the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. Rep. Dyer was concerned over increased lynching, mob violence, and disregard for the "rule of law" in the South. The bill made lynching a federal crime, and those who participated in lynching would be prosecuted by the federal government. It did not pass due to a Southern filibuster, and the Senate would not pass anti-lynching legislation until 2018 (the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act).

On 1919, the new NAACP organized the National Conference on Lynching to increase support for the Dyer Bill.

In 1920, the black community succeeded in getting its most important priority in the Republican Party's platform at the National Convention: support for an anti-lynching bill. The black community supported Warren G. Harding in that election, but were disappointed as his administration moved slowly on a bill. [90]

Dyer revised his bill and re-introduced it to the House in 1921. It passed the House on January 22, 1922, due to "insistent country-wide demand", [90] and was favorably reported out by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Action in the Senate was delayed, and ultimately the Democratic Solid South filibuster defeated the bill in the Senate in December. [91] In 1923, Dyer went on a midwestern and western state tour promoting the anti-lynching bill he praised the NAACP's work for continuing to publicize lynching in the South and for supporting the federal bill. Dyer's anti-lynching motto was "We have just begun to fight," and he helped generate additional national support. His bill was defeated twice more in the Senate by Southern Democratic filibuster. The Republicans were unable to pass a bill in the 1920s. [92]

African-American resistance to lynching carried substantial risks. In 1921, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a group of African-American citizens attempted to stop a lynch mob from taking 19-year-old assault suspect Dick Rowland out of jail. In a scuffle between a white man and an armed African-American veteran, the white man was killed. Whites retaliated by rioting, during which they burned 1,256 homes and as many as 200 businesses in the segregated Greenwood district, destroying what had been a thriving area. Confirmed dead were 39 people: 26 African Americans and 13 whites. Recent investigations suggest the number of African-American deaths may have been much higher, up to 300. [93] Rowland was saved, however, and was later exonerated.

The growing networks of African-American women's club groups were instrumental in raising funds to support the NAACP's public education and lobbying campaigns. They also built community organizations. In 1922, Mary Talbert headed the anti-lynching crusade to create an integrated women's movement against lynching. [79] It was affiliated with the NAACP, which mounted a multi-faceted campaign. For years the NAACP used petition drives, letters to newspapers, articles, posters, lobbying Congress, and marches to protest against the abuses in the South and keep the issue before the public.

While the second Ku Klux Klan grew rapidly in cities, underwent major change, [ clarification needed ] and achieved some political power, many state and city leaders, including white religious leaders such as Reinhold Niebuhr in Detroit, acted strongly and spoke out publicly against the organization. Some anti-Klan groups published members' names and quickly reduced the energy in their efforts. As a result, in most areas, after 1925 Klan membership and organizations rapidly declined. Cities passed laws against wearing of masks, and otherwise acted against the Klan. [94] [ page needed ]

In 1930, Southern white women responded in large numbers to the leadership of Jessie Daniel Ames in forming the Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching. She and her co-founders obtained the signatures of 40,000 women to their pledge against lynching and for a change in the South. The pledge included the statement:

In light of the facts we dare no longer to. allow those bent upon personal revenge and savagery to commit acts of violence and lawlessness in the name of women.

Despite physical threats and hostile opposition, the women leaders persisted with petition drives, letter campaigns, meetings, and demonstrations to highlight the issues. [16] By the 1930s, the number of lynchings had dropped to about ten per year in Southern states.

In the 1930s, communist organizations, including a legal defense organization called the International Labor Defense (ILD), organized support to stop lynching (see Communist Party USA and African Americans). The ILD defended the Scottsboro Boys, as well as three black men accused of rape in Tuscaloosa in 1933. In the Tuscaloosa case, two defendants were lynched under circumstances that suggested police complicity. The ILD lawyers narrowly escaped lynching. Many Southerners resented them for their perceived "interference" in local affairs. In a remark to an investigator, a white Tuscaloosan said, "For New York Jews to butt in and spread communistic ideas is too much." [41]

Federal action and Southern resistance Edit

Anti-lynching advocates such as Mary McLeod Bethune and Walter Francis White campaigned for presidential candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. They hoped he would lend public support to their efforts against lynching. Senators Robert F. Wagner and Edward P. Costigan drafted the Costigan–Wagner Bill in 1934 to require local authorities to protect prisoners from lynch mobs. Like the Dyer Bill, it made lynching a Federal crime in order to take it out of state administration.

Southern Senators continued to hold a hammerlock on Congress. Because of the Southern Democrats' disfranchisement of African Americans in Southern states at the start of the 20th century, Southern whites for decades had nearly double the representation in Congress beyond their own population. Southern states had Congressional representation based on total population, but essentially only whites could vote and only their issues were supported. Due to seniority achieved through one-party Democratic rule in their region, Southern Democrats controlled many important committees in both houses. Southern Democrats consistently opposed any legislation related to putting lynching under Federal oversight. As a result, Southern white Democrats were a formidable power in Congress until the 1960s.

In the 1930s, virtually all Southern senators blocked the proposed Costigan–Wagner Bill. Southern senators used a filibuster to prevent a vote on the bill. Some Republican senators, such as the conservative William Borah from Idaho, opposed the bill for constitutional reasons (he had also opposed the Dyer Bill). He felt it encroached on state sovereignty and, by the 1930s, thought that social conditions had changed so that the bill was less needed. [95] He spoke at length in opposition to the bill in 1935 and 1938. 1934 saw 15 lynchings of African Americans with 21 lynchings in 1935, 8 in 1936, and 2 in 1939.

A lynching in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, changed the political climate in Washington. [96] On July 19, 1935, Rubin Stacy, a homeless African-American tenant farmer, knocked on doors begging for food. After resident complaints, deputies took Stacy into custody. While he was in custody, a lynch mob took Stacy from the deputies and murdered him. Although the faces of his murderers could be seen in a photo taken at the lynching site, the state did not prosecute the murder. [97]

Stacy's murder galvanized anti-lynching activists, but President Roosevelt did not support the federal anti-lynching bill. He feared that support would cost him Southern votes in the 1936 election. He believed that he could accomplish more for more people by getting re-elected.

In 1937, the lynching of Roosevelt Townes and Robert McDaniels gained national publicity, and its brutality was widely condemned. [98] Such publicity enabled Joseph A. Gavagan (D-New York) to gain support for anti-lynching legislation he had put forward in the House of Representatives it was supported in the Senate by Democrats Robert F. Wagner (New York) and Frederick Van Nuys (Indiana). The legislation eventually passed in the House, but the Solid South of white Democrats blocked it in the Senate. [99] [100]

In 1939, Roosevelt created the Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department. It started prosecutions to combat lynching, but failed to win any convictions until 1946. [101]

Second Great Migration Edit

The industrial buildup to World War II acted as a "pull" factor in the second phase of the Second Great Migration starting in 1940 and lasting until 1970. Altogether in the first half of the 20th century, 6.5 million African Americans migrated from the South to leave lynchings and segregation behind. Unlike the first round, composed chiefly of rural farmworkers, the second wave included more educated workers and their families who were already living in Southern cities and towns. In this migration, many left for Western cities in addition to Northeastern and Midwestern cities, as defense industries recruited tens of thousands to higher-paying, skilled jobs. They settled in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Phoenix, Portland, and Seattle.

Federal action Edit

In 1946, the Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department gained its first conviction under federal civil rights laws against a lyncher. Florida constable Tom Crews was sentenced to a $1,000 fine (equivalent to $13,300 in 2020) and one year in prison for civil rights violations in the killing of an African-American farm worker.

In 1946, a mob of white men shot and killed two young African-American couples near Moore's Ford Bridge in Walton County, Georgia, 60 miles east of Atlanta. This lynching of four young sharecroppers, one a World War II veteran, shocked the nation. The attack was a key factor in President Harry S. Truman's making civil rights a priority of his administration. Although the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigated the crime, they were unable to prosecute. It was the last documented lynching of so many people in one incident. [101]

In 1947, the Truman administration published a report entitled To Secure These Rights which advocated making lynching a federal crime, abolishing poll taxes, and other civil rights reforms. The Southern Democratic bloc of senators and congressmen continued to obstruct attempts at federal legislation. [102]

In the 1940s, the Klan openly criticized Truman for his efforts to promote civil rights. Later historians documented that Truman had briefly made an attempt to join the Klan as a young man in 1924, when it was near its peak of social influence in promoting itself as a fraternal organization. When a Klan officer demanded that Truman pledge not to hire any Catholics if he were re-elected as county judge, Truman refused. He personally knew their worth from his World War I experience. His membership fee was returned and he never joined the Klan. [103]

Lynching and the Cold War Edit

International media, including the media in the Soviet Union, covered racial discrimination in the U.S. [47] [104] Deeming American criticism of the Soviet Union's human rights abuses as hypocrisy, the Soviets would respond with "And you are lynching Negroes". [105] In his 1934 book Russia Today: What Can We Learn from It?, Sherwood Eddy wrote: "In the most remote villages of Russia today Americans are frequently asked what they are going to do to the Scottsboro Boys and why they lynch Negroes." [106]

In a meeting with President Harry Truman in 1946, Paul Robeson urged him to take action against lynching. In 1951, Robeson and the Civil Rights Congress made a presentation entitled "We Charge Genocide" to the United Nations. They argued that the U.S. government was guilty of genocide under Article II of the United Nations Genocide Convention because it failed to act against lynchings. [ citation needed ] The first year on record with no lynchings reported in the United States was 1952. [107]

In the early Cold War years, the FBI was worried more about possible communist connections among anti-lynching groups than about the lynching crimes. For instance, the FBI branded Albert Einstein a communist sympathizer for joining Robeson's American Crusade Against Lynching. [108] J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI for decades, was particularly fearful of the effects of communism in the United States. He directed more attention to investigations of civil rights groups for communist connections than to Ku Klux Klan activities against the groups' members and other innocent blacks. [ citation needed ]

Civil rights movement Edit

By the 1950s, the civil rights movement was gaining momentum. Membership in the NAACP increased in states across the country. The NAACP achieved a significant U.S. Supreme Court victory in 1954 ruling that segregated education was unconstitutional. A 1955 lynching that sparked public outrage about injustice was that of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old boy from Chicago. Spending the summer with relatives in Money, Mississippi, Till was killed for allegedly having wolf-whistled at a white woman. Till had been badly beaten, one of his eyes was gouged out, and he was shot in the head before being thrown into the Tallahatchie River, his body weighed down with a 70-pound (32 kg) cotton gin fan tied around his neck with barbed wire. His mother insisted on a public funeral with an open casket, to show people how badly Till's body had been disfigured. News photographs circulated around the country, and drew intense public reaction. The visceral response to his mother's decision to have an open-casket funeral mobilized the black community throughout the U.S. [109] The state of Mississippi tried two defendants, but they were speedily acquitted by an all-white jury. [110]

In the 1960s the civil rights movement attracted students to the South from all over the country to work on voter registration and integration. The intervention of people from outside the communities and threat of social change aroused fear and resentment among many whites. In June 1964, three civil rights workers disappeared in Neshoba County, Mississippi. They had been investigating the arson of a black church being used as a "Freedom School". Six weeks later, their bodies were found in a partially constructed dam near Philadelphia, Mississippi. James Chaney of Meridian, Mississippi, and Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman of New York City had been members of the Congress of Racial Equality. They had been dedicated to non-violent direct action against racial discrimination. The investigation also unearthed the bodies of numerous anonymous victims of past lynchings and murders.

The United States prosecuted 18 men for a Ku Klux Klan conspiracy to deprive the victims of their civil rights under 19th-century Federal law, in order to prosecute the crime in Federal court. Seven men were convicted but received light sentences, two men were released because of a deadlocked jury, and the remainder were acquitted. In 2005, 80-year-old Edgar Ray Killen, one of the men who had earlier gone free, was retried by the state of Mississippi, convicted of three counts of manslaughter in a new trial, and sentenced to 60 years in prison. Killen died in 2018 after serving 12 + 1 ⁄ 2 years.

Because of J. Edgar Hoover's and others' hostility to the civil rights movement, agents of the FBI resorted to outright lying to smear civil rights workers and other opponents of lynching. For example, the FBI leaked false information in the press about the lynching victim Viola Liuzzo, who was murdered in 1965 in Alabama. The FBI said Liuzzo had been a member of the Communist Party USA, had abandoned her five children, and was involved in sexual relationships with African Americans in the movement. [111]

After the civil rights movement Edit

Incidents Edit

Although lynchings have become rare following the civil rights movement and changing social norms, some lynchings have still occurred. In 1981, two Klan members in Alabama randomly selected a 19-year-old black man, Michael Donald, and murdered him, in order to retaliate for a jury's acquittal of a black man who was accused of murdering a white police officer. The Klansmen were caught, prosecuted, and convicted (one of the Klansmen, Henry Hayes, was sentenced to death and executed on June 6, 1997). A $7 million judgment in a civil suit against the Klan bankrupted the local Klan subgroup, the United Klans of America. [112]

In 1998, Shawn Allen Berry, Lawrence Russel Brewer, and ex-convict John William King murdered James Byrd, Jr. in Jasper, Texas. Byrd was a 49-year-old father of three, who had accepted an early-morning ride home with the three men. They attacked him and dragged him to his death behind their truck. [113] The three men dumped their victim's mutilated remains in the town's segregated African-American cemetery and then went to a barbecue. [114] Local authorities immediately treated the murder as a hate crime and requested FBI assistance. The murderers (two of whom turned out to be members of a white supremacist prison gang) were caught and stood trial. Brewer and King were both sentenced to death (with Brewer being executed in 2011, and King being executed in 2019). Berry was sentenced to life in prison.

On June 13, 2005, the U.S. Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact a federal anti-lynching law in the early 20th century, "when it was most needed". Before the vote, Louisiana senator Mary Landrieu noted: "There may be no other injustice in American history for which the Senate so uniquely bears responsibility." [115] The resolution was passed on a voice vote with 80 senators cosponsoring, with Mississippians Thad Cochran and Trent Lott being among the twenty U.S. senators abstaining. [115] The resolution expressed "the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of lynching, the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human dignity and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States". [115]

In February 2014 a noose was placed on the statue of James Meredith, the first African-American student at the University of Mississippi. [116] A number of nooses appeared in 2017, primarily in or near Washington, D.C. [117] [118] [119]

In August 2014 Lennon Lacy, a teenager from Bladenboro, North Carolina, who had been dating a white girl, was found dead, hanging from a swing set. His family believes he was lynched, but the FBI stated, after investigation, that it found no evidence of a hate crime. The case is featured in a 2019 documentary about lynching in America, Always in Season. [120]

In May 2017, Mississippi state representative Karl Oliver of Winona stated that Louisiana lawmakers who supported the removal of Confederate monuments from their state should be lynched. Oliver's district includes Money, Mississippi, where Emmett Till was murdered. Mississippi leaders from both the Republican and Democratic parties quickly condemned Oliver's statement. [121]

In 2019, Goodloe Sutton, then editor of a small Alabama newspaper, The Democrat-Reporter, got national publicity by saying in an editorial that the Ku Klux Klan was needed to "clean up D.C." [122] Asked what he meant by "cleaning up D.C.", he suggested lynching: "We'll get the hemp ropes out, loop them over a tall limb and hang all of them." "When asked if he felt it was appropriate for the publisher of a newspaper to call for the lynching of Americans, Sutton doubled down on his position: …'It's not calling for the lynchings of Americans. These are socialist-communists we're talking about. Do you know what socialism and communism is?'" He denied that the Klan was a racist and violent organization, comparing it to the NAACP. [123]

On January 6, 2021 the rioters during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol shouted "Hang Mike Pence!" in an attempt to lynch the Vice-President for refusing to overturn the 2020 United States Presidential Election in favor of President Donald Trump while they built a gallows on the Capitol lawn. [124]

A 2017 study found that exposure to lynchings in the post-Reconstruction South "reduced local black voter turnout by roughly 2.5 percentage points." [125] Another 2017 study found supportive evidence of Stewart Tolnay and E. M. Beck's claim that lynchings were "due to economic competition between African-American and white cotton workers". [126] The study found that lynchings were associated with greater black out-migration from 1920 to 1930, and higher state-level wages. [126] A 2014 study by economist Lisa D. Cook found that lynchings and other forms of racial violence targeting African Americans over the period 1870–1940 to lower innovation among African Americans. [127]

Statistics for lynchings have traditionally come from three sources primarily, none of which covered the entire historical time period of lynching in the United States. Before 1882, no reliable statistics are assembled on a national level. In 1882, the Chicago Tribune began to systematically tabulate lynchings. In 1908, the Tuskegee Institute began a systematic collection of lynching reports under the direction of Monroe Work at its Department of Records, drawn primarily from newspaper reports. Monroe Work published his first independent tabulations in 1910, although his report also went back to the starting year 1882. [128] Finally, in 1912, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People started an independent record of lynchings. The numbers of lynchings from each source vary slightly, with the Tuskegee Institute's figures being considered "conservative" by some historians. [55]

Tuskegee Institute, now Tuskegee University, defined conditions that constituted a recognized lynching, a definition which became generally accepted by other compilers of the era:

1. There must be legal evidence that a person was killed.
2. That person must have met death illegally.
3. A group of three or more persons must have participated in the killing.
4. The group must have acted under the pretext of service to justice, race, or tradition. [129] [130]

The records of Tuskegee Institute remain the single most complete source of statistics and records on this crime since 1882 for all states, although modern research has illuminated new incidents in studies focused on specific states in isolation. [131] As of 1959, which was the last time that Tuskegee Institute's annual report was published, a total of 4,733 persons had died by lynching since 1882. The last lynching recorded by the Tuskegee Institute was that of Emmet Till in 1955. In the 65 years leading up to 1947, at least one lynching was reported every year. 1882 to 1901 saw the highest period of lynchings, with an average of over 150 each year. 1892 saw the most number of lynchings in a year: 231. After 1924 cases steadily declined, with less than 30 a year. [132]

1892 saw the highest relative rate for lynching: 3.25 per one million people. Lynchings were most common in the latter 19th century and greatly reduced following the 1920s. [50] [54] The decreasing rate of yearly lynchings was faster outside the South and for white victims of lynching. Lynching became more of a Southern phenomenon and a racial one that overwhelmingly affected black victims. [2]

Opponents of legislation often said lynchings prevented murder and rape. As documented by Ida B. Wells, the most prevalent accusation against lynching victims was murder or attempted murder. Rape charges or rumors were present in less than one-third of the lynchings such charges were often pretexts for lynching blacks who violated Jim Crow etiquette or engaged in economic competition with whites. Other common reasons given included arson, theft, assault, and robbery sexual transgressions (miscegenation, adultery, cohabitation) "race prejudice", "race hatred", "racial disturbance" informing on others "threats against whites" and violations of the color line ("attending white girl", "proposals to white woman"). [133]

1892. According to the Tuskegee Institute, 38% of victims of lynching were accused of murder, 16% of rape, 7% for attempted rape, 6% were accused of felonious assault, 7% for theft, 2% for insult to white people and 24% were accused of miscellaneous offenses or no offense. [2]

In 1940, Sociologist Arthur F. Raper investigated one hundred lynchings after 1929 and estimated that approximately one-third of the victims were falsely accused. [2]

Tuskegee Institute's method of categorizing most lynching victims as either black or white in publications and data summaries meant that the murders of some minority and immigrant groups were obscured. In the West, for instance, Mexican, Native Americans, and Chinese were more frequent targets of lynchings than were African Americans, but their deaths were included among those of whites. Similarly, although Italian immigrants were the focus of violence in Louisiana when they started arriving in greater numbers, their deaths were not tabulated separately from whites. In earlier years, whites who were subject to lynching were often targeted because of suspected political activities or support of freedmen, but they were generally considered members of the community in a way new immigrants were not. [25]

There were also black-on-black lynchings, with 125 recorded between 1882 and 1903, and there were four incidences of whites being killed by black mobs. The rate of black-on-black lynchings rose and fell in similar pattern of overall lynchings. There were also over 200 cases of white-on-white lynchings in the South before 1930. [54]

The Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Alabama, reported 3,959 American victims of "racial terror lynchings" in 12 Southern states from 1877 to 1950, and also provided a map of the murders. [134]

For most of the history of the United States, lynching was rarely prosecuted, as the same people who would have had to prosecute and sit on juries were generally on the side of the action or related to the perpetrators in the small communities where many lived. When the crime was prosecuted, it was under state murder statutes. In one example in 1907–09, the U.S. Supreme Court tried its only criminal case in history, 203 U.S. 563 (U.S. v. Sheriff Shipp). Shipp was found guilty of criminal contempt for doing nothing to stop the mob in Chattanooga, Tennessee that lynched Ed Johnson, who was in jail for rape. [135] In the South, blacks generally were not able to serve on juries, as they could not vote, having been disfranchised by discriminatory voter registration and electoral rules passed by majority-white legislatures in the late 19th century, who also imposed Jim Crow laws.

Starting in 1909, federal legislators introduced more than 200 bills in Congress to make lynching a Federal crime, but they failed to pass, chiefly because of Southern legislators' opposition. [136] Because Southern states had effectively disfranchised African Americans at the start of the 20th century, the white Southern Democrats controlled all the apportioned seats of the South, nearly double the Congressional representation that white residents alone would have been entitled to. They were a powerful voting bloc for decades and controlled important committee chairmanships. The Senate Democrats formed a bloc that filibustered for a week in December 1922, holding up all national business, to defeat the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill. It had passed the House in January 1922 with broad support except for the South. Representative Leonidas C. Dyer of St. Louis, the chief sponsor, undertook a national speaking tour in support of the bill in 1923, but the Southern Senators defeated it twice more in the next two sessions.

Under the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, the Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department tried, but failed, to prosecute lynchers under Reconstruction-era civil rights laws. The first successful federal prosecution of a lyncher for a civil rights violation was in 1946. By that time, the era of lynchings as a common occurrence had ended. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. succeeded in gaining House passage of an anti-lynching bill, but it was defeated in the Senate, still dominated by the Southern Democratic bloc, supported by its disfranchisement of blacks.

From 1882 to 1968, ". nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law." [18] The Southern Democratic block in the Senate prevented the passage of any anti-lynching bill during this period. In 2005, by a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, and passed by voice vote, the Senate made a formal apology for its failure to pass an anti-lynching law "when it was most needed". [18]

On December 19, 2018, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously in favor of the "Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018" which, for the first time in U.S. history, would make lynching a federal hate crime. [137] [138] The legislation had been reintroduced to the Senate earlier that year as Senate Bill S. 3178 by the three African-American U.S. senators, Tim Scott, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker. [139] As of June 2019 [update] the bill, which failed to become law during the 115th U.S. Congress, had been reintroduced as the Emmett Till Antilynching Act. The House of Representatives voted 410-4 to pass it on February 26, 2020. [140]

As of June 4, 2020, while protests and civil unrest over the murder of George Floyd were occurring nationwide, the bill was being considered by the Senate, with Senator Rand Paul preventing the bill from being passed by unanimous consent. Paul opposes the bill's language for being overly broad, including attacks which he felt were not extreme enough to qualify as "lynching", stating that "this bill would cheapen the meaning of lynching by defining it so broadly as to include a minor bruise or abrasion" and has proposed an amendment that would apply a "serious bodily injury standard" for a crime to be considered as lynching. [141] [142] [143]

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer criticized Rand Paul's position, saying on Twitter that "it is shameful that one GOP Senator is standing in the way of seeing this bill become law." Senator Kamala Harris added that "Senator Paul is now trying to weaken a bill that was already passed — there's no reason for this" while speaking to have the amendment defeated. [143] [141]

As of June 6th, 2021, no legislation has passed both houses of Congress.

State laws Edit

In 1933, California defined lynching, punishable by 2–4 years in prison, as "the taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of any peace officer", with the crime of "riot" defined as two or more people using violence or the threat of violence. [144] It does not refer to lynching homicide, and has been used to charge individuals who have tried to free someone in police custody – leading to controversy. [145] [146] In 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation by Senator Holly Mitchell removing the word "lynching" from the state's criminal code without comment after it received unanimous approval in a vote by state lawmakers. Mitchell stated, "It's been said that strong words should be reserved for strong concepts, and 'lynching' has such a painful history for African Americans that the law should only use it for what it is - murder by mob." The law was otherwise unchanged. [144]

In 1899, Indiana passed anti-lynching legislation. It was enforced by Governor Winfield T. Durbin, who forced investigation into a 1902 lynching and removed the sheriff responsible. In 1903 he sent militia to bring order to a race riot which had broken out on Independence Day in Evansville, Indiana. In 1920, 600 men attempted to remove a black prisoner from Marion County Jail, but were prevented by the city's police. [147] [148] Lawrence Beitler photographed the lynching of Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith in 1930 [149] in Marion, Indiana. Seeing this image inspired Abel Meeropol to write the song "Strange Fruit", [150] which was popularized by singer Billie Holiday. In reaction to these murders, Flossie Bailey pushed for passage [151] of the 1931 Indiana anti-lynching law. [152] The law provided for the immediate dismissal of any sheriff who allowed a jailed person to be lynched, and allowed the victim's family to sue for $10,000. However, local authorities failed to prosecute mob leaders. In one case when a sheriff was indicted by Indiana's attorney general, James Ogden, the jury refused to convict. [147] [148]

In an odd turn, in 1951 South Carolina passed a law criminalizing second-degree lynching, which it defined as "any act of violence inflicted by a mob upon the body of another person and from which death does not result shall constitute the crime of lynching in the second degree and shall be a felony. Any person found guilty of lynching in the second degree shall be confined at hard labor in the State Penitentiary for a term not exceeding twenty years nor less than three years, at the discretion of the presiding judge." [153] By 2003, however, all but two of the state's 46 counties charged blacks with second-degree lynching out of proportion to their representation in the population. In the prior 5 years, 4,000 adults were charged, and 136 were convicted. Black suspects were convicted of this assault charge at twice the rate of white suspects. 1,400 juvenile lynching charges were filed, and, in 2002, 231 black youths were convicted, ten times as many as white youths. [154] In 2006, five white teenagers were given various sentences for second-degree lynching in a non-lethal attack on a young black man in South Carolina. [155] In 2010, the South Carolina Sentencing Reform Commission voted to rename the law "assault and battery by a mob," and to soften consequences for situations in which no one was killed or seriously injured in an attack by two or more people on a single victim. [156] [157]

The 1935 New York anti-lynching exhibitions were held in support of the Costigan-Wagner Bill, with many artworks depicting lynching in various ways.

Literature and film Edit

    's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, an 1885 novel, depicts attempted (although failed) lynching as a minor episode. 's The Virginian, a 1902 seminal novel in the genre of Western novels in the United States, dealt with a fictional treatment of the Johnson County War and frontier lynchings in the West.
  • Tracked by Bloodhounds or, A Lynching at Cripple Creek, a 1904 silentcrime dramashort film directed by Harry Buckwalter. 's Rachel (1914) was the first play about the toll of racial violence directed at African-American families it was produced in 1916.
  • Following the commercial and critical success of D. W. Griffith's film, Birth of a Nation (1915), which glorified the Ku Klux Klan for its violence during Reconstruction, African-American director and writer Oscar Micheaux responded in 1919 with the film Within Our Gates. The climax of the film is the lynching of a black family after one member of the family is wrongly accused of murder. Considered a commercial failure, the film was an inductee of the 1992 National Film Registry list. [158] 's play, Climbing Jacob's Ladder, was about a lynching it was performed [when?] by the Krigwa Players (later called the Negro Experimental Theater), a Harlem theatre company. 's short story "Dry September" (1931) tells the story of a lynch mob forming in response to an alleged offense against a white woman. 's 1932 book Wild Pilgrimage (printed in woodblock prints, with no text) includes three prints of the lynching of several black men.
  • In Irving Berlin's 1933 musical, As Thousands Cheer,Ethel Waters sang a ballad about lynching, "Supper Time". She wrote in her 1951 autobiography, His Eye Was on the Sparrow: "if one song could tell the story of an entire race, that was it."
  • Murder in Harlem (1935), by director Oscar Micheaux, was one of three films he made based on events in the controversial trial of Leo Frank, a northern Jewish man convicted of murder of a Georgia factory girl. He portrayed the character analogous to Frank as guilty and set the film in New York, removing sectional conflict as one of the cultural forces in the trial. Micheaux's first version was a silent film, The Gunsaulus Mystery (1921). Lem Hawkins Confession (1935) was also related to the Leo Frank trial. [159] 's short story "The Vigilante" (1936) is retrospectively concerned with a lynching as seen by one of the chief participants in it. The story is based on historical events, namely the 1933 lynchings of John Maurice Holmes and Thomas Harold Thurmond in San Jose, California, on November 16, 1933. [160]
  • The film They Won't Forget (1937) was inspired by the Frank case it featured the Leo Frank character portrayed as a Christian.
  • In Fury (1936), the German expatriate Fritz Lang depicts a lynch mob burning down a jail in which Joe Wilson (played by Spencer Tracy) was held as a suspect in a kidnapping, a crime for which Wilson was soon after cleared. Lang had left Germany after the Nazis came to power. The story was based on a 1933 lynching in San Jose, California. This had been recorded on newsreel footage and was an event in which Governor of CaliforniaJames Rolph refused to intervene.
  • In Walter Van Tilburg Clark's 1940 novel, The Ox-Bow Incident, two drifters are drawn into a Western posse formed to find the murderer of a local man. After suspicion centered on three innocent cattle rustlers, they were lynched, an injustice that deeply affected the drifters. The novel was adapted as a 1943 film by the same name. It symbolized a wartime defense of United States' values, seen to be based on law, versus the characterization of Nazi Germany as mob rule. 's novel, To Kill a Mockingbird (1960), featured a black man, Tom Robinson, who is wrongfully accused of rape and narrowly escapes lynching. After having been wrongfully convicted by an all-white jury, Robinson is later killed while attempting to escape from prison. The novel was adapted as a 1962 film of the same name starring Gregory Peck.
  • "Going to Meet the Man" (1965) is a short story by James Baldwin that includes an account of a particularly horrific lynching.
  • The 1968 film Hang 'Em High, set on the Western frontier, stars Clint Eastwood.
  • The 1988 film Mississippi Burning includes a depiction of a black man being lynched. depicted several lynchings in his Killing Mr. Watson trilogy (first volume published in 1990), set in Florida of the late 19th century. [161]
  • "A Party Down at the Square" (first published in 1997) is a short story by Ralph Ellison that describes a lynching from the point of view of a white boy from Cincinnati. [162]
  • Vendetta, a 1999 HBO film starring Christopher Walken and directed by Nicholas Meyer, is based on events that took place in New Orleans in 1891. After the acquittal of 18 Italian-American men falsely accused of the murder of police chief David Hennessy, a lynch mob attacked them, killing 11 by shooting or hanging in one of the largest mass lynchings in United States history. 's musical Parade tells the story of Leo Frank, a Jewish man lynched near Atlanta, Georgia in the early 1900s after being convicted of murder of a young factory girl in a highly biased trial.
  • The 2014 biopic Get On Up about the life of American singer James Brown features a scene in which a young Brown finds the body of a lynched man hanging from a tree near Brown's childhood home. 's film The Hateful Eight (2015), set in the Reconstruction era, features a finale with a detailed depiction of the lynching of a white woman identified as a working-class racist Southerner, with graphic focus on her suffering, prompting some debate among critics about whether it is a political commentary on racism and hate in America or simply sensational and sexist exploitation. [163][164][165]

"Strange Fruit" Edit

Among artistic works that grappled with lynching was the song "Strange Fruit", written as a poem by Abel Meeropol in 1939 and recorded by Billie Holiday. In part it goes:

Southern trees bear a strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the Southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.


Women and Crime on the Frontier

The women residents of Aurora and Bodie, with the exception of those who were prostitutes, rarely suffered from any kind of crime or violence.[28] During Bodie's boom years there were only some 30 violent encounters between men and women, and prostitutes were involved in 25 of the incidents. When women assaulted or fought with other women, prostitutes accounted for 13 of the 17 recorded incidents. Very few of these violent encounters had serious consequences. Only one woman died as the result of an attack—in that case the woman was a former prostitute and her murderer was insane—and only one other was seriously injured.

Prostitutes unquestionably bore the brunt of the little violence against women that did occur. While "decent" women were treated with the greatest deference, prostitutes were socially ostracized and generally shown little respect. Newspapers often treated the punching or slapping of a prostitute humorously, and the attitude of the police and judges was only slightly better. Men who assaulted prostitutes were usually arrested for their attacks, but their punishments were far less severe than if they had assaulted "respectable" women. The double standard extended even to the graveyard. Prostitutes who died in Bodie were buried outside the fence of the graveyard. Prostitutes were both figuratively and literally outside the pale.

Nonetheless, even prostitutes do not seem to have been the victims of rape. There were no reported cases of rape in either Aurora or Bodie. Admittedly, rape might have occurred but was not reported. Rape is a crime that has often gone unreported in the past and even today rape victims are often reluctant to report an attack. However, in Bodie, there were two reports of attempted rape (in neither case was the allegation substantiated) and this possibly indicates that had rape occurred it would have been reported. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence of any sort that rape occurred but escaped the attention of the authorities.

On the other hand, there is a considerable body of evidence which indicates that women, other than prostitutes, were rarely the victims of any kind of offense and were treated with the utmost respect. Women enjoyed special status, partly because of the morality of the nineteenth century and partly because they were a rare commodity in western mining towns. Grant Smith, a one-time resident of Bodie, recalled: (p.132)

One of the remarkable things about Bodie, in fact, one of the striking features of all mining camps in the West, was the respect shown even by the worst characters to decent women. . . . I do not recall ever hearing of a respectable woman or girl in an manner insulted or even accosted by the hundreds of dissolute characters that were everywhere. In part, this was due to the respect that depravity pays to decency in part, to the knowledge that sudden death would follow any other course.[29]

Smith's warning of "sudden death" may seem like an exaggeration. Nevertheless, there is an example of a Bodieite who was sentenced to 30 days in jail merely for swearing while in the presence of women.[30]

Bodie women did not necessarily depend on men for defense against an attack. There were several instances of prostitutes or brothel madames grabbing guns and putting unruly, drunken customers to flight.[31] Prostitutes were not the only gun-totting women in Bodie. When a dispute arose between a man and a woman over the ownership of a portion of a city lot, the woman, believing herself to be the rightful owner, ordered the man off the property. However, as the Bodie Standard put it, since "he was a large man and she was a small lady, he concluded to tarry yet a while." The small lady quickly tired of the standoff, though. She pulled out a six-shooter, took dead aim at the man, and again ordered him to leave. This time he did, and in a hurry.[32]

Women in Bodie (and Aurora too), then, were generally well treated and quite capable, if armed, of defending themselves on the rare occasions when the need arose. Moreover, they do not seem to have suffered rape. Bodie's record of no rape leaves it with a rape rate of zero. In 1986 Atlanta led major U.S. cities with a rape rate of 152.8[33] Atlanta, though, was topped by Benton Harbor Michigan, which record an astounding rape rate of 295.9, Highland Park, Michigan, with a nearly equally astounding 237.7, and Compton, California 167.7.[34] Appleton had a rate of 8.0, well below the national rate of 37.5[35] From 1880 through 1882 Boston had a rape arrest rate of 3.0 and Salem 4.8.[36] A conversion factor of 2.4—a figure consistent with FBI data in 1986—gives the towns rape rates of 7.2 and 11.5.


The assassination of President John F. Kennedy — November 22, 1963

The assassination of President Kennedy is maybe the most researched, talked about, debated, and contested crimes in American history.

The Warren Commission, which was assigned to investigate the murder, found that a 24-year-old Marine veteran named Lee Harvey Oswald, and Oswald alone, shot Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas.

But for many skeptics, the findings of the Warren Commission raised more questions than answers.

Oswald was raised by a single mother in New Orleans. Throughout his life, he showed an inability to settle down. He became enamored with communism and tried to live in Moscow, but he was denied citizenship.

After shooting Kennedy, Oswald fled the building and killed a police officer along the way. When he was finally apprehended, he famously said, "I'm just a patsy."

This statement, along with Oswald's murder at the hands of vigilante local strip-club owner Jack Ruby, has spawned countless conspiracy theories.

How was such a high-profile suspect killed by a random vigilante? How did Oswald orchestrate the attack? Was he working with the Cubans? The Russians?

The nation lost a young, charismatic president in his prime, and with Oswald dead, we may never truly know why.


Jim Rassol/Sun Sentinel/Tribune News ServiceJim Rassol/Sun Sentinel/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

There were 793 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in Pompano Beach.

Here, Clinton Jones holds a portrait of his late son Corey Jones, who was shot to death by former police officer Nouman Raja. Raja was convicted of manslaughter and attempted first-degree murder in the case.


Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

After a decision by the Supreme Court affirming the right of individuals to own guns, then-Chicago Mayor Richard Daley sarcastically said, "Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets?" This is a common refrain heard in the gun debate. Gun control advocates fear -- and gun rights proponents sometimes hope -- the Second Amendment will transform our cities into modern-day versions of Dodge.

Yet this is all based on a widely shared misunderstanding of the Wild West. Frontier towns -- places like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge -- actually had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.

In fact, many of those same cities have far less burdensome gun control today then they did back in the 1800s.

Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."

A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.

In my new book, Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, there's a photograph taken in Dodge City in 1879. Everything looks exactly as you'd imagine: wide, dusty road clapboard and brick buildings horse ties in front of the saloon. Yet right in the middle of the street is something you'd never expect. There's a huge wooden billboard announcing, "The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited."

While people were allowed to have guns at home for self-protection, frontier towns usually barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public.

When Dodge City residents organized their municipal government, do you know what the very first law they passed was? A gun control law. They declared that "any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law." Many frontier towns, including Tombstone, Arizona--the site of the infamous "Shootout at the OK Corral"--also barred the carrying of guns openly.

Today in Tombstone, you don't even need a permit to carry around a firearm. Gun rights advocates are pushing lawmakers in state after state to do away with nearly all limits on the ability of people to have guns in public.

Like any law regulating things that are small and easy to conceal, the gun control of the Wild West wasn't always perfectly enforced. But statistics show that, next to drunk and disorderly conduct, the most common cause of arrest was illegally carrying a firearm. Sheriffs and marshals took gun control seriously.

Although some in the gun community insist that more guns equals less crime, in the Wild West they discovered that gun control can work. Gun violence in these towns was far more rare than we commonly imagine. Historians who've studied the numbers have determined that frontier towns averaged less than two murders a year. Granted, the population of these towns was small. Nevertheless, these were not places where duels at high noon were commonplace. In fact, they almost never occurred.

Why is our image of the Wild West so wrong? Largely for the same reason these towns adopted gun control laws in the first place: economic development. Residents wanted limits on guns in public because they wanted to attract businesspeople and civilized folk. What prospective storeowner was going to move to Deadwood if he was likely to be robbed when he brought his daily earnings to the bank?

Once the frontier was closed, those same towns glorified a supposedly violent past in order to attract tourists and the businesses to serve them. Gunfights were extremely rare in frontier towns, but these days you can see a reenactment of the one at the OK Corral several times a day. Don't forget to buy a souvenir!

The story of guns in America is far more complex and surprising than we've often been led to believe. We've always had a right to bear arms, but we've also always had gun control. Even in the Wild West, Americans balanced these two and enacted laws restricting guns in order to promote public safety. Why should it be so hard to do the same today?


Gun laws were tougher in old Tombstone

A billboard just outside this Old West town promises “Gunfights Daily!” and tourists line up each afternoon to watch costumed cowboys and lawmen reenact the bloody gunfight at the OK Corral with blazing six-shooters.

But as with much of the Wild West, myth has replaced history. The 1881 shootout took place in a narrow alley, not at the corral. Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday weren’t seen as heroic until later they were initially charged with murder.

And one fact is usually ignored: Back then, Tombstone had far stricter gun control than it does today. In fact, the American West’s most infamous gun battle erupted when the marshal tried to enforce a local ordinance that barred carrying firearms in public. A judge had fined one of the victims $25 earlier that day for packing a pistol.

“You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff’s office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn’t pick it up again until you were leaving town,” said Bob Boze Bell, executive editor of True West Magazine, which celebrates the Old West. “It was an effort to control the violence.”

A national debate over gun control has flared since a gunman killed six people and wounded 13 others, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, two weeks ago in Tucson. The suspect, Jared Lee Loughner, is accused of firing 31 shots from a Glock semiautomatic pistol with a high-capacity ammunition magazine.

Hours after the rampage, Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik appeared to partly blame Arizona’s lax gun laws for the violence, saying he opposed “letting everybody in the state carry weapons under any circumstances that they want, and that’s almost where we are.”

“I think we’re the Tombstone of the United States of America,” he declared.

Dupnik’s dig didn’t go down well here.

Deep in the desert southeast of Tucson, Tombstone is tucked in a sere landscape of gullies and gulches, sagebrush and sorrel. About 1,500 people call it home, though the population swells each day as tourists clomp down wooden sidewalks, munch buffalo burgers and shop for cowboy kitsch.

Dupnik has “bank robberies and murders every week up there,” fired back Ben Traywick, 83, a Tombstone historian who keeps a pistol on his desk and a shotgun nearby. “And he’s bad-mouthing us? If you wanted to commit a crime, would you go to a town where everyone carries a gun? We have no crime.”

But that’s another Tombstone myth.

Local crime is low by big-city standards. But given the size of its population, with two rapes and 10 assaults in 2009, the last year for which figures are available, the town’s violent-crime rate was higher than the state’s average on a statistical basis. Similarly, with 88 crimes total, the town’s crime index per 100,000 was higher than the national average, 475.5 compared with 319.2.

Arizona’s gun laws are among the most lenient in the nation. Under legislation passed last year, guns are permitted almost everywhere in the state except doctors’ offices and some businesses. It is one of three states, along with Alaska and Vermont, that allow people 21 or older to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Concealed guns may be carried into bars as long as the gun owner isn’t drinking, and guns are permitted on school grounds as long as the weapon is unloaded and the owner remains in a vehicle.

Any law-abiding citizen 18 or older may buy or possess a rifle or shotgun. To buy a handgun, federal law requires a minimum age of 21. Firearms may be sold 14 hours a day, seven days a week, except Christmas.

Arizona’s love of guns is rooted in its rugged rural history and enshrined in the state’s constitution, drafted in 1910. “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired,” it reads. The state celebrates its independent spirit and a culture of individual rights and distrust of government.

Given its lurid past, Tombstone may not be a typical community. But it provides vivid evidence of what state law allows in practice.

“In this town, pretty much everyone carries a gun,” said John Wiest, 65, a storekeeper who patted a Ruger semiautomatic pistol on his side.

“I carry it into the bank when I go in to make a deposit each morning,” said Dave Ericson, 60, a California native who moved here last year and wears a working reproduction of an 1873 Colt Peacemaker in a hand-tooled holster on his hip. “No one even looks up.”

A few shops and restaurants in the historic district, including Big Nose Kate’s Saloon, remain true to the Old West gun ordinances that were common on the frontier and have posted “No Weapons Allowed” on their doors. A block away, the OK Corral gunfight site similarly bars anyone from bringing a real gun to the fake gunfight.

Still, many here view the idea of gun control — even restricting sales of the extended-ammunition magazine used in the Tucson shootings — as little better than cattle-rustling.

“Once you take something away, it’s just a foot in the door,” said G.T. Amell, 64, who retired here from North Carolina and who wore a leather-fringe jacket and a handlebar mustache. The Tucson killer, he said, “is just one nut in 310 million people. It’s just going to happen.”

Out on Boot Hill, where rocky graves still mark the remains of the three men killed in the 1881 shootout, as well as others who were shot, stabbed, hanged and, in one case, “taken from the county jail and lynched,” Janet Presser, a 47-year-old Nevada visitor, was also skeptical of curbing gun sales.

“My view is any kind of rule limiting guns only limits honest people from getting weapons,” she said, snapping photos of Tombstone’s tombstones.

In its heyday, Tombstone was a rough-and-tumble silver mining town with more than its share of saloons, gambling dens and prostitutes, then known euphemistically as “soiled doves.” But so were lots of other Old West settlements.

So what made it famous? On Oct. 26, 1881, the three Earp brothers and Doc Holliday faced off against four supposed desperadoes in a 15-foot-wide alley between two buildings a block from the OK Corral. “We have come to disarm you,” warned Virgil Earp, the marshal, seeking to enforce the town gun ordinance. It was never clear who fired first, but when the dust cleared, three of the cowboys lay dead and their leader, Ike Clanton, had run away.

The gunfight was little known until the 1920s, when a pulp novelist dubbed it the “Gunfight at the OK Corral” and Hollywood turned it into a symbol of the Wild West. That too was a kind of myth.

“Believe it or not, Tombstone had one of the few stand-up fights where men squared off and just shot it out,” said Marshall Trimble, Arizona’s state historian. “That kind of thing was really rare. Also, it was named Tombstone. If they had fought it out in Bisbee or Benson, we might never have heard of it.”


The Dangerous Racialization of Crime in U.S. News Media

From the start of his presidency, Donald Trump has consistently proven his effectiveness at using fear as a political weapon. At his 2016 inauguration, President Trump claimed that the United States was ridden with poverty and “rampant crime,” vowing to put an end to this “American carnage.” Since then, he has perpetuated false claims that murder rates are rising overall, even though violent crime rates declined in the nation’s largest cities in 2017, continuing the national trend of reduced crime. President Trump has also put unauthorized immigrants at the center of crime by exaggerating the scope and threat of MS-13.

According to new polling by the Center for American Progress and GBA Strategies, this fearmongering works. Eighty-eight percent of survey respondents regarded crime on the national level as either a “major problem” or an “immediate crisis.” Meanwhile, only 52 percent felt the same way about their local communities. These levels of fear are inconsistent with national data on crime rates, which has found that both violent and property crime rates have fallen steadily since the 1990s. Furthermore, the drastic 36-percentage-point difference between local and national levels of concern suggests that a disparity exists between how individuals feel in their day-to-day lives and how they view crime in the context of the entire nation. Yet, despite this difference in perception, both national and local media overreport violent crime and are thus considered in this column.

Whether intentionally or not, the news media has amplified national-level fear through its reporting on President Trump. Because national crime perception is an abstract concept, it is likely that the news media plays an outsized role in shaping the public’s imagination. Indeed, the news media not only contributes to the public’s overestimation of crime through how it reports on the president’s controversies, but it also overreports on violent crime—feeding destructive racial and ethnic biases about those responsible.

The racial and ethnic criminal narrative in U.S. news media

Black Americans, and black men in particular, are overrepresented as perpetrators of crime in U.S. news media. This is especially true when looking at the incidence of violent crime. For example, one study of late-night news outlets in New York City in 2014 found that the media reported on murder, theft, and assault cases in which black people were suspects at a rate that far outpaced their actual arrest rates for these crimes. The news media also vilifies black people by presenting black crime suspects as more threatening than their white counterparts. It does this in several ways, such as by showing the mug shots of black suspects more frequently than those of white suspects depicting black suspects in police custody more often and paying greater attention to cases where the victim is a stranger.

In addition to stoking fear toward black people, the news media worsens racial tensions between black and white people by specifically perpetuating a narrative of white victimization. Homicide, for example, is a largely intraracial crime, but the news media greatly overreports on less common cases of black people committing homicide against white people.

Latinos are similarly maligned in the news media. A study found that 66 percent of the time, news coverage between 1995 and 2004 showed Latinos in the context of either crime or immigration rather than in other contexts. More recent analysis confirms these findings. This treatment of Latinos as criminals and outsiders is especially concerning given that Latinos are otherwise rarely represented in the news media. A recent study found that between 2008 and 2014, stories focused on Latinos and issues concerning Latino communities composed just 0.78 percent of coverage on national evening network news. To put this in perspective, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN dedicated an average of just 87 seconds of coverage on Latinos per day—combined—from 2008 to 2014.

In the same way that it overrepresents black people in its coverage of crime, the news media’s overrepresentation of Latinos as lawbreakers and outsiders is troubling considering the overall lack of coverage of Latinos. Also, similar to the coverage of black people, coverage of Latinos often speaks in generalities when the story is unfavorable. Positive coverage, meanwhile, is likely to focus on individuals, which allows positive attributes to be seen as the exception, not the rule. In comparison, coverage of white suspects rushes to emphasize the humane aspects of the offender, even in instances when the crime is far more horrendous than a crime committed by blacks or Latinos.

How the news media affects public opinion

These biases have real-world impacts on public opinion. In a 2012 study, for instance, participants who consumed just one minute of negative news or entertainment on Latinos were much more likely to rate Latinos as unintelligent—even those participants who were disposed to have positive opinions about Latinos at the beginning of the study. The study also found that viewers of Fox News and other conservative talk shows were more likely to hold negative views of Latinos, despite being less likely to know Latinos personally. The result is the criminalization of Latino communities and a negative view of immigration that has led to so-called zero-tolerance policies that are not only ineffective, but also disastrous for those affected.

Biased perceptions of crime can be equally damaging when applied to the criminal justice system. For example, frequent news viewers are more likely to support the use of the death penalty in a hypothetical case, a preference that is dangerous for people of color. A study of Philadelphia, for example, found that black defendants were 3.9 times more likely to receive the death penalty than defendants who committed similar murders. This is most likely due to racialized perceptions of crime, as frequent news viewers are also less likely to believe that black people face structural barriers to success. In addition, public perception of more racial integration is closely linked to greater fear of crime and increased support for punitive measures.

These racialized perceptions play out in the courtroom as well. A study shows that for the same crime, black male offenders receive sentences that are, on average, 19.1 percent longer than those of their white male counterparts. Other studies show that both black and Latino youth are also more likely than white youth to have prosecutors request that they be tried as adults. None of these studies could find a factor other than race—such as the severity of the offense—to explain disparities in prosecutor requests. Thus, racial biases endanger black people and Latinos both inside and outside the criminal justice system—whether through racialized perceptions of crime or unfair sentencing policies.

Conclusion

The news media is an important American institution that is integral to shaping public perception. Purposefully or not, it has unfortunately often spread both fear and racial prejudice, which policymakers have exploited to push through agendas that harm black and Latino communities. Under the Trump administration, it is especially important that the news media look beyond its internal biases and refrain from giving unnecessary publicity to false claims. Only when policymakers and the public have an accurate and data-driven understanding of crime can the United States work toward fair criminal justice policies that are smart on crime.

Elizabeth Sun is a former intern for Criminal Justice Reform at the Center for American Progress.


Watch the video: Poverty in Arkansas.