the change in meaning was partly due to the fact that lynching came to be a favorite means of punishment for abolitionists, their Negro dupes, and for both Negroes and whites who might be found guilty of unusual or shocking crimes.

The change from the mild to the severer meaning of the term was gradual. From 1830 to 1840 [11]it seldom meant “to put to death”; from 1850 to 1860 it very often had that meaning, and by 1870, or 1875,—this became the almost exclusive interpretation of “lynching,” even as at present.

[11]

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

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

When, about 1830, the Anti-Slavery agitation began to attract some attention there were a number of anti-slavery societies in the South. These, however, soon broke up as those formed in the North became unreasonable. The net effect of the societies in the North was to produce distrust and even hatred at the South. It could hardly have been otherwise, for the Northern anti-slavery propagandists during the whole period of such [12]agitation seemed to have regard for neither law nor common sense. Nothing better could have been expected from them, however, as, for the most part, the abolitionists were poor, misguided men and women. Instead of adopting persuasive methods and of showing a fair and conciliatory spirit, they were dictatorial, inflammatory and menacing. And by whatever of higher law or Divine inspiration they may have claimed to be actuated, they failed to recognize the fact that they had to deal with human beings and human institutions.

[12]

Again, on whatever lofty plane of morality they professed to stand, their propaganda did not comprehend even ordinary honesty. Indeed, it appears as only another illustration,—for history affords so many instances,—of self-elected good men endeavoring to impose their own half-blind perception of the way of the Lord, or their own ideas of 

 Prev. P 3/89 next