Why weren't there lynchings in New England in late 1800s & early 1900s?

[sevensages]

Thousands of people were lynched in the American South in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Although most lynchings occurred in the South, there were still plenty of lynchings in the North. The lynching of Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith in Indiana and the Duluth lynchings in Minnesota come to mind. There were plenty of lynchings out West as well. The history of lynching in America has much to do with racism, but lynching in America was definitely not entirely about racism. About a quarter of the people who were lynched in America were white. Some of the black people who were lynched in America were lynched by black lynch mobs.

Why weren't there lynchings in New England in the late 19th century and early 20th century?

Before anyone says that my question is based on a false premise because James Cullen was lynched in the state of Maine in 1873, let me say this: The lynching of James Cullen was one lynching. I asked why there were not lynchings in New England in the late 19th century and early 20th century. The letter "s" at the end of the word lynching means that the word lynchings is plural. Therefore, I am asking why there was not more than one lynching in New England in the late 19th century and early 20th century. My question does not rely on a false premise that there was no lynching in New England in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

The states comprising New England are Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachussetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.

 

[gleem]

Why do you ask "why weren't there more lynching in New England compared to the rest of the country? Massachusetts and Vermont were early leading states of the abolitionist movement. New England in general became "free" states not returning escaped slaves as required by the US Consitution (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3), and after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a gateway to Canada for run-away slaves.

 

[Klystron]

Rather than overusing the colloquial 'lynchings', consider terms such as 'extra judicial killings'. Else we can limit lynching to mean hanging until death. If lynching is further limited to mean extra judicial hanging of Black people then a dearth of such events in New England can be explained by demographics: a low population of Black people.

America was colonized by people of many different cultures with different execution methods and goals. Ancient Rome and its provinces practiced torture -- literally 'twisting' in Latin. Depending on the crime, the status of the miscreant, the mood of the mob, the vagaries of the practioners, victims might be broken, scarred and maimed but not necessarily killed, left alive as a warning to others. Strangulation was a common execution technique without acual hanging. Julius Caesar kept a captured Gaul leader imprisoned for years in order to publically strangle him to honor his investiture as Dictator.

In its time New England practised many forms of torture including immersion (drowning), pressing with weights, penetration with needles, beatings and whipping that would not be considered lynchings, sanctioned by law or by mob. Consider also that before the Entertainment Age executions and torture were public spectacles as was popular in pre-Enlightenment England following Roman practices. New Englanders practised many punishment methods including hanging but several communities discouraged public spectacles.

 

[harborsparrow]

Three main reasons. The indigenous peoples were subdued or removed or wiped out or assimilated there early on. They were not huge ports of immigration. The economy had never relied on cotton or tobacco growing (which used slavery), thus there were fewer African Americans. So the opportunities and incentives to blame and attack people deemed different, outsiders or a threat were far less common than in other regions.

Please resist the urge to think it was merely because people were more compassionate in those places. Remember the Salem witch trials. I think human nature is potentially just as bad everywhere if the conditions and incentives were to be there.

 

[sbrothy]

Three main reasons. The indigenous peoples were subdued or removed or wiped out or assimilated there early on. They were not huge ports of immigration. The economy had never relied on cotton or tobacco growing (which used slavery), thus there were fewer African Americans. So the opportunities and incentives to blame and attack people deemed different, outsiders or a threat were far less common than in other regions.

Please resist the urge to think it was merely because people were more compassionate in those places. Remember the Salem witch trials. I think human nature is potentially just as bad everywhere if the conditions and incentives were to be there.

I think you're pretty much right. (I must admit I had to look up the geographical region of New England). I sometimes mix up the way Americans express centuries but wasn't this around the time of the Jim Crow Laws or was that a century later?!

EDIT: I'm aware that the racism was problably even worse before....

 

[sevensages]

Three main reasons. The indigenous peoples were subdued or removed or wiped out or assimilated there early on. They were not huge ports of immigration. The economy had never relied on cotton or tobacco growing (which used slavery), thus there were fewer African Americans. So the opportunities and incentives to blame and attack people deemed different, outsiders or a threat were far less common than in other regions.

Please resist the urge to think it was merely because people were more compassionate in those places. Remember the Salem witch trials. I think human nature is potentially just as bad everywhere if the conditions and incentives were to be there.

Why weren't there lynchings in New England of white lynch mobs lynchings white people?

 

[sevensages]

I think you're pretty much right. (I must admit I had to look up the geographical region of New England). I sometimes mix up the way Americans express centuries but wasn't this around the time of the Jim Crow Laws or was that a century later?!

EDIT: I'm aware that the racism was problably even worse before....

Yes; the peak of the lynchings in the United States was during the time of the Jim Crow Laws.

 

[sevensages]

Why do you ask "why weren't there more lynching in New England compared to the rest of the country?

I ask why weren't there lynchings in New England because I find it to be an interesting historical question.

 

[sevensages]

Someone can explain away part of the reason that there weren't lynchings in New England because it was a racially homogenous area with very little racial tensions, and I think part of it can be explained away by saying that New England had a well established justice system with law & order unlike the Wild West. But that does not enitely explain away the lack of lynchings in New England IMO because we are still left with the question: why didn't white lynch mobs lynch white criminals in New England?

 

[sbrothy]

Someone can explain away part of the reason that there weren't lynchings in New England because it was a racially homogenous area with very little racial tensions, and I think part of it can be explained away by saying that New England had a well established justice system with law & order unlike the Wild West. But that does not enitely explain away the lack of lynchings in New England IMO because we are still left with the question: why didn't white lynch mobs lynch white criminals in New England?

If you want to hear something even worse then look into the treatment of the Indigenous Australians. There are absolutely b....... insane stories of people murdering packs of them and then getting acquitted because they "didn't know" it was illegal to kill them like vermin. Even after a trial where white people where hanged it just continued but without anyone bragging about it!

EDIT: I'm not trying to diminish the suffering of the black people in the US but some of the Australian stories are truly horrific.

 

[sbrothy]

I take it somewhat personally as Denmark has been in charge of Greenland (the people there having a history of being second-class citizens). Perhaps the killings may not have been so outright, but the racism up until today is quite real. Much like in Australia. It makes me outright outraged.

 

[sbrothy]

Oh, we're on PF. This thread should be on CW. I thought it were. I'm truly sorry.

EDIT: Or at least I made it belong there. So, my fault.

EDIT2: I'm gonna configure different colors....

 

[sbrothy]

I ask why weren't there lynchings in New England because I find it to be an interesting historical question.

Wasn't New England further north? I can hear it sounds pretty thin. I think it's a good question. Perhaps they were just more discrete?

 

[sbrothy]

Racism in New England has historically included discriminatory housing policies, school segregation, and violent mob actions such as the 1835 Cincinnati riots and the 1921 Tulsa race massacre aftermath, though New England's patterns differed from the Deep South.

---- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States

EDIT: And Tulsa, I remember, was also truly horrific.

 

[sbrothy]

Wasn't New England further north? I can hear it sounds pretty thin. I think it's a good question. Perhaps they were just more discrete?

So, so much for that!

 

[sbrothy]

Why weren't there lynchings in New England of white lynch mobs lynchings white people?

OK. That's a bender. Has that ever been a thing? Apart from economical or territorial reasons?

EDIT: "mind"-bender.

 

[sevensages]

OK. That's a bender. Has that ever been a thing? Apart from economical or territorial reasons?

EDIT: "mind"-bender.

Yes. I said in the OP that about 25% of lynching victims were white people lynched by white lynch mobs.

 

[sevensages]

Wasn't New England further north? I can hear it sounds pretty thin. I think it's a good question. Perhaps they were just more discrete?

New England is in the Northeastern part of the United States.


I don't think you know the meaning of the word discrete.

 

[sbrothy]

New England is in the Northeastern part of the United States.


I don't think you know the meaning of the word discrete.

With "discrete" (I may be spelling it wrong, I am from Denmark after all), I mean keeping it somewhat secret, not yelling out my intent, not telling everyone what I'm doing. But you're right: I meant "discreet":

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discreet

 

[sbrothy]

With "discrete" (I may be spelling it wrong, I am from Denmark after all), I mean keeping it somewhat secret, not yelling out my intent, not telling everyone what I'm doing. But you're right: I meant "discreet":

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discreet

Which Danish words do you know?

EDIT: I'm joking!

EDIT2: In Danish it's called "at være diskret". "To be discreet.". I'm really sorry. :P

EDIT3: But really, tell me when you master another language. Any language at all.

 

[sbrothy]

Seriously, it was a joke! Of course I don't expect you to know an obscure language like Danish, but it was a subtle difference no?

 

[gleem]

But that does not enitely explain away the lack of lynchings in New England IMO because we are still left with the question: why didn't white lynch mobs lynch white criminals in New England?

You answered your own question

I think part of it can be explained away by saying that New England had a well established justice system with law & order unlike the Wild West.tensions, and

There were very few (2?), recorded lynchings of black people in New England. As you stated, white lynchings make up about a quarter of all lynchings in the US.

Most(?) lynchings occurred to put/keep black people in their place, particularly in the South.