Criminals Faced Consequences In The Old West
There are a lot of folks today who see lynchings as something that is "racist" or only done by drunken mobs. In reality, lynchings were neither when the people stood up and said, "Enough is enough" to the criminal element in their towns and cities.
Most of you who read my blog must be tired of me repeating myself when it comes to the need for Citizens Committees, also known as Vigilante Committees or Vigilance Committees, in the Old West. But really, we have to acknowledge the truth of what was taking place at the time and the mindset of the people back then.
Back in the day, back in the early days, when our nation was young, the law was either new or not present. In some cases in some places, county sheriffs were just being appointed for the first time, city marshal positions were brand new, the law was nowhere to be found for miles, and the people had to apply what they believed was the law. In many instances, they observed laws that were common sense and predicated on an understanding of right and wrong. With that, people created principles to live by.
Those principles are about the importance of honesty, integrity, respecting others, maintaining a moral compass and doing what's right, having faith in God, and living by the Golden Rule of treating others as you would want to be treated. These principles were crucial because people had to rely on each other for survival during a time when life on the American frontier was difficult and dangerous. And yes, I truly believe that those same principles that helped settle the American West are what we need to live by today.When there was practically no law to restrain the criminal element, and when there were those roaming the West who did not value human life, everyone understood that criminals completely disregard civilized behavior. It was understood that there were no excuses for the bad actions of outlaws.
During that time, communities had to form groups to protect their communities. In the earliest days of our nation, the English-speaking Colonies called the citizens who banded together to provide their communities with some sort of security, "Citizen Watch Groups." In Spanish-speaking Colonies, those same groups were called, "Grupos de vigilantes," or "Vigilante groups." The tradition of such groups pre-dates the establishment of organized law enforcement.
The citizens who participated in those groups were not the bar-flies who hung out at the local saloons, those loafers and petty thieves who were known as "Bummers" at the time, they were not the dregs of society who were considered immoral, worthless, and of no value. Citizens Committees were usually made up of the same people who made up the local militia, they were merchants, members of the fire brigade, teachers, clergy, council members, and respected citizens. And yes, most were well-known and didn't hide behind masks -- at least not at first.
Because the people, the citizenry, your neighbors, and your friends, provided for the security of your towns and communities, it is a fact that the lack of legal restraint made communities more free from crime than many communities that had no citizen participation because they were under the protection of the law in the form of organized law enforcement.
The following is about the first lynching in Sacramento. It took place in February of 1851. The story below is taken from the History of Sacramento County, California, by William Willis, published 1913:
The first victim of the aroused sentiment was a professional gambler named Frederick J. Roe. A quarrel arose at a monte table in the Mansion House, at the corner of Front and J Streets, and he engaged in a fight with an unknown man. They were separated several times by the bystanders, but as often renewed the conflict.
At length Charles Humphrey Myers, a peaceable and industrious man and a partner in the blacksmithing establishment of Joseph Prader & Co., again parted them and was fatally shot by Roe, the ball, which entered his head, not killing him immediately. He was carried into the shop, where the surgeons announced that his wound was necessarily fatal.
A crowd gathered and the excitement became intense. Dr. Mackinzie, who was a member of the city council, mounted a wagon and made a vehement address, saying that crime had run rampant long enough and that the courts and officers did not seem able to prevent it. It must be stopped somehow, or honest and respectable people would have to leave the city; that the people had the remedy in their own hands, and they owed it to society that they should exercise it.
David B. Milne and Ross and Taplin spoke to the same effect. A meeting was organized and Ross was chosen president. It was ascertained that Roe had been taken into custody and was in the station house, corner of Second and J Streets, and the meeting determined to bring him out.
A man named Everard addressed it, saying that if we ever intended to rid the city of the scoundrels infesting it, now was the time. He advocated the appointment of a committee to determine what should be done, and James Queen urged the selection of a jury to try the prisoner.
The crowd frequently interrupted them with cheers and shouts of "Hang him!"
City Marshal N. C. Cunningham addressed the crowd, saying that he had the prisoner in custody and that he could not escape, and asked them in the name of God and of Sacramento to let him be tried by the proper tribunal, the courts of the country. He was interrupted by the cries of "No, no; they have proved useless to prevent crime and punish murder."
"If he doesn't get justice in the courts," said Cunningham, "I will help you to get it. I pledge my honor, I'll resign my office and help you; but I am an officer of the law and cannot let you have him."
His voice was drowned in cries of "Let the people have a jury."
James Queen spoke again, saying that he was "in favor of having laws and supporting them, but they had proved inoperative. Let us have a people's jury as San Francisco did." [This is a reference to the San Francisco Committee of Vigilance].C. A. Tweed was called to the chair and said he believed the prisoner was a great scoundrel and ought to be hanged, but he wanted it done according to law. He was hustled out of the chair and a man named Scranton replaced him. Justice of the Peace Bullock pleaded for law and order, but his voice was smothered by cries for a jury.
A jury was chosen and all accepted except F. C. Ewer, who said he was a newspaperman and must report the proceedings impartially, and Dr. J. V. Spalding was appointed in his place. The jury retired to the Orleans Hotel on Second Street, and Levi Hermance was appointed foreman and George G. Wright secretary.
A committee was appointed to guard the prisoner and see that the officers did not remove him. The marshal and other officers pleaded, but it had no effect.
The privilege of a lawyer for the prisoner was proposed and was voted down. Committees were sent to the jury room to ask them to hurry up, as they were too deliberate to suit the crowd of twenty-five hundred people determined on lynching.
The committee reported that the jury was acting fairly, but needed the protection of the people to keep the lawyers out, as they could elicit the testimony themselves. The lawyers were ordered out — and stayed out.
Tweed undertook to make the point that Myers was not yet dead, but the crowd would have none of it, and one man shouted that it was a deliberate murder that had made a widow and four orphans. "Blood for blood. He must die. All those in favor of hanging say 'aye'." He was answered by a storm of "ayes."
Dr. Taylor wanted men to go with him and take the prisoner, saying that if they had him they would know where he was. A large number stepped forward but were stopped by a cry that the jury had agreed.The verdict was read from the balcony of the Orleans and was listened to in silence. It was as follows:
"We, the committee of investigation appointed by our fellow citizens to investigate the circumstances of the unfortunate occurrence that took place this afternoon, report that after a full and impartial examination of the evidence, we find that at about 2 o'clock p.m. this day, Frederick J. Roe and some other person, whose name is unknown, were engaged in an altercation which originated in the Mansion House, and that after said parties had proceeded to the street, and where they were fighting, Charles H. Myers, who was passing in the street, interfered with words requesting them to desist fighting or show fair play; and that immediately thereupon the said Roe called out, "What the devil have you to say?" and drew his pistol and without further provocation shot said Myers through the head."
Signed; John H. Scrautou, W. F. Prettyman, J.'b. Starr, H. H. Langley, George G. Wright, Harrison Olmstead, John T. Bailey, EdwardCronan, D. 0. Mills, F. B. Cornwall, A. M. Winn, L. Hermance."
These signers composed the entire jury except Dr. Spalding, who participated for some time, but withdrew in consequence of what he considered the undue influence of the people's committee sent to the jury.
As soon as the verdict was read, there was a stampede for the station house. Dr. Taylor, who had from the first urged immediate action, stated that he had conversed with the prisoner and found him penitent; that he thought the murder was without malice or deliberation and he hoped a connnittee would be appointed to guard the prisoner till next day, when a course of action might be determined.
He was hooted down by the crowd. A. D. Rightmyer said the verdict had been murder, and he considered it the duty of all good citizens to see it carried out; he was ready on his part. The assembly elected him marshal by acclamation.
About 9 o'clock awning posts were pulled up and made into battering rams, under the blows from which the doors of the station house soon gave way. Deputy Sheriff Harris stood in the doorway with a small posse and by remonstrance and threats to tire kept the mob at bay for a short time, but they soon crowded in and took him and his posse prisoners.
Roe was found chained in an inner cell and it was found difficult to get his shackles off.
As soon as that was done, he was informed that he was to be hanged forthwith on one of the large oak trees that stood on Sixth Street, between K and L Street. Arriving at the spot where a staging had been placed for the purpose, he was placed on the stage, his hands and feet tied, and Rev. M. C. Briggs was sent for.
Through him, Roe said that he had shot Myers in a fit of passion and had nothing more to say in self-defense, that he was an Englishman by birth, was twenty years old, and had a mother and sister living in England. After the minister had concluded his duties, a noose was placed around the prisoner's neck, the rope being thrown over one of the big limbs of a tree, and many strong hands drew him up to his fate in the presence of five thousand people. Myers was not yet dead at the time of Roe's execution. Thus was the first lynching in Sacramento, California, in 1851.
Here is how it was reported in the Daily Pacific News on February 27, 1851:Yesterday afternoon, about two o'clock, an awful scene took place in front of the Mansion House on the corner of Front and J Streets, which has resulted in the death of two persons. A fight occurred over a French Monte Table, between a man by the name of Fred. J. Roe and a miner (name unknown).
We, the Committee of Investigation appointed by our fellow-citizens, to investigate the circumstances of the unfortunate occurrence that took place this afternoon, doreport that after a full and impartial examination of the evidence in the case, we find that, at about two o'clock, p. m., this day. Frederick J. Roe, and some other person whose name is unknown, were engaged in an altercation, which originated at a gambling table in the Alansion House, and that after said parties had proceeded into the street, and were there fighting, Charles H. Myers, who was passing in the street, interfered with words requesting them to desist fighting or show fair play; and that immediately thereupon the said Roe called out, "What the devil have you to say?" and drew his pistol and without further provocation shot said Charles H. Myers through the head. Signed: John. F. Scranton, John T. Bayley, W. F. Pretty man, Edward Cronin, J. B. Starr, D. O. Mills, H. G. Langley, P. B. Cornwall, A. Al. Winn, Geo T. Wright, Harrison Olmstead, L. Hermance.
It was then announced that the prisoner would be hung on Sixth Street, between K and L from one of the large oaks. The crowd proceeded immediately to that point, at about half-past nine o'clock. The prisoner was strongly guarded, and taken up J to the intersection of Fifth Street, when he was taken down the same, and up K to Sixth and then to the place of execution.”
As you probably noticed, there are slight differences between Willis' 1913 History of Sacramento versus what was reported in the Daily Pacific News story. Besides the rhetoric of the participants and the crowd which was stated in the History of Sacramento, the other thing left out of the newspaper account was that Myers was not yet dead at the time of Roe's execution. The news story also failed to mention how that was the first lynching in Sacramento, California.
Of course, I found it interesting that the date of the lynching, February 26, 1851, was left out of Willis' 1913 History of Sacramento. Thankfully the newspaper gave us that information.
As for those who repeat the lie that lynchings were "racist" or only done by drunken mobs? As you can see from the story of what took place in Sacramento, California, in February of 1851, there was nothing "racist" or "offensive" about townspeople standing up and saying, "Enough is enough" to the criminal element in their town.
And no, it was certainly not "a mob." It was not a drunken reckless mob gathered to override the courts and law while striking terror into the hearts of peaceable citizens. It was an organized assembly. They saw themselves as assisting the courts in the great end for which they were formed -- to serve justice. They called for a meeting of the townspeople and thousands showed up.
Of course, as with people today, even back then people in the Old West knew how lawyers would get their guilty clients lighter sentences, pardons, and acquittals. Many acquittals were granted because of technicalities in the law back in the day, just as they are today. Knowing this, the people said, "No, that's not going to happen in this case." They proved that when they dismissed the lawyers from attending the deliberation over the facts of the case.
Let's remember what the people of San Francisco agreed to when they formed their now famous Vigilance Committee of 1851: They "unite themselves into an association, for the maintenance of the peace and good order of society and the preservation of the lives and property of the citizens of San Francisco, and do bind ourselves, each unto the other, to do and perform every lawful act for the maintenance of law and order, and to sustain the laws when faithfully and properly administered. But we are determined that no thief, burglar, incendiary, or assassin shall escape punishment either by the quibbles of the law, the insecurity of prisons, the carelessness or corruption of the police, or laxity of those who pretend to administer justice."
In Sacramento on that February night in 1851, thousands of townspeople decided that they were not going to allow murderer Frederick J. Roe to "escape punishment either by the quibbles of the law, the insecurity of prisons, the carelessness or corruption of the police, or laxity of those who pretend to administer justice." That simply wasn't going to happen that night.
Because of the diligence of the people, and as a result of their distrust in the Justice System to do its job, they made Frederick J. Roe face the consequences for what he did. He was made to answer for the senseless cold-blooded murder of Charles Humphrey Myers.
And while people will write to tell me that such executions were "racist," "offensive," and "uncivilized," it's not "racist," "offensive," or "uncivilized" to make criminals account for breaking the law. It's certainly not "racist," "offensive," or "uncivilized," to hang someone who murders someone in cold blood. While it may have been retribution, "the punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act," punishing a cold-blooded murderer is certainly not seen as "racist" or "offensive" by most people -- even today.
Tom Correa
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment.