Willie Lynch Letter - Another Urban Legend

[Rain Man]

Hey, everyone.

I ran across this article here written by William Jelani Cobb, a Spelman College professor who proclaims that the famous Willie Lynch letter is a fake - which personally, I agree with him. I mean after all, HC we never heard of this letter before the 1990s--I first heard it back in 1995. And some of the language in the letter is anachronistic. That's just to say the very least.

But here, read the article:

Willie Lynch Is Dead (1712? - 2003)

By William Jelani Cobb

I long ago stopped listening to sentences that begin with "The problem with black people is," or end with "and that's why black people can't get ahead now," which partly explains my initial indifference to the now-famous William Lynch Speech.
The letter was never "discovered." It just showed up on the Internet one day.
In the few years since the speech on how to train slaves first appeared, it has been cited by countless college students and a black member of the House of Representatives, along the way becoming the essential verbal footnote in barbershop analysis of what's wrong with black people. The rapper Talib Kweli laments on the song "Know That," "blacks are dyin'/how to make a slave/by Willie Lynch is still applyin'," and one professor at a Midwestern university made the speech required reading for her class. Of late, the frequency of its citations seems to be increasing — at least three people have asked me about it in the last month.

According to the speech's preface, Master Lynch was concerned enough with the fortunes of his slave-holding brethren in the American colonies to present a lecture on the bank of the James River, explaining how to keep unruly servants disunited. The old, he argued, should be pitted against the young, the dark against the light, the male against the female and so on. Such disunifying tactics "will control the slaves for at least 300 years," he guaranteed. And that, it seems, is why black people can't get ahead now.

There are many problems with this document — not the least of which is the fact that it is absolutely fake.

As a historian, I am generally skeptical of smoking guns. Historical work, like forensic science, isn't some flashy field — it depends on the painstaking aggregation of facts that lead researchers to the most likely explanation, but rarely the only one. Slavery was an incredibly complex set of social, economic and legal relations that literally boiled down to black and white. But given the variation in size of farms, number of enslaved workers, region, crops grown, law, gender-ratios, religion and local economy, it is unlikely that a single letter could explain slave policy for at least 151 years of the institution and its ramifications down to the present day.

Considering the limited number of extant sources from 18th century, if this speech had been "discovered," it would've been the subject of incessant historical panels, scholarly articles and debates. It would literally be a career-making find. But the letter was never "discovered." Rather, it simply "appeared" on the Internet — bypassing the official historical circuits and making its way directly into the canon of American racial conspiratoria.

On a more practical level, the speech is filled with references that are questionable if not completely inaccurate. Lynch makes reference to an invitation reaching him on his "modest plantation in the West Indies." While this is theoretically possible — the plantation system was well established in the Caribbean by 1712 — most plantation owners were absentees who chose to remain in the colonizing country while the day-to-day affairs of their holdings were run by hired managers and overseers. But even assuming that Mr. Lynch was an exception to this practice, much of the text of his "speech" remains anachronistic. Lynch makes consistent reference to "slaves" — which again is possible, though it is far more likely people during this era would refer to persons in bondage simply as "Negroes." In the first paragraph, he promises that "Ancient Rome would envy us if my program is implemented," but the word "program" did not enter the English language with this connotation until 1837 — at the time of this speech it was used only to reference a written notice for theater events.

Two paragraphs later he says that he will "give an outline of action," for slave-holders; the word "out-line" had appeared only 50 years earlier and at that time was only used as an artistic term meaning a sketch — it didn't convey its present meaning until 1759. Even more damning is his use of the terms "indoctrination" and "self-refueling" in the next sentence. The first word didn't carry it current connotation until 1832; the second didn't even enter the language until 1811 — a century after the purported date of Lynch's speech. More obviously, Lynch uses the word "Black," with an upper-case "B," to describe African Americans more than two centuries before the word came to be applied as a common ethnic identifier.

In some popular citations, Lynch has also been — inexplicably — credited with the term "lynching," which would be odd since the speech promises to provide slave-holders with non-violent techniques that will save them the expense of killing valuable, if unruly, property. This inaccuracy points to a more basic problem in understanding American history: the violence directed at black people in America was exceptional in the regard that it was racialized and used to reinforce political and social subordination, but it was not unique. Early America was incredibly violent in general — stemming in part from the endemic violence in British society and partly from the violence that tends to be associated with frontier societies. For most of its history, lynching was a non-racial phenomenon — in fact, it most often directed at white people. The term "Lynch law" was derived from the mob violence directed at Tories, or British loyalists, just after the American Revolution. While there is disagreement about the precise origins of the term — some associate it with Charles Lynch, a Revolution-era Justice-of-the-Peace who imprisoned Tories, others see it as the legacy of an armed militia founded near the Lynche River or the militia captain named Lynch who created judicial tribunals in Virginia in 1776 — there is no reference to the term earlier than 1768, more than half a century after the date given for the speech.

Given the sparse judicial resources (judges were forced to travel from town-to-town hearing cases, which is where we get the term "judicial circuit") and the frequency of property crimes in the early republic, lynching was often seen as a form of community justice. Not until the 1880s, after the end of Reconstruction, did "lynching" become associated with African Americans; gradually the number of blacks lynched each year surpassed the number of whites until it became almost exclusively directed at black people late in the century. (Nevertheless, between 1882 and 1944, Tuskegee University recorded 3,417 lynchings with black victims -- and 1291 lynchings with white ones.)

The Willie Lynch speech would seem to give a quick-and-easy explanation of the roots of our much-lamented "black disunity." You could make similar arguments about the lingering effects of a real historical document like the 1845 tract, "Religious Instruction of Negroes" — written by a proslavery Presbyterian minister — or the British practice of mixing different African ethnicities on slave ships in order to make communication — and therefore rebellion — more difficult. But this too is questionable — it presumes that whites, or any other diverse group, do not face divisive gender issues, generation gaps and class distinctions. Willie Lynch offers no explanation for the white pro-lifer who guns down a white abortion-provider or white-on-white domestic violence. He does not explain political conflicts among different Latino groups or crime in Asian communities. Unity is not the same as unanimity and in the end, black people are no more disunited than any other group of people — and a lot more united than we give ourselves credit for.


First published: September 29, 2003

About the Author

William Jelani Cobb is a professor of history at Spelman College.

[SummerChild]

Hello Rain Man (and William Jelani Cobb),
Whether the Willie Lynch letter was real or not, who cares? (not asking you personally)

I think that what is important is that people read it and recognize when they are acting in ways that contribute to their own collectively downfall. I think that we (as educated people) get so caught up in whether something is validated, what a particular term means, etc. that we lose sight of the forest for the trees. Who cares if it's authentic. I think that the bigger question is whether you are making it true for your life. And if so, stop it.

SC

Originally posted by Rain Man
Hey, everyone.

I ran across this article here written by William Jelani Cobb, a Spelman College professor who proclaims that the famous Willie Lynch letter is a fake - which personally, I agree with him. I mean after all, HC we never heard of this letter before the 1990s--I first heard it back in 1995. And some of the language in the letter is anachronistic. That's just to say the very least.

But here, read the article:

Willie Lynch Is Dead (1712? - 2003)

By William Jelani Cobb

I long ago stopped listening to sentences that begin with "The problem with black people is," or end with "and that's why black people can't get ahead now," which partly explains my initial indifference to the now-famous William Lynch Speech.
The letter was never "discovered." It just showed up on the Internet one day.
In the few years since the speech on how to train slaves first appeared, it has been cited by countless college students and a black member of the House of Representatives, along the way becoming the essential verbal footnote in barbershop analysis of what's wrong with black people. The rapper Talib Kweli laments on the song "Know That," "blacks are dyin'/how to make a slave/by Willie Lynch is still applyin'," and one professor at a Midwestern university made the speech required reading for her class. Of late, the frequency of its citations seems to be increasing — at least three people have asked me about it in the last month.

According to the speech's preface, Master Lynch was concerned enough with the fortunes of his slave-holding brethren in the American colonies to present a lecture on the bank of the James River, explaining how to keep unruly servants disunited. The old, he argued, should be pitted against the young, the dark against the light, the male against the female and so on. Such disunifying tactics "will control the slaves for at least 300 years," he guaranteed. And that, it seems, is why black people can't get ahead now.

There are many problems with this document — not the least of which is the fact that it is absolutely fake.

As a historian, I am generally skeptical of smoking guns. Historical work, like forensic science, isn't some flashy field — it depends on the painstaking aggregation of facts that lead researchers to the most likely explanation, but rarely the only one. Slavery was an incredibly complex set of social, economic and legal relations that literally boiled down to black and white. But given the variation in size of farms, number of enslaved workers, region, crops grown, law, gender-ratios, religion and local economy, it is unlikely that a single letter could explain slave policy for at least 151 years of the institution and its ramifications down to the present day.

Considering the limited number of extant sources from 18th century, if this speech had been "discovered," it would've been the subject of incessant historical panels, scholarly articles and debates. It would literally be a career-making find. But the letter was never "discovered." Rather, it simply "appeared" on the Internet — bypassing the official historical circuits and making its way directly into the canon of American racial conspiratoria.

On a more practical level, the speech is filled with references that are questionable if not completely inaccurate. Lynch makes reference to an invitation reaching him on his "modest plantation in the West Indies." While this is theoretically possible — the plantation system was well established in the Caribbean by 1712 — most plantation owners were absentees who chose to remain in the colonizing country while the day-to-day affairs of their holdings were run by hired managers and overseers. But even assuming that Mr. Lynch was an exception to this practice, much of the text of his "speech" remains anachronistic. Lynch makes consistent reference to "slaves" — which again is possible, though it is far more likely people during this era would refer to persons in bondage simply as "Negroes." In the first paragraph, he promises that "Ancient Rome would envy us if my program is implemented," but the word "program" did not enter the English language with this connotation until 1837 — at the time of this speech it was used only to reference a written notice for theater events.

Two paragraphs later he says that he will "give an outline of action," for slave-holders; the word "out-line" had appeared only 50 years earlier and at that time was only used as an artistic term meaning a sketch — it didn't convey its present meaning until 1759. Even more damning is his use of the terms "indoctrination" and "self-refueling" in the next sentence. The first word didn't carry it current connotation until 1832; the second didn't even enter the language until 1811 — a century after the purported date of Lynch's speech. More obviously, Lynch uses the word "Black," with an upper-case "B," to describe African Americans more than two centuries before the word came to be applied as a common ethnic identifier.

In some popular citations, Lynch has also been — inexplicably — credited with the term "lynching," which would be odd since the speech promises to provide slave-holders with non-violent techniques that will save them the expense of killing valuable, if unruly, property. This inaccuracy points to a more basic problem in understanding American history: the violence directed at black people in America was exceptional in the regard that it was racialized and used to reinforce political and social subordination, but it was not unique. Early America was incredibly violent in general — stemming in part from the endemic violence in British society and partly from the violence that tends to be associated with frontier societies. For most of its history, lynching was a non-racial phenomenon — in fact, it most often directed at white people. The term "Lynch law" was derived from the mob violence directed at Tories, or British loyalists, just after the American Revolution. While there is disagreement about the precise origins of the term — some associate it with Charles Lynch, a Revolution-era Justice-of-the-Peace who imprisoned Tories, others see it as the legacy of an armed militia founded near the Lynche River or the militia captain named Lynch who created judicial tribunals in Virginia in 1776 — there is no reference to the term earlier than 1768, more than half a century after the date given for the speech.

Given the sparse judicial resources (judges were forced to travel from town-to-town hearing cases, which is where we get the term "judicial circuit") and the frequency of property crimes in the early republic, lynching was often seen as a form of community justice. Not until the 1880s, after the end of Reconstruction, did "lynching" become associated with African Americans; gradually the number of blacks lynched each year surpassed the number of whites until it became almost exclusively directed at black people late in the century. (Nevertheless, between 1882 and 1944, Tuskegee University recorded 3,417 lynchings with black victims -- and 1291 lynchings with white ones.)

The Willie Lynch speech would seem to give a quick-and-easy explanation of the roots of our much-lamented "black disunity." You could make similar arguments about the lingering effects of a real historical document like the 1845 tract, "Religious Instruction of Negroes" — written by a proslavery Presbyterian minister — or the British practice of mixing different African ethnicities on slave ships in order to make communication — and therefore rebellion — more difficult. But this too is questionable — it presumes that whites, or any other diverse group, do not face divisive gender issues, generation gaps and class distinctions. Willie Lynch offers no explanation for the white pro-lifer who guns down a white abortion-provider or white-on-white domestic violence. He does not explain political conflicts among different Latino groups or crime in Asian communities. Unity is not the same as unanimity and in the end, black people are no more disunited than any other group of people — and a lot more united than we give ourselves credit for.


First published: September 29, 2003

About the Author

William Jelani Cobb is a professor of history at Spelman College.

[Eclipse]

Originally posted by SummerChild
Hello Rain Man (and William Jelani Cobb),
Whether the Willie Lynch letter was real or not, who cares? (not asking you personally)

I think that what is important is that people read it and recognize when they are acting in ways that contribute to their own collectively downfall. I think that we (as educated people) get so caught up in whether something is validated, what a particular term means, etc. that we lose sight of the forest for the trees. Who cares if it's authentic. I think that the bigger question is whether you are making it true for your life. And if so, stop it.

SC

I think the problem with this letter and urban legends like the root of the word "picnic" is that it allows us to see things in a greater conspiracy type format. This, imo, helps to somewhat obsolve people of their personal responsibility. I also think that asa people who have frequently been marginalized out of history, we should care if it accurately protrayed.

[Rain Man]

Originally posted by Eclipse
I think the problem with this letter and urban legends like the root of the word "picnic" is that it allows us to see things in a greater conspiracy type format. This, imo, helps to somewhat absolve people of their personal responsibility. I also think that as a people who have frequently been marginalized out of history, we should care if it accurately protrayed.

Exactly, Eclipse! Well said!

During the 90s (particularly in the pre-Internet times), the Africentric/pro-black movement was in full swing. Both factors was ripe for anti-black rumors to run amuck (Troop and Snapple is owned by the KKK, Liz Claiborne and Tommy Hilfiger told Oprah that their clothes were not designed with black people in mind, etc. etc.).

The Willie Lynch letter happened to be the biggest rumor that was spread in the 90s. Like Eclipse indicated, if we take such rumors as gospel without researching for ourselves if it is in fact true and authentic, then there never will be racial harmony because we buy into too many unconfirmed conspiracy theories.

In short, we as Black Americans need to do our homework and research information and stop being so naive when it comes to race based rumors.

[abaici]

I love Dr. Cobb!!!

I like the evidence that Prof. Cobb offered up. However, I never thought the letter was real. It didn't take a lot to realize the letter was not authentic. This lesson is applicable to a number of situations, and is not exclusive to African Americans. PEOPLE need to read critically. Don't read something and think that it's the gospel truth. For instance, if one more person sends me the e-mail about Blacks losing their right to vote in 2007, I'm about to have one less friend. Someone asked me about this earlier in the week. Of course, when I began to engage them, they were are of our constitutional rights.

Moral of the story, become a critical reader.


*RM, it's not unusual for historic text to be introduced (you mentioned about not hearing about it until the 90s). The point is, as Prof. Cobb stated, some historian would have discovered it. If by chance it was discovered by a citizen, historians would have descended like vultures. LOL! Everyone is looking for that research stream that will make your career.

[SummerChild]

Eclipse,
My point was not directed to whether we should care if we are portrayed accurately historically. I agree that we should.

My point is that, as educated people, we get so caught up in the origin of words, what the term "discrimination" means and everything else, that we lose the whole point of what could have been taken away from something. A lesson can be learned from anything and anyone, even a fool or even something that is not even true. Hence my comment that as Black people, even if the Willie Lynch letter was *not* true, we can still read it and evaluate whether our behavior is aligned with what it says - if so, we can change it. To me, that is what is going to save us as a race, not whether the term pic-nic was in place when the letter was supposedly written. After all of that intellectual debate, how will we be any better off? Not terribly much.

It's just like in the Alpha Phi Alpha thread when RACooper presented an argument that PHAShriner has views that he doesn't agree with. At some point, the debate disintegrated into a debate on definitions - which is the way that it always goes when these matters come up. I would argue that we lose sight of the forest for the trees.

How could my "forest" approach be employed? Well, for example, there is a thread over on the Alpha Kappa Alpha board about the interactions of Caribbeans and Black people. To me, this is basically Willie Lynch behavior. However, if no one even bothered to look past whether the letter was true or not to the more meaningful issue of whether we as a people exhibit this behavior, then the whole potential benefit of bringing up the Willie Lynch letter on this board is lost b/c at the end of the day, it's about changing our world, not arguing about definitions or the origins of words. At least, that's my opinion and that was what my comment was really trying to get at, albeit in about two sentences.

SC

ETA: For anyone who might actually want to see if their behaviors mirror what is in the Willie Lynch letter, I have copied it below. Therefore, even though it is apparently not true, something useful can be taken from this greekchat dialogue if you see that you are doing this and can change your behavior. As I mentioned above, I see the whole Caribbean - Black interaction thing as a difference that is akin to the differences on which the letter focuses in order to divide. Basically, the difference is there is just location of slavery and the extent generally that one group has held on to the customs from the Motherland and the other group (generally, not all) has not.

Here's the first part of the letter:
"Gentlemen. I greet you here on the bank of the James River in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and twelve. First, I shall thank you, the gentlemen of the Colony of Virginia, for bringing me here. I am here to help you solve some of your problems with slaves. Your invitation reached me on my modest plantation in the West Indies, where I have experimented with some of the newest and still the oldest methods for control of slaves. Ancient Rome's would envy us if my program is implemented. As our boat sailed south on the James River, named for our illustrious King, whose version of the Bible we Cherish, I saw enough to know that your problem is not unique. While Rome used cords of wood as crosses for standing human bodies along its highways in great numbers, you are here using the tree and the rope on occasions. I caught the whiff of a dead slave hanging from a tree, a couple miles back. You are not only losing valuable stock by hangings, you are having uprisings, slaves are running away, your crops are sometimes left in the fields too long for maximum profit, You suffer occasional fires, your animals are killed. Gentlemen, you know what your problems are; I do not need to elaborate. I am not here to enumerate your problems, I am here to introduce you to a method of solving them. In my bag here, I HAVE A FULL PROOF METHOD FOR CONTROLLING YOUR BLACK SLAVES. I guarantee every one of you that if installed correctly IT WILL CONTROL THE SLAVES FOR AT LEAST 300 HUNDREDS YEARS. My method is simple. Any member of your family or your overseer can use it. I HAVE OUTLINED A NUMBER OF DIFFERENCES AMONG THE SLAVES; AND I TAKE THESE DIFFERENCES AND MAKE THEM BIGGER. I USE FEAR, DISTRUST AND ENVY FOR CONTROL PURPOSES. These methods have worked on my modest plantation in the West Indies and it will work throughout the South. Take this simple little list of differences and think about them. On top of my list is "AGE" but it's there only because it starts with an "A." The second is "COLOR" or shade, there is INTELLIGENCE, SIZE, SEX, SIZES OF PLANTATIONS, STATUS on plantations, ATTITUDE of owners, whether the slaves live in the valley, on a hill, East, West, North, South, have fine hair, course hair, or is tall or short. Now that you have a list of differences, I shall give you a outline of action, but before that, I shall assure you that DISTRUST IS STRONGER THAN TRUST AND ENVY STRONGER THAN ADULATION, RESPECT OR ADMIRATION. The Black slaves after receiving this indoctrination shall carry on and will become self refueling and self generating for HUNDREDS of years, maybe THOUSANDS. Don't forget you must pitch the OLD black Male vs. the YOUNG black Male, and the YOUNG black Male against the OLD black male. You must use the DARK skin slaves vs. the LIGHT skin slaves, and the LIGHT skin slaves vs. the DARK skin slaves. You must use the FEMALE vs. the MALE. And the MALE vs. the FEMALE. You must also have you white servants and over- seers distrust all Blacks. But it is NECESSARY THAT YOUR SLAVES TRUST AND DEPEND ON US. THEY MUST LOVE, RESPECT AND TRUST ONLY US. Gentlemen, these kits are your keys to control. Use them. Have your wives and children use them, never miss an opportunity. IF USED INTENSELY FOR ONE YEAR, THE SLAVES THEMSELVES WILL REMAIN PERPETUALLY DISTRUSTFUL. Thank you gentlemen."

Originally posted by Eclipse
I think the problem with this letter and urban legends like the root of the word "picnic" is that it allows us to see things in a greater conspiracy type format. This, imo, helps to somewhat obsolve people of their personal responsibility. I also think that asa people who have frequently been marginalized out of history, we should care if it accurately protrayed.