Online access and copy requests are not available for this item. You may request to be notified of when this becomes available digitally.
- GLC#
- GLC06068
- Type
- Letters
- Date
- December 31, 1921
- Author/Creator
- Moton, Robert Russa, 1867-1940
- Title
- to unknown
- Place Written
- Tuskegee, Alabama
- Pagination
- 1 p. : Height: 27.7 cm, Width: 21.5 cm
- Primary time period
- Progressive Era to New Era, 1900-1929
Moton, President of the Tuskegee Institute, reports on "[t]he lynching record for 1921," based on the research of Monroe N. Work, in charge of the Department of Records and Research at the Institute. States that in 1921, "...there were 72 instances in which officers of the law prevented lynchings. Of these 8 were in Northern States and 64 were in Southern States. In 1920 there were 56 such instances, 46 in Southern and 10 in Northern States. In 66 of the cases, the prisoners were removed, or the guards were augmented, or other precautions taken. In 6 instances armed force was used to repel the would be lynchers." Lists the number of lynched persons according to location, race and gender. Also specifies crime charged, with the majority of lynchings taking place against those suspected of rape, murder, or both. Describes the method of lynching according to case. Lists the number of lynchings according to state, with 14 in Mississippi as the highest.
Citation Guidelines for Online Resources
- Copyright Notice
- The copyright law of the United States (title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specific conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law.