Property offenses, social tension and racial antagonism in post-Civil War rural Louisiana.

The parish of Lafayette was the scene in June 1873 of a particularly brutal double murder. Daniel Lanet, a Frenchman, and Alexander Snaer, a black justice of the peace, who were also business partners, were murdered in their store by four blacks. The two killings took place in the course of a robbery and in order to dissimulate their deed, the four confederates set fire to the store. Although the store burned to the ground, their brutal action was discovered. Three of them were caught and summary executed by a lynch mob of over a thousand people. The fourth only escaped the rope by confessing the deed.(1) This case could be seen as an isolated incident. And yet, it takes on greater significance when we consider that brutal murders in the course of robbery were a rather new phenomenon and were seen by contemporaries as a major characteristic of the post-Civil War era. Such crimes were seen as the direct consequence of emancipation. No longer under the tight control of the whites, many blacks refused to submit any longer to the plantation discipline. As blacks could rarely find alternative work for making a living, petty thefts, grand larceny and robbery often became part of their day-to-day life. Meanwhile, whites who struggled to adjust to the new social and economic conditions, felt increasingly insecure before what they perceived as the inability of the civil authorities to cope with the wave of property crimes. As a consequence, hundreds of whites periodically joined lynching parties as they saw mob violence as their only resort to correct an intolerable situation.(2)

Although theft, the most common property offense, represents a social phenomenon common to traditional society, it was particularly common in rural Louisiana during the second half of the nineteenth century. The Civil War brought not only the emancipation of slaves, but a new land of economic ruin and social disruption. An increasing number of rural inhabitants, unable to adjust to the post-War conditions, lived off robbery and marauding. While tensions between planters and freedmen were an individual matter in most cases, a minority of whites and blacks turned to crime and joined gangs of outlaws and robbers which plundered the countryside. Consequently, petty thefts, robbery, burglary and other property offenses reflect more than simply the activity of common criminals acting alone or in groups. These particular criminal activities revealed the deep social contradictions, conflicts and disequilibrium of the post-Civil War Southern society. And yet only a few historians have paid attention to the significance of property offenses in Louisiana, or in other Southern states during that troubled period.(3)

In focusing on rural Louisiana(4) during the crucial years of the post-Civil War period, the goal of this study is threefold: first, to analyze the various patterns of property offenses, to examine the social context in which those crimes were committed, and determine whether or not blacks were disproportionately responsible; secondly, to investigate the various networks of robbers and to determine the significance of the appearance and disappearance of outlaw and robber gangs; and finally, to determine whether the emergence of viligance committees was rooted largely in the failure of the judicial authorities to deal with property crimes, or if it represented a desperate attempt by whites to regain the rights they had once enjoyed over the land and the black population. In the process, we shall be able to demonstrate how the various patterns of property crimes were exacerbated by the larger issue of racial antagonism.

The Patterns of Property Crimes in Rural Louisiana

It is impossible to pick up a country paper from mid-nineteenth century Louisiana without noticing the epidemic nature of crimes of all types and grades, particularly burglaries and robberies, that were committed. Property crimes became so frequent after the War that many local papers stopped reporting petty thefts and mentioned other property offenses only of an aggravated nature. Still, a quick look at local newspapers under the headings of "District Court" or "Local Items" and the several congressional, district attorney and penitentiary reports, reveals numerous cases of indictments for arson, breaking into stores and houses, burglary, embezzlement, forgery, fraud, larceny, petty theft, robbery, etc., that regularly afflicted most country parishes. Although sketchy, the variety of the sources made it possible to develop such a study on post-Civil War Louisiana by using contemporary reports and collecting data on property offenses (Appendix). Despite inevitable gaps, this property criminal index represents a significant record of the amount of property crime in post-Civil War Louisiana (Table 1).

Table 1

Crimes Against Property in Rural Louisiana, 1866 to 1876

       (1)   (2)   (3)   (4)   (5)   (6)   (7)    (8)   total

1866    14     4     2    29     6    40    10    219    324
1867    12    15     2    28    10    25    12    165    269
1868    13    28    10    42     3    13     5    182    296
1869     9     2     2    33     1    24     2    135    208
1870     4     9     1    21     4    14     1     69    123
1871    10    14     4    21     6    27     7    154    243
1872     9    14     1    10     2    10     2     37     85
1873     8    20     2    10     7    20     6     95    168
1874    11    47     7    25     4    16     3    112    225
1875    14    31     3     9     0    14    12     62    145
1876    14    22    32    36     5    25     3    163    300

Total  118   206    66   264    48   228    63   1393   2386

(1) Robbery and murder
(2) Robbery and personal violence
(3) Arson or destruction of property
(4) Robbery, burglary or breaking and entering
(5) Bribery, embezzlement, forgery or fraud
(6) Horse stealing
(7) Cattle, mule, hog stealing
(8) Petty theft and larceny

Stealing in traditional and modern societies was closely related to the precarious condition and vulnerability of the lower classes who were most sensitive to economic depressions or to increases in the price of goods.(5) Property crimes, in particular petty thefts and larceny, had similar roots in post-Civil War Louisiana. Following the destruction and the economic disruption caused by the War, thousands of people, both whites and former slaves, were reduced to poverty in rural parishes. Malnutrition became particularly evident during the years immediately after the War and the economic depression of the mid 1870s. Trapped in a life of stealing or starving, thousands of people without regular employment were left with little to do besides loafing on town squares. The prevaling economic conditions were worsened by poor harvests that periodically struck Louisiana after the War. That most property crimes were closely related to misery is further shown by the nature of the stolen goods. Black and white indigents suffering from hunger regularly made raids on livestock, poultry yards, gardens, pantries, and kitchens; stealing important goods for their daily life.(6)

The theft of farm animals did occur occasionally during the antebellum period, but after the War such thefts took on almost epidemic proportions, as pigs and cattle were run off to concealed places and killed for food. Cattle stealing became so common in the late 1860s that it was considered the most serious obstacle to raising stock in many regions. In some parishes, the number of animals killed would have been sufficient to supply local towns with milk, butter and meat. In the prairies of Southwestern Louisiana three quarters of the livestock roaming at large had been illegally slaughtered by 1868.(7) In a period when the demand for stock was particularly high, cattle thefts represented a great loss for planters and farmers. In many instances, the parties losing their stock were deprived of their sole draft labor for cultivating their farms and of their sole means for supplying their family with meat.(8)

Hogs and cattle were not the only farm animals stolen for food. The stealing of mules and horses reached very high levels. The loss of mules, the common draft animal in rural Louisiana, was so great that many owners offered up to $50 in the hope of recovering their stolen animal. Although horses were worth less than mules, horse-stealing also represented a heavy loss for planters and farmers. The theft of horses was aggravated by the death of thousands from the "epizootic" and the "charbons" diseases, both of which spread through the South with a fearful rapidity.(9)

Stealing was not limited to goods of necessity: horses, mules, hogs, cows, steers, heifers and young calves attracted the attention of thieves. Louisiana planters regularly complained that thievery had become a profession for many rural residents; their criminal activity had gone beyond the need to survive. On many plantations, many articles made of wood, iron, lead and copper, along with harnesses, machinery and pipes attached to the gins and sugar houses were packed off by field hands and brought to towns and country stores or sold to foundry shops.(10)

Thieves and robbers did not limit their predatory activities to plantations or isolated houses and country stores. Small towns and cities which underwent a considerable growth in the second half of the nineteenth century were constantly plagued by burglars. After the War, thousands of rural people, particularly blacks, moved to towns which became invaded by tramps and beggers who could only survive through stealing. White and black thieves flocked the cities of Baton Rouge, Donaldsonville, Shreveport, and other smaller towns. Barely a night passed without some evidence of the thieves' daring escapades. Nearly every store and residence in these towns was struck, and the thieves often succeeded in escaping with considerable bounty.(11)

Thievery and robbery were not simply a regional phenomenon; every parish and town had its thieves. Rural parishes were full of scoundrels who made a good living travelling from town to town, using different aliases and deceiving people. Since the countryside was overrun by bands of thieves, local evil-doers took advantage of the opportunity to steal and cast the blame on travelling criminals.(12) Although sketchy, the regional distribution of property crimes reveals how offenses against property changed with regions (Table 2 and [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED]). While no rural districts(13) were protected from major crimes, most of them suffered primarily from simple theft. Moreover, the data show that the Red River Delta and the Eastern Bluff were the only two districts where the percentage of property offenses exceeded the levels of population in rural Louisiana. These two regions also had the unenviable record of being two of the most violent areas during Reconstruction.(14)

Black and white thieves were often very cunning and bold. They became acquainted with a building and the habits of its occupants and devised ways to open the door without a key. Some brazenly entered the owner's room, took the keys from his clothes while he slept and opened the front door to the store. Other thieves packed trunks of their victim's goods, put them on wagons and got away. Some stole spades and other tools from stables. The burning of stores or houses to destroy evidence of the robberies was not uncommon. Black field hands often took horses and mules from plantations, worked them for a time then reported them as strays to the local constable.(15)

While many blacks did not think it a crime to rob a white, most whites considered it even less of a crime to rob or kill a black.(16) Consequently, blacks were regularly defrauded of their wages, saw their crops and farm animals stolen, or were beaten, wounded and sometimes killed because had they asked for a fair settlement for their crops, refused to continue to work on a plantation or sued planters for money they owed them.(17) Blacks were also killed because they rented land and wanted to live on their own without any white control.(18)

Not surprisingly, not all blacks accepted or conformed with the whites' wishes. Many blacks reacted to white policies by refusing to work and began to live off the planters's stock, stealing mules, horses, cattles, hogs and com.(19) Blacks were arrested in Bossier parish in late August 1868 when rumors of a black insurrection were circulated. The sheriff with a posse of 150 men went to put it down and arrested forty-eight blacks who were charged with riot and sedition. The whole affair began when the sheriff attempted to arrest several blacks charged with stealing cattle, although they had not committed any crime. A similar situation occurred in Caddo parish when whites attempted to arrest thirty families of black squatters.(20)

After economic crisis, political turmoil was the second most important factor that reduced blacks to stealing as a means of survive. During the electoral campaign [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 2 OMITTED] of 1874, white conservatives across the state, determined to carry their districts, did not hesitate to apply economic pressure. Consequently, calls were made on planters in several parishes to discharge all blacks who had voted republican. As a result, some 500 black families, an aggregate of about two thousand people, were left roaming around Caddo parish during the winter of 1875 and contributing to much social chaos. Starving and prowling in the country for days without any means of subsistence, they gained a livehood only by stealing from the store houses, chicken coops and vegetable gardens of the planters in their neighborhood. These thefts created a high level of indignation among the planters, who threatened summary reprisals unless the petty larcenies abated.(21)

The post-Civil War period witnessed a significant change in criminal behavior as thieves and robbers became more willing to resort to violence. The years after the War also saw burgeoning incidences of armed robbery as guns become more widespread. Regularly carrying concealed weapons, thieves were less hesitant than their antebellum counterparts to use firearms in cases of emergency, even if this meant commiting murder.(22) Although newspapers charged blacks with using firearms upon the slightest provocation,(23) evidence shows that blacks rarely committed murder while perpetrating robberies. Whites tended to resort to murder during a robbery three times as often as blacks (Table 3). Still, the number of people killed during robberies represented only a small portion of all murders committed in Louisiana during this period.(24) Of 2943 homicides that occurred in rural Louisiana in the years 1866 to 1876, only 118 (4.0%) were committed by robbers. That so few homicides were related to robbery is in itself rather surprising. Still, this percentage is sustained by contemporary analysis.(25)

While stealing only occasionally degenerated into physical violence, other forms of violent crimes evolved out of rural criminality. Arson became one of the most serious crimes in post-Civil War Louisiana. It was usually commited at night and although it aroused the whole community the perpetrators were rarely caught. Rural society appeared defenseless in the face of arsonists. When a suspicious fire erupted in a particular town, village or parish, protective associations or vigilance committees were set up to discover the arsonist and to prevent the repetition of such acts. When an arsonist was caught by the law, he was usually sentenced to the state penitentiary for life, if he had not previously suffered at the hands of a vigilance committee.(26) Still, arson, like other property offenses represented an important manifestation of the aggressiveness and social tension that prevailed in rural Louisiana.

Although blacks were charged by whites with being responsible for most larcenies, robberies and arsons,(27) the present data show that whites had a greater propensity to commit property crimes than blacks. Whites composed only 38% of the rural population, but committed 60% of all property offenses in countryside parishes (Table 4). Moreover, black thievery differed from white in the nature of the offenses. Blacks were more often charged with petty thefts and stealing cattle, horses, hogs and mules for food consumption, while whites were more often charged with violent and aggravated property crimes. Finally, people who robbed did not come only from the lower classes of society. Some of them went around after having committed their villanous deeds sporting a cane as any ordinary gentlemen.(28)

Table 3

Number of People Killed By Robbers, 1866 to 1876

Race of Victims      Race of Assailants      Number       %

Unknown                   Unknown               1         0.8
Whites                    Unknown               3         2.5
Blacks                    Unknown               3         2.5
Unknown                   Whites                4         3.4
Whites                    Whites               38        32.2
Blacks                    Whites               42        35.6
Unknown                   Blacks                2         1.7
Whites                    Blacks               11         9.3
Blacks                    Blacks               14        11.8

Total                                         118        99.8

[TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 4 OMITTED]

Confronted with white violence, blacks did resort occasionally to violence as a way to correct wrongs committed against them. In these cases, violence was used either to obtain a just settlement for sale of crops or to rescue blacks arrested and charged with stealing.(29) But destruction of property and arson became the preferred response of blacks. Not only did arson provide a complete revenge, but blacks felt less liable to retaliation as arsonists were rarely caught.(30) Still, arson represented a two-edged sword as white conservatives often used it as a means to intimidate black and white Republicans.(31)

Generally, newspapers, congressional reports, or district attorney reports did not mention whether or not the person charged with committing a property offense acted alone or with someone else. Still, despite its sketchy character, evidence shows that in more than 16% of the cases, individuals who committed a crime against property did not act alone. In the case of burglary, fraud or forgery, horse theft, cattle and other animal theft and the usual robbery, offenders rarely tended to act collectively. But people who resorted to violence while committing property offenses usually did not act alone. Robberies involving more than one thief accounted for more than half of all robberies that resulted in murder. This number dropped to a little below 50% for robberies in which the offenders resorted to violence, and rose above 50% for cases involving destruction of property (Table 5).

The Outlaw and Robber Gangs

In rural Louisiana, stealing, robberies and petty thefts were often committed by several people acting together in ephemeral associations which periodically yielded gangs of outlaws and robbers. The development of outlaw bands was favored by a series of independent factors: the prevailing frontier spirit of some regions, the ease of finding refuge, or the authorities' inability to maintain law and order. Louisiana also suffered from more particular conditions: the economic destruction caused by the War, social dislocation generated by emancipation and post-Civil War political turmoil. These factors created conditions favorable for the proliferation of criminal activities in Louisiana and in some other southern states such as Texas. Consequently, although bands of outlaws(32) were fairly common before the Civil War, they posed an even greater problem afterward. The large number of outlaw bands reflected the prevailing economic conditions. Thirty-eight bands were reported during the 1866-1869 post-War depression, but with the return of relative economic prosperity during the years 1870-1872, this number dropped to only seven. However, it rose again to thirty-seven with the 1873-1877 depression (Table 6).

Table 5

The Collective Nature of Crimes against Property

                                             Number   % Collective

Robbery and murder                             114        54.2
Robbery and personal violence                  203        46.8
Arson or destruction of property                57        57.9
Robbery, burglary or breaking and entering     251        16.9
Bribery, embezzlement, forgery or fraud         48         8.4
Horse stealing                                 228         4.9
Cattle, mule, hog stealing                      62        22.6
Petty theft and larceny                       1367         7.9
Total and average                             2330        16.4

In post-Civil War rural Louisiana, the advantages of belonging to a band of thieves were enormous: alibis were more easily arranged, large numbers of men could be employed to protect each other, risky schemes could be more successfully executed, stolen goods could be more easily disposed of, security and solidarity among the confreres were greater, etc. Moreover, the larger the band became, the bolder were its operations. Once a band had selected a store, a plantation or a house, its leader often devised ways to become aquainted with the selected target and the habits of those who occupied it. In some cases, a member checked the veranda or the windows. In other cases, a member took the key to the store from the clerk's pocket and opened the front door without breaking in. Finally, gangs not only accumulated large quantities of goods during their forays, but often assured the cohesion and survival of their organizations by sharing the booty after each robbery.(33)

Table 6

Annual Distribution of Gangs of Robbers In Rural Louisiana,
1850-1884

   Antebellum          Reconstruction        Early Bourbon
year      number      year      number      year      number

1850         1        1866         6        1877        11
1851         0        1867        10        1878         2
1852         0        1868        11        1879         2
1853         1        1869        11        1880         5
1854         0        1870         4        1881         1
1855         0        1871         2        1882         1
1856         1        1872         1        1883         2
1857         2        1873         4        1884         2
1858         3        1874         8
1859        10        1875         7
1860         1        1876         7

Total       19                    71                    26

Bands of outlaws and robbers functioned outside of the regular political society. By their very nature, bands lived in a parallel or underground world. Consequently, little information leaked out about their activities and organization. Only the most prominent figures became publicly known and these were both abhorred and glorified. For most common bands, the name of the leader, the exact composition and the number of members remained a mystery for contemporary officials. Moreover, the study of criminal bands is further complicated because many lasted for only a short period of time, before they dissolved or regrouped to start again.(34) Still it is possible to draw some general conclusions about post-Civil War Louisiana.

The numerous criminal fraternities that plundered rural Louisiana during the post-Civil War period were loosely organized in small robber bands that rarely grew beyond ten people. They usually originated with a local robber or outlaw who had become notorious for his daring exploits. The more successful a robber was, the more men chose to join him - as the history of the Damon Fontenot, Cyriaque Guillory, or Lawson Kimball bands showed. Bands rarely lasted more than two or three years. Although some bands limited their membership to whites or blacks only, many bands were biracial in their composition. Seeing bands headed by blacks was not unusual as leaders were chosen not on the basis of their race but on their leadership qualities and their ability to plan further criminal operations.(35)

The Beaver, the Black Horse Cavalry, the Fontenot, the Guillory, and the Kimball and West gangs were the most notorious of the bands that plundered rural Louisiana for years with total impunity. They shared a common root; they originated from rebel deserters and their leaders had been jayhawkers during and after the War.(36) That many bands were composed of rebel deserters and were the byproduct of the semi-guerrilla bands and jayhawkers is not surprising. War and gang robbery often appear as one and the same thing. Moreover, the War and its aftermath did accelerate social disintegration. As a consequence, former soldiers and rebel deserters - men who had spent years in a violent profession - represented a specially trained post of recruits for outlaw gangs. These men not only found it difficult to adapt to civilian life, but they had learned to live on the surrounding country, pillaging and robbing while members of guerrilla bands during the War. By transforming themselves at the end of the War into gangs of marauders and robbers, they simply continued to practice what they knew best. As Federal authorities did not have enough troops in Louisiana to maintain law and order in rural areas, these gangs were largely responsible for the general atmosphere of lawlessness that prevailed in the Pelican state after the War; they rode around the countryside, whipping and robbing freedmen and defying the military and civil authorities before retreating to the swamps which offered a secure hiding place.(37)

Freedmen represented the second most important sources of recruitment for bands of thieves and robbers. Many parishes were overrun after the War with bands of black thieves whose operations were as bold and mysterious as those of white bands. Often headed by shrewd and cunning blacks, these bands were governed by precise rules in robbery procedures and in disposing the stolen goods afterwards. Usually one member of the gang visited the store they intended to rob, bought a few things, and got to know where the safe was and if it contained any money. During the break in, two or three of the gang members served as lookouts. Nothing could stop them as they did not hesitate to blow holes in brick walls to get into a store. They often burned the store after a robbery to destroy any trace of evidence. Members of black robber gangs were usually asked to share the booty of a robbery even if they had acted alone. They rode through the surrounding country and developed large networks for disposing of the stolen property. One gang of black thieves during the early 1870s extended its operations throughout the region from New Iberia to Brashear City.(38)

Gangs of robbers and outlaws were found in all regions of Louisiana (Table 7 & [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED]), but their strength and importance depended on the condition of the territory. Southern Louisiana with its numerous lakes, bayous and swamps was, in large part, almost impenetrable and offered an ideal refuge where criminal bands could flourish.(39) With few roads, thinly populated parishes, and proximity to Texas, Northwestern Louisiana became the second most important sanctuary for outlaw gangs.(40)

[TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 7 OMITTED]

Many bands reflected the peculiar characteristics of their region. These bands were unlikely to abandon their home base where they learned to live on the territory and benefited from the complicity, or at least the passive support, of the local population who found this the best protection against being robbed, molested or murdered by local outlaws. No bands of outlaws or robbers could pursue their nefarious trade and survive without some protection. Indeed, gangs of robbers, outlaws and murderers, independent of their numbers or the cunning of their leaders, could not operate alone for long. Ostensibly, outlaws and robbers were able to remain at large and to continue to prey upon the community only because they recruited many men who were of good standing in the community which furnished them with harboring facilities. The protection that local bands received from prominent members of society not only made it more difficult for the authorities to muster aid in apprehending local criminals, but it was also seen as one of the main causes of the general atmosphere of lawlessness that prevailed in rural Louisiana after the War.(41)

Other bands developed extensive networks that covered a large territory. These bands maintained ties with several parishes and exercised their nefarious trade for years. Still other bands went beyond their regional base and expanded their activity throughout the whole state. Moreover, some bands extended their operations into the border states of Arkansas, Mississippi and Texas.(42) Finally, a few bands from other states, particularly Texas, operated in Louisiana, robbing, destroying property and murdering blacks.(43)

The kind of products stolen differed greatly depending on whether robberies were committed by an individual or by a band. The difference was not only in the quantity but also in the nature of the goods stolen. Louisiana robbers, and more particularly gangs of robbers, formed a criminal fraternity whose members were determined not only to survive, but to get a better life. Individual robbers stole cattle, hogs, mules and consumption goods as a means to feed themselves, but many bands broke into stores and selected goods for their market values.(44) Moreover, bands of robbers were developed within the historical circumstances specific to each region.

Bands of cattle thieves were mainly concentrated in Southwestern Louisiana where cattle raising was most extensive. For more than a quarter of century, the Attakapas country and the Opelousas prairies were populated by a group of men who contended that the cattle which fed upon the prairie were the property of those who caught them. These men made Abbeville their center of operations.(45) The stealing and illegal traffic of cotton and com predominated in the Florida parishes after the War and was mainly responsible for the turmoil that particularly troubled the parishes of East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana and West Feliciana during the mid 1870s.(46) Horse-stealing was clearly one of the most lucrative criminal businesses in Louisiana after the War. Although dens of daring horse thieves were found in every section and region of the state, they were mainly concentrated in the northern regions of the state from where stolen horses could be smuggled into Arkansas and Texas. The civil authorities were so inefficient in pursuing and breaking up horse thief gangs in Northern Louisiana that on several occasions they asked the military to send troops into the area.(47)

The appearance and disappearance of these bands, as was the case for the robbery and petty theft epidemic, coincided with times of economic crisis. During the course of their existence, these bands preyed on the local population, terrorizing the surrounding countryside and often plundering the houses of both poor whites and innocent blacks. It did not matter if these bands were composed of only whites, only blacks, or blacks and whites, they followed the same criminal behavior towards blacks and poor whites.(48)

The only bands who could claim some sort of political program were those such as the "Black Horse Cavalry" who originated from semi-guerrilla bands. Even if a close link could be established between former guerrilla bands such as the "Black Horse Cavalry" and the "Knights of the White Camelia" that terrorized Louisiana in the summer and fall of 1868, the latter never adopted any program of social reform because they were completely dedicated to the restoration of the Pelican state as a white man's country.(49)

Property Offenders and Vigilance Committees

Robberies, murders and other depredations committed by gangs and individual thieves created a general atmosphere of suspicion and fear in rural areas. When a band of robbers appeared in a region or moved to a new area and began to operate its villanous trade, the most improbable stories about them arose and became exaggerated. Rumors could swell the size of a five-member band to fifty, describing the thieves as armed to the teeth and eager to perpetrate any act of violence. The whole country would then became worked up to a pitch of excitement. People were warned to become more watchful, to "sleep with one eye on watch, have a good-barrell gun, well loaded with sixteen, whistlers in each barrels, always at your bed side and and don't bother the judiciary with an investigation." Many papers advised rural people to keep their guns fully loaded and to resort to summary punishments whenever a thief was caught stealing.(50)

When a high rate of theft occurred in a parish, calls were issued for a vigorous enforcement of the laws and to have every idle vagrant arrested and put to work on the chain gang if necessary.(51) Not surprisingly, arson, burglary, larceny, petty theft, robbery and other crimes against property dominated the judicial calendar as they represented more than 50 percent of all cases prosecuted and tried in local parish and district courts in rural Louisiana. Crimes against property were considered by district attornies and judges to be the most heinous offenses, and burglars, forgers, highway robbers and petty thieves were not only promptly tried and convicted but also more severely punished than those convicted of violent crimes against a person.(52) Still, in spite of the efforts of local law enforcement officers in apprehending robbers and the severity of the court, most people who committed property crimes escaped the heavy hand of the law (Table 8).

It was fashionable during the period to blame the state administration and its law enforcement officers for this unfortunate state of affairs. Newspapers all over the state complained about the inefficiency of the authorities in arresting and prosecuting thieves and burglars. The Democratic press asserted that filling civil offices with "unprincipled vagabonds and ignorant negroes" was the first cause for the general atmosphere of lawlessness.(53) But the problem was more complex. Louisiana lacked the coherent centralized police force to repress banditry and brigandage in the countryside that Texas and most other states had. The state militia rarely operated outside of New Orleans, and local law enforcement officers were at the mercy of whatever local support they could muster to repress outlaws.(54)

[TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 8 OMITTED]

The lax state of affairs hampering law enforcement was further complicated by the unwillingness of whites to sit with blacks on juries. The judicial system was also disrupted by legal technicalities which allowed many criminals to escape justice. Moreover, corruption overrode the selection of jurors in criminal trials. Social and pecuniary influences were brought to bear on jurors by influential offenders. Finally, the fear of reprisal by desperate criminals influenced many jurors. Few people were willing to lay charges against criminals who, as a consequence, were allowed to go free. The detention, trial and punishment of offenders became more and more farcical and uncertain. Although robberies and murders were regularly committed, most people doubted that the perpetrators of those deeds could be brought to justice.(55)

Moreover, various parish newspapers and grand juries noted that the notorious inadequacies of the local jails and prisons throughout the state were an important factor in the inability of officials to cope with crime. Men indicted for arson, burglary, larceny, horse stealing, and even murder, often escaped trial by breaking out of jails. However, the reluctance of country residents to pay higher taxes for larger and more secure jails made the task of keeping offenders who awaited trial almost impossible.(56)

Faced with the inability of state and local authorities to put an end to theft and other crimes committed by gangs of robbers in the countryside, vigilance committees were organized as last resort. The rumor that a band of robbers was operating in a region was often enough to generate the formation of preventive vigilance committees before any crimes had been committed.(57) Consequently, associations of citizens periodically formed vigilance committees or protective associations all over the state to hold in check robbers and other property offenders.(58)

State laws and parish regulations were enacted during the 1850's to check the illegal trade of local storeowners and merchants with slaves, but to no avail. As a consequence, vigilance committees had already been formed in several parishes.(59) When illegal traffic and contraband activities increased after the War, becoming particularly widespread in the parishes of East Baton Rouge, and East and West Felicianas between 1874 and 1876, the planters organized committees to find the freedmen who were stealing and the merchants who were buying the stolen property. The planting classes considered that the storeowners involved in this criminal trade were disgracing the name of all merchants and ought to be hung. Groups of white regulators conducted a campaign of terror - roaming around parishes, killing, burning stores and ginhouses, and compelling black laborers and white local merchants to quit the seed-cotton traffic. The problem persisted beyond the Reconstruction period and in some regions became so grave that merchants in Madison and Ouachita signed a pledge not to buy cotton after a certain hour at night.(60)

Vigilance committees continued to resort to banishment for a first offense,(61) which had been their main means of punishment during the 1850s(62) but after the War their activities often took a swift and brutal character. In many instances, they did not hesitate, particularly if those people accused of robbery had murdered a white, to resort to summary justice and lynch the alledged guilty party.(63) Vigilance committees were particularly active in Southern Louisiana where they represented the local response to the problem of cattle and horse stealing during the second half of the century.(64) The most notable of these cases of vigilante violence occurred in Vermillion parish in September 1873 when twelve alleged outlaws who had resisted the vigilance committee were lynched.(65)

In Louisiana, as elsewhere, the emergence of a strong opposition to vigilantes often took the form of anti-vigilance committees and reflected deep social and economic conflicts.(66) The proceedings of these committees created a climate of terror in the lower parishes and met with stiff opposition from the press.(67) And yet, even as many people came to deplore lynching and vigilantism, many others continued to consider them as necessary evils. Some law officers did occasionally try to resist vigilance committees or lynching mobs, but the plain truth is that lynching was usually endorsed by local notables and occurred with the compliance of law officials.(68)

Meanwhile, following emancipation, lynching and other forms of summary executions became a disturbing feature of race relations in Louisiana and in the South, as blacks were no longer protected by their market value. Many blacks were caught and brutally murdered by vigilance committees for allegedly stealing chickens, hogs, horse or cattle, and others were killed for such trivial reasons as stealing an onion or an apple from the planter's garden, stealing meat from a smokehouse or simply for going into the smokehouse, or being accused of stealing a box of sardines.(69) But the lynching of blacks for alledged stealing or arson was not limited to offenses against white property. On one occasion, a black reputed to be a notorious thief was lynched after a summary trial for stealing a cow from another black.(70) In another instance, a black in Ascension parish was brutally murdered in 1875 by "white ruffians" for refusing to confess complicity in a robbery with which it was later learned that he had nothing to do.(71) But lynching to protect property was not only a brutal and summary way to administer justice, it was also an important tool in converting Louisiana into a white man's territory.

Many alleged charges of larceny, robbery and other property offenses against white Republicans were politically motivated. In many instances, the charge of stealing chickens was used to justify the lynching of white Republicans. Many eminent black politicians also met with the same fate on trumped up charges of stealing hogs, chickens and cattle.(72) By regularly accusing white radicals of inciting blacks to murder and robbery, Democratic newspapers all over the state justified attacks against white Republicans and Republican newspapers which, as a result, became targets of the whites' fury.(73)

Conclusion

It is unquestionable that the general atmosphere of violence and lawlessness that prevailed in the South after the Civil War represented a fundamental factor in determining the significance of that troubled period. Political riots, social and labor disturbances, murders and others personal affrays reached an unprecedent level. Property crimes, as the present study shows, constituted the second largest type of offense and equally reflected the social climate of the Reconstruction, playing a major role in the spiralling cycle of violence.

If petty thefts and other forms of property offenses were regularly committed by both whites and blacks, they are most revealing about the adjustment of blacks to freedom and the white response to the post-Civil War economic and social conditions. With emancipation, Louisiana along with the rest of the South saw the emergence of a new economic order that introduced blacks into the new national and world economy. Freed from their masters who had been obliged to feed their slaves, blacks were no longer protected from financial crisis and became as vulnerable as planters and merchants to changes or fluctuations in the market economy. Meanwhile, economic depressions reduced many blacks to crime and stealing through desperation or destitution. A life of robbery could furnish blacks not only with a means of subsistance and avoiding misery, but also a way to escape the exploitation on plantations. Being a thief was not therefore an abstract phenomenon for freedmen, but an alternative mode of industry to satisfy their hunger, even if it meant living outside the abstract rules of law.(74) Meanwhile, as most Southern whites were determined to preserve as much as possible the moral values of the old social order, they punished more severly blacks charged with property offenses than whites who committed similar offenses.(75)

The variation in the frequency of property crimes suggests a breakdown of social organization. The patterns of property crimes show how post-Civil War Louisiana was affected by a strong sensitivity to the social and political turmoil of the period. The present study shows the need not only to establish the link between property crimes and such factors as the lack of police force or the periodic economic depressions. It also suggests that the curve of property crimes was also strongly influenced by the prevailing political disorders and the general atmosphere of racial antagonism. Indeed, regions that suffered the largest number of property crimes were also the areas of the state most affected by political violence. Further study on property crimes from local and regional perspectives are urgently needed in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the turbulent history of Reconstruction.

Departement d'histoire et de sciences politiques Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada J1 K2R1

Appendix

Methodology and Scope of the Investigation

Historians who attempt to investigate property crimes are faced with the problem of finding reliable sources. Official data are often biased and do not indicate the real extent of the crimes. Consequently, many historians conclude that the general problem of under-reporting makes it difficult to go beyond an impressionistic portrayal of most forms of criminality.(76) The problem of under-reporting is further complicated by the large number of people who committed property crimes but were never caught. Nonetheless, it is possible to avoid the pitfalls contained in official data by identifying individual cases and collecting one's own data. This is the approach that I have followed here.

Collecting information on every case of property offense that occurred in Louisiana between 1866 and 1876 represents a difficult and hazardous task. The whole operation depends on the quality of sources available. Fortunately, a rich and diversified body of historical documentation makes such a study of post-Civil War Louisiana possible. Although I did consult some fifty congressional reports and miscellaneous documents and the general correspondence and reports of both the Freedmen's Bureau and the War Department, the three main sources of my investigation of property crimes in Louisiana rest on the State Attorney General reports for the years of 1867 to 1877, on State Penitentiary Reports for the years of 1865 to 1877 and on fifty state and local newspapers published in Louisiana between 1866 and 1876.(77)

Defining property crimes represents another important methodological problem. To get the most complete and accurate picture and patterns of the various forms of property offenses, I chose to include in my data set all cases of arson and other forms of destruction of property, breaking and entering and burglary, embezzlement, forgery and fraud, grand and small larceny, robbery and petty theft that were reported in Louisiana during these troubled years. To avoid duplication or repetition of cases, I included in my data set only cases for which there existed clear information about the name of the offender, the year, the place and the type of offenses. Consequently, the number of property offenses in Louisiana was much higher than the 2383 cases in our data set. The crosschecking of each case from a variety of sources has made it possible to diminish the deficiencies of some cases and to establish a relatively accurate data set that gives a comprehensive description of the nature and level of property crimes in rural Louisiana after the Civil War.

This data set, despite its limits, makes it possible both to look at local trends and to establish a global picture of property crimes in Louisiana after the War. Moreover, the statistics drawn from the present data set allows us to go beyond isolated cases, to establish various patterns and to examine property crimes in their broader social context. In the process, property offenses emerged as a social phenomenon that could be studied and interpreted in the particular mental and emotional context of post-Civil War Southern society, with all its fears and uncertainty. Finally, to complete my study and correct some deficiencies in this data set, I use qualitative information which has the advantage of providing specific information on particular trends and patterns.

ENDNOTES

1. Lafayette Advertiser, June 21, 1873.

2. 43rd Congress, 2nd sess., House Report no. 261, 196; Opelousas Courrier, Aug. 6, 1870; New Orleans Republican, Dec. 25, 1874, Dec. 24, 1875; Shreveport Times, Feb. 27, 1872, June 12, Oct. 27, 29, 1874, Jan. 31, June 18, 21, Sept. 21, Dec. 24, 1875; George C. Rable, But There Was No Peace: The Role of Violence in the Politics of Reconstruction (Athens, CA, 1984), 98.

3. Edward L. Ayers, Vengeance and Justice: Crime and Punishment in the 19th-Century American South (New York, 1984); Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 (New York, 1988); Michael S. Hindus, Prison and Plantation: Crime, Justice, and Authority in Massachussetts and South Carolina, 1767-1878 (Chapel Hill, 1980); Leon F. Litwack, Been in the Storm So Long: The Aftermath of Slavery (New York, 1979); Joe Gray Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 1863-1877 (Baton Rouge, 1974); Albert C. Smith, "'Southern Violence' Reconsidered: Arson as Protest in Black-Belt Georgia, 1865-1910," Journal of Southern History 51, 4 (Nov. 1985): 527-64; Ted Tunnell, Crucible Reconstruction, War, Radicalism and Race Relations in Louisiana. 1862-1877 (Baton Rouge, 1984).

4. I have chosen to exclude the Parish of Orleans and to limit the present study to rural Louisiana for several reasons. Orleans Parish, including the city of New Orleans and its 200,000 inhabitants, represented a special case. With the exception of Shreveport (8,000) and Baton Rouge (7,000) there was no town or city outside of New Orleans in Louisiana that had more than 2,000 inhabitants. The state of Louisiana, outside of New Orleans, can therefore be considered rural. Finally, criminality did not follow the same pattern in New Orleans as in the countryside. New Orleans was better policed than the rural areas. Thus, to have included New Orleans in the study would have distorted the analysis. This general division of rural and urban area is largely supported by historians. J. M. Beattie, "The Patterns of Crime in England, 1660-1800," Past and Present no. 62 (Feb. 1974): 47-95; David Cohen and Eric A. Johnson, "French Criminality: Urban-Rural Differences in the Nineteenth Century," Journal of Interdisciplinary History XII, 3 (Winter 1982): 477-501; Harvey J. Graff, "Crime and Punishment in the Nineteenth Century: A New Look at the Criminal," Journal of Interdisciplinary History VII, 3 (Winter 1977): 477-491.

5. Angel J. Alloza, "Crime and Social Change in Eighteenth-Century Madrid," International Association For The History of Crime and Criminal Justice 19 (Spring 1994): 7-19; Beatty, "Patterns of Crimes," 95; J. S. Cockburn, "The Nature and Causes of Crime in England, 1559-1625" in Cockburn, Crime in England 1500-1800 (Princeton, 1977), 49-71; V. A. C. Gattrell, Bruce Lenman and Geoffrey Parker ed., Crime and the Law: The Social History of Crime in Western Europe Since 1500 (London, 1980); Barbara A. Hanawalt, Crime and Conflict in English Communities (Cambridge, MA. 1979); Robert A. Nye, "Crime and Modern Societies: Research Strategy for Historians," Journal of Social History 11, 4 (Summer 1978): 491-507.

6. D.S. Rivers and others to Major General W. L. Hancock, Civil Affairs, 5th Military Department, War Department, Micro 4588, 1867-70, New Orleans, Dec. 18, 1867; Petition to Major General W. L. Hancock, Opelousas, Dec. 27, 1867, Box 7, Book 61, Civil Affairs, 5th Military District, War Department; O. A. Violet to Lieut. J. M. Lee, Jan. 14, 1868, Bureau of Freedmen, Refugees and Abandoned Lands (BFRAL); Baton Rouge Advocate, Dec. 6, 1867, June 9, 1869; Baton Rouge Gazette & Comet, April 3, 1866; Carroll Record, April 4, 1868; Donaldsonville Chief, June 26, 1875; Louisiana Democrat, Nov. 2, 1868, May 10, 1871, Feb. 23, 1875; New Iberia Sugar Bowl, April 23, 1874, April 8, 1875; New Orleans Picayune, Nov. 25, 1869, Jan. 16, 25, Feb. 6, 1875; New Orleans Times, Jan. 11, 1875; Courrier, Nov. 14, 1873, July 22, 1875; Thibodeaux Sentinel, April 4, 1874, Nov. 6, 1875; Carl A. Brasseaux, Acadian To Cajun, Transformation of a People (Jackson, 1992), 75, 87; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 361, 422-23.

7. A planter in East Baton Rouge parish lost twenty-seven of his thirty-three hogs at the hands of thieves in early December 1867. His cows, goats and sheep disappeared in the same manner. Another planter saved sixty of his 110 hogs from theft by killing them himself. Cattle and even horses were often shot and killed during the night. There seemed to be no safety for stock of any kind. 44th Congress, 2nd Sess. Home Misc. Doc. no 34, 169, 178, 179, 295; 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess., House Report no 261, 375; D. S. Rivers and others to Major General W. L. Hancock, Civil Affairs, 5th Military Department, War Department, Micro 4588, 1867-70, New Orleans, Dec. 18, 1867; Petition to Major General W. L. Hancock, Opelousas, Dec. 27, 1867, Box 7, Book 61, Civil Affairs, 5th Military District, War Department; Capt. E A. Osborne to Lieut L. O. Parker, Aug. 10, 1867, Plaquemines, Letters Received, Box 4, Book 60, BFRAL; O. A. Violet to Lieut. J. M. Lee, Jan. 14, 1868, BFRAL; Baton Rouge Advocate, Dec. 6, 1867, June 9, 1869, May 9, 1870; Baton Rouge Tri-Weekly Advocate, Dec. 9, 1866; Gazette & Comet, April 3, 1866, Feb. 21, Dec. 5, 1867; Bossier Banner, Sept. 29, 1866; Record, April 4, June 13, 1868; Democrat, Nov. 2, 1868; Sugar Bowl, Aug. 12, 1872; Picayune, Sept. 12, Nov. 25, 1869; Courrier, Nov. 14, 1873; Opelousas Journal, Aug. 12, 1871; Brasseaux, Acadian To Cajun, 75; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 422-23.

8. 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., Home Misc. Doc., no 34, Part 3, 34, 35, 56, 58, 60; Courrier, March 24, 1866; Baton Rouge Cornet, Dec. 5, 1867; Charles P. Roland, "Difficulties of Civil War Sugar Planting in Louisiana," Louisiana Historical Quarterly, 38, 4, (Oct. 1955): 45-46; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 422. In 1860, sheep were worth $3 a head, and a fat hog $7. Keith Fontenot, "Old Southwest Louisiana," Attakapas Gazette (June 1972), 83-84.

9. While an American mare was worth $50 and a stud $35, the demand for mules became so large by 1867 that their price rose to nearly $250 per head. Democrat, Dec. 4, 1872; Sugar Bowl, Aug. 12, 1872; New Orleans Crescent, Aug. 14, 1868; Picayune, July 31, 1868; Courrier, June 13, 1874; Fontenot, "Old Southwest Louisiana," 83-84; Brasseaux, Acadian to Cajun, 77; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 345.

10. Carroll Watchman, Aug. 12, 1875; Picayune, Feb. 20, 1875; Democrat, May 27, 1868; Natchitoches Semi-Weekly Times, Feb. 7, Sept. 26, 1866; Journal, Aug. 12, 1871.

11. Advocate-Comet, Feb. 13, 1866; Gazette & Comet, April 3, 1866, Dec. 5, 1867; Tri-Weekly Advocate, Feb. 6, 1866; Watchman, Aug. 12, 1875; Chief, Aug. 22, 1874; Advertiser, June 12, 1869; Le Louisianais de St. Jacques, June 11, July 15, 1871, Aug. 14, Dec. 4, 1875; Democrat, Aug. 16, 19, 1869, May 27, 1874; People Vindicators, Oct. 4, 1873, May 8, 1875; Sugar Bowl, Feb. 2, 1871, Aug. 7, 14, 1873, April 23, 1874, April 8, 1875; Picayune, Dec. 8, 1868, Oct. 20, 1869, Sept. 9, 1871; Courrier, Feb. 4, 1871; Gazette, Oct. 4, 1873; Sentinel, Aug. 14, 1869; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 91, 322.

12. Sugar Bowl, Aug. 29, 1872; Picayune, Aug. 24, Dec. 17, 1870, Jan. 20, 1872.

13. As the number of parishes, the political sub-units of Louisiana, increased from 48 to 58 between 1868 and 1877, any analysis based at the parish level is almost impossible and can bring only sketchy results. Therefore, we chose to create an intermediary level of geographic and cultural areas between the parish and state levels. This approach gives us comparable data for each area for the whole period. The delineation of our sub-regions was done on the basis of the geographical and cultural characteristics of each region as reported by Daniel Dennett, Louisiana As It Is (New Orleans, 1876), Samuel Lockett, Louisiana As It Is (ed. by Laurence C. Post, Baton Rouge, 1969), and Alvin L. Bertrand, The Many Louisianas: Rural Social Areas and Cultural Islands (Baton Rouge, 1955). Lawrence E. Estaville, "The Louisiana French in 1900," Journal of Historical Geography 14, 4 (Jan. 1988): 342-359.

14. Gilles Vandal, "'Bloody Caddo': White Violence against Blacks in a Louisiana Parish, 1865-1876," Journal of Social History 25, 2 (Winter 1991): 373-388; Gilles Vandal, "Black Violence in Post-Civil War Louisiana," Journal of Interdisciplinary History XXV, 1 (Summer 1994): 45-64.

15. Tri-Weekly Advocate & Comet, Feb. 6, 13, 1866; Gazette & Comet, April 3, 1866; Advertiser, June 21, Aug. 30, 1873; Picayune, Sept. 9, 1871; Gazette, Oct. 4, 1873.

16. Democrat, Nov. 2, 1868; Le Louisianais, July 15, 1871; Brasseaux, Acadian to Cajun, 130; Robert J. Haws and Michael V. Namorato, "Race, Property Rights and The Economic Consequences of Reconstruction: A Case Study," Vanderbilt Law Review 32 (1979): 30526; Vandal, "Bloody Caddo," 373-388; Vandal, "Black Violence in Louisiana," 45-64.

17. In several instances, the quantity or value of the crops, farm animals or other goods taken away by whites were exorbitant if we look at the following example from Bossier parish. In 1868, a black who worked on shares on a plantation saw his former master steal nine head of his cattle. In 1870, Owen Ellis saw his cotton crop, ninety bushels of corn, two milk cows, and fifteen hogs stolen by whites. In 1874, a planter took from one of his field hands his horse, wagon and harness, all worth $500. Eleven blacks who worked on a plantation saw the owner of the plantation taken from them fifty-nine bales of cotton of five hundred pounds each and worth $0.25 a pound, and 4790 bushels of corn worth $1.50 a bushel for a total loss of $15,060. 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Exec. Doc. no 30, 165, 167, 173, 190, 191, 193, 204, 205, 211, 213, 223, 296, 408, 412, 424, 421, 424-427, 429, 431, 433, 435, 436, 442, 445, 448-50, 466-68, 471, 478, 482, 488-91, 493-94, 499, 500, 502, 504, 507, 517, 532, 533, 542-45.

18. On January 9, 1869, three blacks were shot and their throats cut by unknown parties in De Soto parish because they did not want to live under white control. Indeed, for whites, emancipation could only be conceived of in a very limited sense. The primary function of a black, they believed, was to work for a white man and take care of his family. Republican, Feb. 5, 1869, article from Caddo Gazette, Jan. 23, 1869.

19. 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., House Misc. Doc. no 154, 119, 132; 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess, House Report no 261, 143, 441; Supplemental Report of the Joint Committee of the General Assembly on the Conduct of the Late Elections and the Condition of Peace and Order in the State (New Orleans, 1869), 20; Nathaniel Burbank to Cunning Brown, Letters Sent, Aug. 27, 1867, Micro 4498, box 3, BFRAL; Shreveport Southwestern, Aug. 12, 1868; Shrev. Times, Oct. 19, 1875.

20. Banner, Aug. 29, Sept. 5, 12, 1868; Picayune, Sept. 4, 1868; Courrier, Sept. 12, 1868; Southwestern, Aug. 26, 1868, Dec. 7, 1870.

21. 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess., House Report no 261, 189-190; 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess., Senate Exec. Doc. no 17, 53; 46th Congress, 2nd Sess., Senate Report no 693, 172-73, 182; Bulletin, July 2, 1874; Bee, Jan. 20, 1875; Picayune, Oct. 20, 1874, Jan. 28, 1875; N. O. Times, Jan. 27, 1875; Shrev. Times, Jan. 18, 19, 21, 1875; Joseph G. Dawson, Army Generals and Reconstruction Louisiana, 1862-1877, (Baton Rouge, 1982), 189; Perry A. Snyder, "Shreveport During the Civil War and Reconstruction" (Ph. D. Dissertation, Florida State University, 1979), 214, 221-22, 227; Tunnell, Crucible Reconstruction, 2034; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 299.

22. 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess., House Report no 261,439, 440; Advertiser, July 12, 1873; People Vindicators, Dec. 30, 1870; Sugar Bowl, July 3, Aug. 14, 1873; Bee, May 23, 1874; Crescent, March 7, 1869; Picayune, March 3, Nov. 25, 1869; N. O. Times, April 2, 1873; Gazette, Nov. 29, 1873; Beacon, Feb. 26, 1875; Shrev. Times, Jan. 31, 1875.

23. When a black committed murder during a robbery, it was reported at length with all the sordid details particularly if the victim was a white. Banner, Sept. 29, 1866; Advertiser, June 21, 1873; Le Louisianais, May 20, July 22, 1871; Sugar Bowl, July 3, Sept. 4, 1873, Aug. 27, 1874; Picayune, Nov. 25, 1869; N. O. Times, Oct. 29, 1866, April 2, 1873; Horace V. Redfield, Homicide, North and South, (Philadelphia, 1880), 217; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 422.

24. N. O. Times, April 2, 1873; Vandal, "Bloody Caddo," 373-388; Vandal, "Black Violence in Louisiana," 45-64.

25. B.J. Ramage, "Homicides in the Southern States," The Sewanee Review IV (19951996): 217.

26. 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Exec. Doc. no 30, 254-55; 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., Home Misc. Doc. no 34, Part 1, 5; Tri-Weekly Advocate, May 27, 1868; Advertiser, Sept. 18, 1869; Sugar Bowl, Aug. 14, 1873; Bee, Sept. 17, 1874; Bulletin, Oct. 15, 1875; Picayune, Sept. 3, 1868, Nov. 19, 1869, June 1, 1870, Sept. 9, 1871; N. O. Times, June 16, 1873; West Baton Rouge Sugar Planter, Dec. 22, 1866; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 423.

27. Blacks were charged with committing most crimes. "As the courts are now organized, they are in very little danger of either arrest or conviction no matter what may be the nature of the crimes they commit." 43rd Congress, 2nd sess., Home Report no 261, 9-10, 375, 645; J. M. Keller to Capt M. H. Sterling, Franklin, Aug. 31, 1867, BFRAL, Box 1598, Vol 275, 53; Gazette & Comet, Dec. 5, 1867, Banner, May 26, Sept. 29, 1866; Watchman, Aug. 12, 1875; Democrat, May 27, Nov. 2, 1868, May 10, 1871, Feb. 23, 1875; Sugar Bowl, Aug. 31, 1869, Aug. 29, 1872, Aug. 21, 1873, April 23, Nov. 24, 1874; Commercial Bulletin, Sept. 11, 1869; Picayune, Jan. 16, 25, Feb. 6, 1875; N. O. Times, Jan. 11, 1875; Courrier, July 22, 1875; Telegraph, April 15, 1871; St. Mary Planter's Banner, Sept. 8, 1869, March 1, Sept. 8, 1871.

28. Le Louisianais, Aug. 14, 1875.

29. In October 1868, six blacks, armed with shot guns, muskets and pitstols, went to the house of the planter for whom they worked in West Feliciana parish and demanded an immediate settlement of their crop. In Dec. 1867, the black people of St. Mary were very agitated as they came into town fully armed and threatened to rescue some black horse thieves from St. Landry who had been put in jail in Franklin. Whites were ready to support the civil authorities. In Ouachita parish, William Smith, a black, was arraigned in Sept. 1872 on a charge of hog stealing. While on his way to Monroe to appear before the district judge, and under the guard of a constable, Smith was rescued by a band of thirteen armed blacks. Planters' Banner, Dec. 28, 1867; Picayune, Oct. 8, 1868; Journal, Jan. 4, 1868; Telegram, Sept. 21, 1872.

30. For example, two blacks burned a stable and a barn in 1868 in Baton Rouge. In May 1870, Joe Grim, who was working on the L'Argent Plantation in Tensas parish, was discharged by his employers for a trivial offense. On the same night, he set fire to their cabin and to the plantation stables which contained their corn, hay, and farming implements. 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., Home Exec. Doc. no 30, 254-55; 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., Home Misc. Doc. no 34, Part 1,5; Tri. Weekly Advocate, May 27, 1868; Advertiser, Sept. 18, 1869; Sugar Bowl, Aug. 14, 1873; Bee, Sept. 17, 1874; Bulletin, Oct. 15, 1875; Picayune, Sept. 3, 1868, Nov. 19, 1869, June 1, 1870, Sept. 9, 1871; N. O. Times, June 16, 1873; Sugar Planter, Dec. 22, 1866; Smith, "Arson as Protest," 527-64; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 423.

31. The furniture of several freedmen was burned in De Soto parish in 1866. In April 1868, a black man and white woman who were living together were killed in Ouachita parish and their house burned. Three black cabins were burned in De Soto in 1868 by a group of fifty whites. Delos. W. White, a white Republican leader in Grant parish, was killed and his house, worth $10,000, was burned in September 1870. Two black churches in St. Martin parish and two other in Iberia parish were destroyed and burned in August 1874 by members of the White League. White regulators regularly burned the property of blacks in the parishes of East Baton Rouge, East and West Felicianas between 1874 and 1876. 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Exec. Doc. no 30, 159, 272, 325, 402-03, 408, 505; 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Misc. Doc. no 34, Part 1, 16, 26, 21, 353, 363; Sugar Bowl, Aug. 27, 1874.

32. To determine whether or not any particular band really existed is almost impossible task. In some cases, bands pursued their predatory activity for months or years without ever being reported or detected. In other cases, the presence of a band of robbers in an area was often reported by newspapers on the basis of a few robberies by unknown people. Therefore, the present compiled data on bands are based on reports of the presence of a band of robbers and outlaws in particular regions or parishes. This approach must seem arbitrary at first, and yet it is revealing because it unveils the social tension that prevailed in each parish and region at the time.

33. Many bands of thieves were not only well-organized but had leaders who were remarkably shrewd in their calculations, cautious in their movements and quick to accomplish their criminal projects. 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., Home Exec. Doc. no 30, 171; Advertiser, July 12, 1873; Sugar Bowl, July 3, 1873, July 3, 1874; Gazette, Oct. 4, 1873; Sentinel, Aug. 14, 1869.

34. Advertiser, June 2, Sept. 18, 1869, July 12, 1873; Sugar Bowl, May 13, 1873; Picayune, Sept. 3, 1868, Nov. 19, 1869, May 29, 1870; Republican, June 5, 1870; Banner, Sept. 29, 1866, Feb. 16, 1867; Watchman, Aug. 12, 1875; Beacon, June 26, 1875.

35. 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., Home Exec. Doc. no 30, 231-232, 401-402; Capt. F. A. Osbourn to Lieut L. O. Parker, Aug. 10, 1867, Plaquemines, Letters Received, Box 4, Book 60, BFRAL; Scraps of newspapers, Sept. 1873, in United States Attorney General Correspondance with Louisiana, National Archives, RG 60; People Vindicators, Dec. 30, 1870, May 8, 1875; Sugar Bowl, July 3, Aug. 14, Sept. 4, 1873; Picayune, Sept. 12, 1869; Republican, Sept. 16, 1873; New Orleans Weekly Louisianian, June 15, 1872; Courrier, Feb. 4, 1871; Journal, June 8, 1872; Brasseaux, Acadian to Cajun, 127.

36. The Lawson Kimball and John West band was typical of Louisiana post-Civil War bands of outlaws and robbers. These two notorious criminals had led guerrilla bands during the War, and after the War they formed a company to keep the country regulated. They operated during the late 1860s in Winn parish and made large incursions into the adjoining parishes. They were involved in the 1866 murder of Lieutenant Butts of the U.S. army. They rode and robbed throughout the countryside, killing blacks and stealing horses. The band was finally dismantled in April 1870 and its members were either killed or arrested by a vigilance committee. 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess., House Report no 261, 584; John Cromie to Governor Henry C. Warmoth, May 2, May 5, 1870, Letters Sent, Warmoth Papers, Archives of Tulane University; A. W. Ragan to Com. McFarlen, Sept. 5, 1866, Winn parish, no 1756, box 16, BFRAL; Republican, May 8, June 5, 1870. For information on other bands see 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Exec. Doc. no 30, 157, 178, 180-181, 224-225, 231-232, 250-252, 296-304, 381,399, 401-402; 39th Congress, 2nd sess., Senate Exec. Doc. no 6, 86; Governor H. C. Warmoth to General Emory, Gulf Department, War Department, Micro 4501, Box 4, Oct. 26, 1869; Petition of Isaac Crawford and others to H. C. Warmoth, Micro 4501, Box 2, Sept. 68, Gulf Department, War Department; Scraps of newspapers, Sept. 1873, in U.S. Attorney General Correspondance with Louisiana, National Archives, RG 60; Picayune, Aug. 8, 1868; Republican, April 1, 1870, Sept. 16, 1873; Brasseaux, Acadian to Cajun, 127.

37. 39th Congress, 1st Sess., House Report no 30, 156; 39th Congress, 2nd Sess., Senate Exec. Doc. no 6, 86-87; Picayune, Aug. 8, 11, 12, 1868, Sept. 12, 1869; Brasseaux, Acadian to Cajun, 124-25; Dawson, Army Generals, 33-35; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 62-63, 68, 91-92, 317.

38. Banner, Sept. 29, 1866, Feb. 16, 1867; Watchman, Aug. 12, 1875; Advertiser, June 2, Sept. 18, 1869, July 12, 1873; Sugar Bowl, May 13, 1873; Picayune, Sept. 3, 1868, Nov. 19, 1869, May 29, 1870; Republican, June 5, 1870; Beacon, June 26, 1875.

39. 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Exec. Doc. no 30, 383; Lockett, Louisiana As It Is, 58-59. The parishes of Lafourche, Terrebonne and Assumption, an area with numerous bayous and swamps, were particularly troubled by bands of robbers. Advertiser, Aug. 21, 1869; Sugar Bowl, Aug. 29, 1872, Nov. 13, 1873; Courrier, Feb. 4, 1871; Sentinel, Aug. 14, Sept. 18, 1869, Nov. 11, 18, 1872.

40. For most of the Reconstruction period, the northern portion of Caddo parish known as the Black Bayou was infamous for the acts of violence and murders perpetrated against blacks there. In 1874 and 1875, in a locality commonly called "Hog Thief Point" about twelve miles south of Shreveport, a gang of outlaws known as the "Cicero Gang" committed numerous atrocious murders, several of which were extremely brutal. District Attorney Wm H. Wise to Wm P. Kellogg, July 16, 1875, Kellogg Papers, Louisiana State University Archives; Chief, May 29, 1875; 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Exec. Doc. no 30, 415; N. O. Times, Sept. 30, 1867; Shrev. Times, Aug. 27, 1874, May 8, 1875. R. Wilkinson to General J. A. Mower, May 28, 1869, Caddo parish, Record 4501, Box 4, BFRAL; see also Report of General J. A. Mower on Louisiana to the Secretary of War, Oct. 15, 1869, Report of the Secretary of War, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., House Exec. Doc., 1869-70; N. O. Times, July 17, 1870; Southwestern, March 10, 1869; Dawson, Army Generals, 101.

41. And yet much of the lawlessness arose from white people who, as a rule, displayed too much sympathy for parties charged with criminal offenses and were willing to furnish arms to them. Great excitement prevailed in Terrebonne parish in September 1873, when the black parish sheriff proceeded to arrest a white coffee owner for having harbored a fugitive. The Fontenot were able to plunder the parish of St. Landry for three years because they had developed the support of local population and were well-connected to the locals by blood and marriage. 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., House Misc. Doc. no 154, Part 1, 154, 77; 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess., House Report no 261, 196, 227, 440; 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Exec. Doc. no 30, 231-232; Banner, Sept. 29, 1866; Advertiser, July 12, 1873; People Vindicators, Dec. 4, 1875; Sugar Bowl, Aug. 14, Oct. 2, 1873; Republican, June 5, 1870, Dec. 25, 1874, Dec. 24, 1875; Beacon, June 26, 1875; Shrev. Times, Feb. 27, 1872, June 12, Oct. 27, 29, 1874, Jan. 31, June 18, 21, Sept. 21, Dec. 24, 1875.

42. A band of land pirates chose Labidieville, a small town close to New Orleans, as the center of its activities after the War. They regularly robbed the stores in the region. A gang of thieves extended its operations in 1868 from Louisiana into Mississippi. Meanwhile, a gang of horse thieves from Ascension, Lafourche and the surrounding parishes operated as far away as Texas. William Edwards to B. E Flanders, Sept. 18, 1867, Flanders Papers, Archives of Louisiana State University; Banner, Sept. 29, 1866, Jan. 17, 1874; Chief, May 22, 1875; Advertiser, July 12, 1873; Picayune, Dec. 8, 1868, Aug. 1, 1869, Dec. 17, 1870; Republican, June 5, 1870; Courrier, Feb. 4, 1871.

43. During Reconstruction, Northwestern Louisiana along the Texas line was greatly troubled by a gang of outlaws who came from Texas to steal horses, robbing and murdering blacks in the process. A similar gang of forty Texans operated in Natchitoches parish in 1870, killing a white, destroying property and terrorizing blacks. 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Exec. Doc. no 30, 415; R. Wilkinson to General J. A. Mower, May 28, 1869, Caddo Parish, Record 4501, Box 4, BFRAL; Report of General J. A. Mower on Louisiana to the Secretary of War, Oct. 15, 1869, Report of the Secretary of War, 41st Congress, 2nd sess., House Misc. Doc., 1869-70; District Attorney Wm H. Wise to Wm P. Kellogg, July 16, 1875, Kellogg Papers, Louisiana State University Archives; Chief, May 29, 1875; People Vindicators, Dec. 30, 1870; N. O. Times, Sept. 30, 1867, July 17, 1870; Southwestern, March 10, 1869; Shrev. Times, Aug. 27, 1874, May 8, 1875; Dawson, Army Generals, 101.

44. In August 1869, a gang of robbers broke into the stores of Hilaire Charre and Louis Mouille and robbed some pieces of meat, soap and other bulky articles that reappeared a fews days later in the bayou. Advertiser, June 12, Sept. 18, 1869; Sugar Bowl, Aug. 29, 1872.

45. 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess., House Report no 261, 617; Advertiser, June 2, Sept. 18, 1869, July 12, 1873; Sugar Bowl, Feb. 2, 1871, March 13, May 13, July 3, Aug. 7, 14, Sept. 4, Oct. 7, 1873, April 8, 1875, May 11, 16, 1876; Picayune, Nov. 19, 1869, May 29, 1870, Jan. 20, 1872; Sentinel, Oct. 4, 1873; Brasseaux, Acadian to Cajun, 55; Fontenot, "Old Southwest Louisiana," 78-86.

46. This illegal traffic was not new. Because slaves were not properly fed, planters had been careless before the War in ferreting out men who enticed their slaves to steal from them. Rather than blaming their slaves, planters blamed the merchants who bought the stolen corn, cotton, or anything else salvagable. But after suffering the effects of a terrible War, planters found it more difficult to tolerate bands of blacks who raided stores and plantations in searched of seed cotton. As a consequence, planters and blacks had nothing left at the end of the year. Black thieves were paid almost nothing by local merchants or storeowners for the cottonseed and those who worked on shares had, as a result of the thefts, only poor crops. 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Misc. Doc. no 34, 56, 58, 60, 75, 77, 87, 99, 192; Gazette & Comet, Jan. 6, 1859; Banner, Jan. 17, 1874; Bulletin, Oct. 15, 1875; Picayune, Jan. 17, 1874, Dec. 29, 1875, June 21, 1876; N. O. Times, Oct. 15, 1875; Floyd M. Clay, "Economic Survival of the Plantation System within the Feliciana Parish" (M.A. Thesis, Louisiana State University, 1962), 135; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 422-24.

47. No horse-thief gangs were reported prior to 1860, however, the problem grew to become a social evil after the War with four gangs reported in 1867, one in 1868, two in 1869, one in 1873, one in 1874, one in 1875, two in 1876, six in 1877, one in 1878, three in 1880. Out of ninety-seven bands of thieves reported after the War, twenty-three were classed as horse thieves. Petition of White Citizens of St. Landry to Major General W. L. Hancock, Opelousas, Dec. 27, 1867, Box 7, Book 61, Civil Affairs, Gulf Department, War Department; Advocate, June 9, 1869, May 9, 1870; Gazette & Comet, Dec. 5, 1867; Record, June 13, 1868; Chief, May 22, 1875; Picayune, Aug. 1, 1869, Dec. 17, 1870.

48. 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Exec. Doc. no 30, 231-232, 401-402; Scraps of newspapers, Sept. 1873, in United States Attorney General Correspondance with Louisiana, RG 60, National Archives; People Vindicators, Dec. 30, 1870; Sugar Bowl, Aug. 14, Sept. 4, 1873; Picayune, Sept. 12, 1869; Republican, Sept. 16, 1873; Weekly Louisianian, June 15, 1872; Journal, June 8, 1872; Brasseaux, Acadian to Cajun, 127.

49. Composed of planters and ex-guerillas, the"Black Horse Cavalry" terrorized Franklin parish for years and transformed that parish into a den of murderers and robbers. 39th Congress, 2nd sess., Senate Exec. Doc. no 6, 86; 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess., House Report no 261, 361; 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Exec. Doc. no 30, 280, 355; Governor H. C. Warmoth to General Emory, Gulf Department, War Department, Micro 4501, Box 4, Oct. 26, 1869; Petition of Isaac Crawford and Others to H. C. Warmoth, Micro 4501, Box 2, Sept. 68, Gulf Department, War Department; Picayune, Aug. 8, 1868; James G. Dauphine, "The Knights of the White Camelia and the Election of 1868: Louisiana's White Terrorists; a Benighting Legacy," Louisiana History XXX, 2 (Spring 1989): 17390; Rable, But There Was No Peace, 16-32; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 61; Allie B. Windham, "Methods and Mechanisms Used to Restore White Supremacy in Louisiana" (M.A. Thesis, Louisiana State University, 1948), 54, 60.

50. In 1874 the New Orleans Bulletin reported that "For some five weeks past the people of St. Tammany residing in and around Mandeville have been in a state of great excitement in conveying of the advent and subsequent daring and outrageous proceeding of a herculean negro who had been in the wood . . . wanted to lynch him." Banner, Feb. 16, 1867; Record, March 6, 1869; Le Louisianais, June 11, July 15, 1871, Aug. 14, Dec. 4, 1875; Democrat, May 27, 1874; Sugar Bowl, Feb. 2, 1871, Aug. 29, 1872, Aug. 14, 1873, May 11, 1876; Bulletin, May 14, 1874, Jan. 18, 1876; Picayune, Oct. 20, 1869, Aug. 24, 1870.

51. Watchman, Aug. 12, 1875; Beacon, June 26, 1875.

52. In his 1869 report to the state attorney general, the district attorney of the Fifth District Court reported out of 206 criminal cases brought before the court 137(66.5%) that were classed as property offenses. These 137 cases were distributed as follows: five cases of burglary, two of arson, six of robbery, one hundred and seven of larceny, nine of horse stealing, five of receiving stolen goods, one of embezzelment, two of destroying property. Year after year, district attorneys across the state reported similar ratios of property crimes. See Report of the Attorney General to General Assembly for the years 1867 to 1877. See also Chief, July 3, 1875; Sugar Planter, Dec. 22, 1866; Journal, June 4, 1875.

53. Record, March 6, 1869; Le Louisianais, June 1, July 15, 1871, June 19, July 24, Aug. 14, Dec. 4, 1875; People Vindicators, May 8, 1875; Sugar Bowl, Feb. 2, 1871, Aug. 7, 1873, May 16, 1876; Republican, June 5, 1870, Sept. 16, 1873; Courrier, Nov. 14, 1873.

54. Ann P. Baenziger, "The Texas State Police During Reconstruction, A Reexamination," Southwestern Historical Quarterly LXXII (April 1969): 470-91; Dawson, Army Generals, 106, 148-49; Otis A. Singletary, Negro Militia and Reconstruction (Austin, 1957), 74-79; Otis A. Singletary, "The Texas Militia During Reconstruction," Southwestern Historical Quarterly LX (July 1956): 23-35; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 271, 274-75.

55. 40th Congress, 1st Sess., Senate Exec. Doc. no 14, 225; 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess., Senate Exec. Doc. no 17, 7; 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess., House Report no 261, 383; Southwestern, Jan. 28, 1871; Shrev. Times, June 18, 21, Sept. 21, 1875. Picayune, Jan. 28, 1875; Republican, Dec. 25, 1874; N. O. Times, Jan. 27, 1875; Snyder, "Shreveport During the Civil War and Reconstruction," 228.

56. Banner, Sept. 29, 1866; Record, June 13, 1868; South, Dec. 7, 1867; Sugar Bowl, Aug. 7, 1873; Picayune, Dec. 10, 1867, Dec. 15, 1868, Nov. 19, 1869, May 29, 1870; Planter's Banner, Sept. 8, 1869, March 1, 1871; Shrev. Times, Jan. 24, Sept. 21, 1875.

57. Banner, Feb. 16, 1867; Record, March 6, 1869; South, May 21, 1881; Advertiser, Aug. 30, 1873; Sugar Bowl, Feb. 2, 1871, Aug. 29, 1872, Aug. 14, 1873, May 11, 1876; Bulletin, Jan. 18, 1876; Richard Maxwell Brown, Strain of Violence: Historical Study of American Violence and Vigilantism (New York, 1975), 106-107, 124.

58. Bands of thieves made Northwestern Louisiana so insecure after the War that farmers in Bossier and Caddo parishes organized a convoy system to bring their agricultural products and other goods to towns. As a gang of murderous robbers ravaged the parish of East Baton Rouge during the Spring of 1868, a central committee, composed of the sheriff, the mayor of Baton Rouge and the members of the policy jury, coordinated the actions of a citizen association. In April 1870, a vigilance committee put an end to the operations of the Kimball and West band, in Winn parish. Property owners in Iberia parish organized a similar protective association in August 1873. In 1874, citizens of Shreveport formed a volunteer police force of 250 men strong to put an end to a rash of robberies in the city. 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess., House Report no 261,425-26, 435; John Cromie to Governor H. C. Warmoth, May 2, 5, 1870, Warmoth Papers; A. W. Ragan, to C. McFarlen, Sept. 5, 1866, Winn parish, No 1756, Box 16, BFRAL; Tri-Weekly Advocate, June 1, 1868; Sugar Bowl, Aug. 14, 1873; Picayune, March 3, 1869; Republican, May 8, June 5, 1870; Snyder, "Shreveport, During the Civil War and Reconstruction," 26-27, 32-34; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 317.

59. Minutes of the Police Jury, Lafayette Parish, Sept. 28, 1857, Sept. 30, 1860, Louisiana State University Archives; Advocate, July 11, 1854; Gazette & Comet, Oct. 6, 1858, May 7, 1860; Iberville Southern Sentinel, Dec. 27, 1856; Bee, April 14, 1852; Picayune, June 13, Aug. 10, 1853, Aug. 28, 1857; Courrier, Sept. 25, 1858, Feb. 18, 1860; Pointe Coupee Democrat, Oct. 2, 9, 1858; Brasseaux, Acadian to Cajun, 55-6, 114-118; Harvey Wish, "The Slave Insurrection Panic of 1856," Journal of Southern History 5 (1939): 217-219.

60. 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Misc. Doc. no 34, Part 1, 20, 21, 28, 35, 56, 60, 61, 75, 77, 86, 87, 98, 115, 179, 199, 268, 334, 369; Bulletin, Oct. 15, 1875; Picayune, Jan. 17, 1874, October 15, 19, Dec. 29, 1875, June 21, 1876; N. O. Times, Oct. 15, 1875; Beacon, Sept. 18, 1875; Clay, "Economic Survival in Feliciana Parish," 135; Rable, But There Was No Peace, 178-179; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 422-24.

61. In 1868, a committee of thirty men in Lafayette parish set a deadline of twenty-four hours for four black thieves to leave the state. Four blacks of Iberia parish received a similar notice in July 1874. 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Exec. Doc. no 30, 546; Sugar Bowl, July 20, 1874; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 284.

62. Alexandre DeClouet to Paul DeClouet, Sept. 13, 1859, DeClouet Collection, Louisiana Southwestern University Archives; Courrier, Sept. 25, 1858, May 21, Sept. 10, Oct. 14, 1859; Pointe Coupee Democrat, Aug. 21, Oct. 9, 1858; Brown, Strain of Violence, 109; H.L. Griffin, The Vigilance Committees of the Attakapas Country; or Early Louisiana Justice," Proceedings of the Mississippi Valley Historical Association 8 (1914-1915): 155.

63. 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Exec. Doc. no 30, 399; Natchi. Times, Oct. 9, 1869; Picayune, Oct. 20, 1869; Courrier, Nov. 14, 1873.

64. For example, as horses and cows continued to be stolen in Iberia parish, committees of vigilance were formed in 1873, 1874 and 1876. 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess., House Report no 261, 617; Sugar Bowl, May 11, 1876.

65. Vermillion parish had for years been plagued by cattle and horse thieves. A committee of vigilantes was formed in the parish in late summer of 1873, as "thieves are getting more numerous and bolder than was ever known before in the parish." On September 5 and 10, 1873, twelve members of a band of cattle thieves were lynched. They had been previously advised to leave within a specified time, but instead of doing so, 150 of them armed themselves and threatened to destroy the town of Abbeville. The people of the town and of the adjoining country formed a commitee of vigilance three hundred men strong, caught twelve members of the band, and summarily lynched them. Other vigilance committees were formed in Vermillion parish in 1875 and 1876. Cotton Ball, Oct. 1, 1873; Sugar Bowl, Sept. 4, 11, 1873, Aug. 17, 1876; Picayune, Sept. 14, 1873; Republican, Sept. 16, Nov. 16, 1873, Aug. 19, 1876; Courrier, Nov. 14, 1873; Beacon, Sept. 20, Oct. 1, 1873; Sentinel, Oct. 4, 1873; Brown, Strain of Violence, 164; Donald J. Millet, "Cattle and Cattlemen of Southwest Louisiana, 1860-1900," Louisiana History 28, 3 (Summer 1987): 324-25; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 420.

66. According to the Opelousas Journal, the twelve cattle thieves lynched in September 1873 in Vermillion parish were relatives of their executioners. In many cases it is hard to draw the line of demarcation between them, and to say how many cattle a man is justified in stealing before he becomes sufficiently respectable to join the vigilance committee." The quote is taken from Millet, "Cattle and Cattlemen," 324-325; see also Republican, Sept. 16, Nov. 16, 1873; Courrier, Nov. 14, 1873; Brown, Strain of Violence, 164.

67. The committees were described by some members of the press as groups of banditti and outlaws, no better than the ones against whom they acted. Republican, Sept. 16, Nov. 16, 1873; Courrier, Nov. 14, 1873.

68. 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., House Misc. Doc. no 154, 36; 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess., House Report no 261,439; Republican, Aug. 2, 1870, Dec. 25, 1874; Shrev. Times, May 8, June 18, 21, 1875; Ayers, Vengeance & Justice, 245, 249; Brown, Strain of Violence, 126-27, 146-147, 160-61.

69. 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess., House Report no 261, 169, 422, 782; 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Exec. Doc. no 30, 218, 399, 482, 490, 511; Republican, Aug. 29, 1874.

70. In Aug. 1874, Jacques Boutte, alias Jack Jacob, was caught stealing a cow belonging to Zeon Olivier, a black farmer of in St. Martin parish. Jacob, reputed to be a professional cattle thief, was lynched after a summary trial by a jury composed of 200 citizens. 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess., House Report no 261, 782; Republican, Aug. 29, 1874.

71. Chief, March 27, 1875; also Picayune, Aug. 8, 11, 12, 1868.

72. 43rd Congress, 2nd Sess., House Report no 261, 169; 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Exec. Doc. no 30, 394, 434, 442, 443, 490, 494, 506, 542, 546; Brasseaux, Acadian To Cajun, 130.

73. The presses and offices of the following Republican newspapers were destroyed by white mobs: The St. Landry Progress on September 28, 1868, the Attakapas Register on Oct. 19, 1868, the Claiborne Republican on Nov. 17, 1868, the Marksville Register on Dec. 30, 1868, and the Shreveport Southwestern Telegram on Dec. 23, 1874. 44th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Exec. Doc. no 30, 170-71, 178, 179, 180, 184, 185, 187, 267; Picayune, Aug. 8, 1868; Republican, Aug. 9, 18, 1874.

74. Chief, June 26, 1875; Sugar Bowl, April 23, 1874; Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 361, 422-23.

75. Ayers, Crime and Punishment, 111.

76. Donald J. Black, "Production of Crime Rates," American Sociological Review, XXXV, 4 (Aug. 1970): 733-747; V. A. Gatrell and T. B. Hadden, "Criminal Statistics and Their Interpretation," in 19th Century Society: Essays in the Use of Quantitative Methods For the Study of Social Data, edited by E. A. Wrigley (Cambridge, 1972), 336-396; Roger Lane, "Crime and Criminal Statistics in Nineteenth-Century Massachusetts, Journal of Social History 22 (Winter 1968): 156-163; Michael D. Maltz, "Crime Statistics: A Historical Perspective," Crime and Delinquency (Jan. 1977), 32-40; Eric Monkkonen, "Systematic Criminal Justice History: Some Suggestions," Journal of Interdisciplinary History IX, 3 (Winter 1979): 451-464; Nye, "Crime in Modern Societies," 491-507; Samuel Walker, "Counting Cops and Crime," Review of American History X, 2 (June 1982): 212-217.

77. Fuller documentation on these sources will be made available to anyone who forwards such a request to the author.