Document 12

Document 12:

Author: James Harris Fairchild

Recipient: Mary Fletcher Kellogg

Date: 29 July 1840

Location: Oberlin College Archives, James H. Fairchild Papers. Series III Courtship Correspondence,

1771-1926, RG 2/003.

Document Type: Transcript (1939) Autograph Letter, Signed by Author.

Introduction:

        The following excerpt is from the first of James’ letters regarding an event known as the “Oberlin Lynching” or the “Lynching at Oberlin.” Unlike our modern understanding of lynching, where it is considered an explicitly racist crime, prior to the Civil War, lynching was simply the term used to refer to forms of extralegal “justice” that communities meted out to individuals they felt had transgressed, and did not have any specific racial connotations.

        In this case, the “Oberlin Lynching” refers to an event that occurred when a male student at the College, Horace Norton, wrote suggestive letters to several female students.¹ Because of the controversial nature of coeducation, Oberlin had worked hard to prevent any accusations of licentious behavior between the male and female students. Norton’s behavior, therefore, was particularly objectionable.² While the letters he sent were never made public, those that read them described them as horribly lewd and clearly intended to seduce the young women to whom he sentthem.³ There also may have been an element of blackmail to them, calculated to prevent the young women from either resisting his advances or retaliating. Although it seems that none of the women involved ended up seduced or assaulted by Norton, they were frightened and embarrassed. Since women were supposed to restrain men’s behavior, the fact that they had received these clearly unrestrained letters made their own virtue potentially questionable.

        Norton’s letters came to light when one of the young women he had targeted showed the letter she received to the Female Principal.⁴ The letter was then brought to the attention of the administration, and, with dubious permission from some of the more senior faculty, a number of the younger professors and senior students at the Theological Seminary took it upon themselves to punish Norton for his crimes, which, while serious by Oberlin’s standards, were not the sort that could be tried in a court of law. In order to effect their punishment, these conspirators wrote a forged letter back to Norton in the persona of the female student, apparently accepting his advances.⁵ When Norton then suggested that the “lady” meet him in the woods for an assignation, the young men had one of their female relatives act as a decoy, and, after she had lured Norton into the woods, her male relative took her away, while the other young men surrounded and bound Norton.⁶

        Accounts as to what precisely happened in the woods are conflicting, but the most likely scenario seems to be that after Norton was bound, the men asked him to confess and repent of his crimes; when he refused, they decided that he ought to be whipped. James Fairchild’s brother, Henry, administered the punishment. Norton was then given a small amount of money and told to leave town.⁷ 

        Norton’s case became a national sensation and troubled the college for over a year. Many religious papers sided with Norton, stating that, whatever immoral acts he committed, the actions of the young men of the college in tricking him and physically assaulting him were worse.⁸ Already controversial for its abolitionist tendencies, Oberlin College was also the subject of threats of violence because of this incident. For quite some time, rumors circulated of mobs forming that intended to burn the college to the ground.⁹ Though no violence ever occurred, these threats reveal how many people reviled Oberlin. Norton’s father was also incensed by Oberlin’s actions, and physically threatened those involved, showing up on campus with a rifle and bowie knife.¹⁰ He also took the faculty members involved to court on charges of assault. The courts agreed with Norton and ruled against Oberlin College. Those involved in the lynching, including James’ brother, were ordered to pay fairly significant amounts of money in damages, though they escaped prison time.¹¹ 

        Despite the negative press the “Oberlin Lynching” received, it potentially had a positive effect on the college, and enrollment apparently increased as a result.¹² This was because, although the actions of the male faculty against Norton may have been excessive, they showed Oberlin’s apparent commitment to preventing sexual misconduct. Norton’s licentious behavior was so clearly the opposite of the Oberlin norm that the “Oberlin Lynching” alleviated parents’ fears that their daughter’s virtue would be threatened by coeducation.¹³ This fascinating incident from Oberlin’s early years reveals both just how controversial Oberlin was, but also just how oddly concerns surrounding gender and coeducation could affect the college.

Transcription:

Our quiet community has been convulsed with excitement for the last two or three days on account of a lynching operation performed upon the person of one of the students.*¹⁴[sic] You will certainly be surprised to learn that a new edition of the Lynchburg tragedy¹⁵ has been acted upon the stage of Oberlin. The hero of it was a young fellow<,> 18 or 20 years of age, as dark a villain as ever looked upon the sun. It was impossible to discover him so as to bring him out to justice, and the law in such matters is most lame; it does not at all meet the end of law. Last Saturday night<,> by a little adroit encouragement on the part of a dozen individuals, the fellow was caught in his own snare. He was decently flogged and provided with the money for his journey and sent to make his fortune in some friendlier clime. The whole operation was most fearfully romantic fromthe beginning to end. I will tell you some day about it. The plot is laid to the charge of some of our first students. I have heard my name whispered about for a day or two. You would be surprised to hear<,> a few days hence<,> that I have been arraigned for assault and battery. I think I shall be able to prove an alibi, but there are some that have studied Theology longer than I have, that cannot do it. Was it right or was it wrong? I am sorry that it was done, but the villain deserved it all. I did not imagine a man so vile could walk the earth…..[sic]

THURSDAY NIGHT: 11 O’clock. [sic]

Have just returned from faculty meeting. My head is so full of all those matters<,> I shall hardly be able to finish this sheet for the morning’s mail, but I shall have no other time than this. The excitement in respect to the tragic scene of Saturday night is increasing in the country around us. It is most probabl<e> that those who performed the feat will surrender themselves to the law and receive the consequences. Do not suspect me of being of the number. I was not consulted in the matter.

Transcribed by Rebecca Debus.

---