The Willie Lynch Speech Is a Fake



The Willie Lynch Speech Is a Fake

By Chance Kelsey,

The Willie Lynch letter is a fake, black scholars have proven it. Also just like Eli Whitney the inventor of the cotton gin was said to be a black man — but in reality he was a white man. These Urban myths have be around for a while now.  


Saturday, November 26, 2005

The Death Of The Willie Lynch Speech

Sistas & Brothas,

This is an excellent critique/expose of the Willie Lynch "talk." I have made it clear to folks anytime they raise this letter/talk that it’s a fabrication. Brotha Prof. Manu Ampim has joined several other Black scholars and activists who have exposed the myths of the Wilie Lyncht 1712 talk by advancing a thoroly detailed refutation of its authenticity.

I first saw this "document" in a poor xerox form from a "Liberation Library" copy dated (I think)
1970. I might still have the paper buried in a thousand other old papers I have. When I first saw it, it also struck me as a contemporary piece and inaccurate historically.

We must struggle to exorcise this "urban legend" approach to our history and I’m glad to see this important contribution by our Brotha Prof. Manu Ampim being circulated.

In Struggle,

Sam Anderson author: The Black Holocaust for Beginners (writers & readers) 



Since 1995 there has been much attention given to a speech claimed to be delivered by a "William Lynch" in 1712. This speech has been promoted widely throughout African American and Black British circles. It is re-printed on numerous websites, discussed in chat rooms, forwarded as a "did you know" email to friends and family members, assigned as required readings in college and high school courses, promoted at conferences, and there are several books published with the title of "Willie Lynch."[1] In addition, new terminology called the "Willie Lynch Syndrome" has been devised to explain the psychological problems and the disunity among Black people.

Further, it is naively assumed by a large number of Willie Lynch believers that this single and isolated speech, allegedly given almost 300 years ago, completely explains the internal problems and divisions within the African American community. They assume that the "Willie Lynch Syndrome" explains Black disunity and the psychological trauma of slavery. While some have questioned and even dismissed this speech from the outset, it is fair to say that most African Americans who are aware of the speech have not questioned its authenticity, and assume it to be a legitimate and very crucial historical document which explains what has happened to African Americans.

However, when we examine the details of the "Willie Lynch Speech" and its assumed influence, then it becomes clear that the belief in its authenticity and widespread adoption during the slavery era is nothing more than a modern myth. In this brief examination, I will show that the only known "William Lynch" was born three decades after the alleged speech, that the only known "William Lynch" did not own a plantation in the West Indies, that the "speech" was not mentioned by anyone in the 18th or 19th centuries, and that the "speech" itself clearly indicates that it was composed in the late 20th century.


The "Willie Lynch Speech" is not mentioned by any 18th or 19th century slavemasters or anti-slavery activists. There is a large body of written materials from the slavery era, yet there is not one reference to a William Lynch speech given in
1712. This is very curious because both free and enslaved African Americans wrote and spoke about the tactics and practices of white slavemasters. Frederick Douglass, Nat Turner, Olaudah Equino, David Walker, Maria Stewart, Martin Delaney, Henry Highland Garnet, Richard Allen, Absolom Jones, Frances Harper, William Wells Brown, and Robert Purvis were African Americans who initiated various efforts to rise up against the slave system, yet none cited the alleged Lynch speech. Also, there is also not a single reference to the Lynch speech by any white abolitionists, including John Brown, William Lloyd Garrison, and Wendell Phillips. Similarly, there has been no evidence found of slavemasters or pro-slavery advocates referring to (not to mention utilizing) the specific divide and rule information given in the Lynch speech.

Likewise, none of the most credible historians on the enslavement of African Americans have ever mentioned the Lynch speech in any of their writings. A reference to the Lynch speech and its alleged divide and rule tactics are completely missing in the works of Benjamin Quarles, John Hope Franklin, John Henrik Clarke, William E.B. Du Bois, Herbert Aptheker, Kenneth Stampp, John Blassingame, Rosalyn Terborg-Penn, Darlene Clark-Hine, and Lerone Bennett. These authors have studied the details and dynamics of Black social life and relations during slavery, as well as the "machinery of control" by the slavemasters, yet none made a single reference to a Lynch speech.

Since the Willie Lynch speech was not mentioned by any slavemasters, pro-slavery advocates, abolitionists, or historians studying the slavery era, the question of course is when did it appear?


The first reference to the Willie Lynch speech was in a late 1993 on-line listing of sources, posted by Anne Taylor, who was then the reference librarian at the University of Missouri at St. Louis (UMSL).[2] She posted ten sources to the UMSL library database and the Lynch speech was the last item in the listing. Taylor in her 1995 email exchanges with the late Dr. William Piersen (Professor of History, Fisk University) and others interested in the origin of the Lynch speech indicated that she keep the source from where she received the speech anonymous upon request, because he was unable to establish the authenticity of the document. On October 31, 2005, Taylor wrote:

"Enough butt-covering, now it’s time to talk about where I got it. The publisher who gave me this [speech] wanted to remain anonymous…because he couldn’t trace it, either, and until now I’ve honored his wishes. It was printed in a local, widely-distributed, free publication called The St. Louis Black Pages, 9th anniversary edition, 1994*, page 8."

[*Taylor notes: "At risk of talking down to you, it’s not unusual for printed materials to be ‘post-dated’ – the 1994 edition came out in 1993].[3]

The Lynch speech was distributed in the Black community in 1993 and 1994, and in fact I came across it during this time period, but as an historian trained in Africana Studies and primary research I never took it serious. I simply read it and put it in a file somewhere.

However, the Lynch speech was popularized at the Million Man March (held in Washington, DC) on October 16, 1995, when it was referred to by Min. Louis Farrakhan. He stated:

We, as a people who have been fractured, divided and destroyed because of our division, now must move toward a perfect union. Let’s look at a speech, delivered by a white slave holder on the banks of the James River in 1712… Listen to what he said. He said, ‘In my bag, I have a foolproof method of controlling Black slaves. I guarantee everyone of you, if installed correctly, it will control the slaves for at least 300 years’…So spoke Willie Lynch 283 years ago."

The 1995 Million Man March was broadcast live on C-Span television and thus millions of people throughout the U.S. and the world heard about the alleged Willie Lynch speech for the first time. Now, ten years later, the speech has become extremely popular, although many historians and critical thinkers questioned this strange and unique document from the outset.

————————– Full Text of the alleged Willie Lynch Speech, 1712:

"Gentlemen, I greet you here on the bank of the James River in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and twelve. First, I shall thank you, the gentlemen of the Colony of Virginia, for bringing me here. I am here to help you solve some of your problems with slaves. Your invitation reached me on my modest plantation in the West Indies where I have experimented with some of the newest and still the oldest methods of control of slaves.

Ancient Rome would envy us if my program were implemented. As our boat sailed south on the James River, named for our illustrious King, whose version of the Bible we cherish. I saw enough to know that your problem is not unique. While Rome used cords of woods as crosses for standing human bodies along its highways in great numbers you are here using the tree and the rope on occasion.

I caught the whiff of a dead slave hanging from a tree a couple of miles back. You are not only losing a valuable stock by hangings, you are having uprisings, slaves are running away, your crops are sometimes left in the fields too long for maximum profit, you suffer occasional fires, your animals are killed.

Gentlemen, you know what your problems are: I do not need to elaborate. I am not here to enumerate your problems, I am here to introduce you to a method of solving them. In my bag here, I have a fool proof method for controlling your Black slaves. I guarantee everyone of you that if installed correctly it will control the slaves for at least 300 hundred years [sic]. My method is simple. Any member of your family or your overseer can use it.

I have outlined a number of differences among the slaves: and I take these differences and make them bigger. I use fear, distrust, and envy for control purposes. These methods have worked on my modest plantation in the West Indies and it will work throughout the South. Take this simple little list of differences, and think about them.

On top of my list is ‘Age’, but it is there only because it starts with an ‘A’: the second is ‘Color’ or shade, there is intelligence, size, sex, size of plantations, status on plantation, attitude of owners, whether the slave live in the valley, on hill, East, West, North, South, have fine hair, coarse hair, or is tall or short. Now that you have a list of differences. I shall give you an outline of action-but before that I shall assure you that distrust is stronger than trust and envy is stronger than adulation, respect, or admiration.

The Black slave after receiving this indoctrination shall carry on and will become self re-fueling and self generating for hundreds of years, maybe thousands. Don’t forget you must pitch the old Black male vs. the young Black male, and the young Black male against the old Black male. You must use the dark skin slaves vs. the light skin slaves and the light skin slaves vs. the dark skin slaves. You must use the female vs. the male, and the male vs. the female. You must also have your white servants and overseers distrust all Blacks, but it is necessary that your slaves trust and depend on us. They must love, respect and trust only us.

Gentlemen, these kits are your keys to control. Use them. Have your wives and children use them, never miss an opportunity. If used intensely for one year, the slaves themselves will remain perpetually distrustful. Thank you, gentlemen."


The only known "William Lynch" who could have authorized a 1712 speech in Virginia was born 30 years after the alleged speech was given. The only known "William Lynch" lived from 1742-1820 and was from Pittsylvania, Virginia. It is obvious that "William Lynch" could not have authored a document 30 years before he was born! This "William Lynch" never owned a plantation in the West Indies, and he did not own a slave plantation in Virginia.


The Lynch speech lists a number of divide and rule tactics that were not important concerns to slaveholders in the early 1700s, and they certainly were not adopted. The anonymous writer of the Lynch speech states, "I have outlined a number of differences among the slaves: and I take these differences and make them bigger." Here is the list provided in the Lynch speech: age, color, intelligence, fine hair vs. coarse hair, tall vs. short, male vs. female.

However, none of these "tactics" were concerns to slaveholders in the early 1700s in the West Indies or colonial America. No credible historian has indicated that any of the items on the Lynch list were a part of a divide and rule strategy in any early 18th century. These are current 20th century divisions and concerns. Here are the Lynch speech tactics versus the real divide and rule tactics that were actually used in the early 18th century:


Age Ethnic origin & language

Color (light vs. dark skin) African born vs. American born

Intelligence Occupation (house vs. field slave)

Fine hair vs. coarse hair Reward system for "good" behavior

Tall vs. short Class status

Male vs. female Outlawed social gatherings
It is certain that "Willie Lynch" did not use his divide and rule tactics on his "modest plantation in the West Indies."


There are a number of terms in the alleged 1712 Lynch speech that are undoubtedly anachronisms (i.e. words that are out of their proper historical time period). Here are a few of the words in the speech that were not used until the 20th century:

Lynch speech: "In my bag here, I have a fool proof method for controlling your Black slaves."

Anachronisms: "Fool proof" and "Black" with an upper-case "B" to refer to people of African descent are of 20th century origin. Capitalizing "Black" did not become a standard from of writing until the late 1960s.

Lynch speech: "The Black slave after receiving this indoctrination shall carry on and will become self re-fueling and self generating for hundreds of years."

Anachronism: "Re-fueling" is a 20th century term which refers to transportation.


* William Lynch is invited from the "West Indies" (with no specific country indicated) to give only a short eight-paragraph speech. The cost of such a trip would have been considerable, and for the invited speaker to give only general remarks would have been highly unlikely.

* Lynch never thanked the specific host of his speech, he only thanked "the gentlemen of the Colony of Virginia, for bringing me here." Here, he is rude and shows a lack of etiquette. Also, no specific location for the speech was stated, only that he was speaking "on the bank [sic] of the James River."

* Lynch claims that on his journey to give the speech he saw "a dead slave hanging from a tree." This is highly unlikely because lynching African Americans from trees did not become common until the late 19th century.

* Lynch claims that his method of control will work for "at least 300 hundred years [sic]." First, it has gone unnoticed that the modern writer of the "speech" wrote three hundred twice ("300 hundred years"), which makes no grammatical sense. It should be "300 years" or "three hundred years." Second, the arbitrary choice of 300 years is interesting because it happens to conveniently bring us to the present time.

* Lynch claims that his method of control "will work throughout the South." This statement clearly shows the modern writer’s historical ignorance. In 1712, there was no region in the current-day U.S. identified as the "South." The geographical region of the "South" did not become distinct until a century after the alleged speech. Before the American Revolutionary War vs. Britain (1775-1783) the 13 original U.S. colonies were all slaveholding regions, and most of these colonies were in what later became the North, not the "South." In fact, the region with the second largest slave population during the time of the alleged William Lynch speech was the northern city of New York, where there were a significant number of slave revolts.

* Lynch fails to give "an outline of action" for control as he promised in his speech. He only gives a "simple little list of differences" among "Black slaves."

* Lynch lists his differences by alphabetical order, he states: "On top of my list is ‘Age’, but it is there only because it starts with an ‘A’. " Yet, after the first two differences ("age" and "color"), Lynch’s list is anything but alphabetical.

* Lynch spells "color" in the American form instead of the British form ("colour"). We are led to believe that Lynch was a British slaveowner in the "West Indies," yet he does not write in British style.

* Lastly, the name Willie Lynch is interesting, as it may be a simple play on words: "Will Lynch," or "Will he Lynch." This may be a modern psychological game being played on unsuspecting believers?


It is clear that the "Willie Lynch Speech" is a late 20th century invention because of the numerous reasons outlined in this essay. I would advance that the likely candidate for such a superficial speech is an African American male in the 20s-30s age range, who probably minored in Black Studies in college. He had a limited knowledge of 18th century America, but unfortunately he fooled many uncritical Black people.

Some people argue that it doesn’t matter if the speech is fact or fiction, because white people did use tactics to divide us. Of course tactics were used but what advocates of this argument don’t understand is that African people will not solve our problems and address the real issues confronting us by adopting half-baked urban myths. If there are people who know that the Lynch speech is fictional, yet continue to promote it in order to "wake us up," then we should be very suspicious of these people, who lack integrity and will openly violate trust and willingly lie to our community.

Even if the Willie Lynch mythology were true, the speech is focused on what white slaveholders were doing, and there is no plan, program, or any agenda items for Black people to implement. It is ludicrous to give god-like powers to one white man who allegedly gave a single speech almost 300 years ago, and claim that this is the main reason why Black people have problems among ourselves today! Unfortunately, too often Black people would rather believe a simple and convenient myth, rather than spend the time studying and understanding a situation. Too many of our people want a one-page, simplified Ripley’s Believe or Not explanation of "what happened."


While we are distracted by the Willie Lynch urban mythology, the real issues go ignored. There are a number of authentic first-hand written accounts by enslaved Africans, who wrote specifically about the slave conditions and the slavemasters’ system of control. For example, writers such as Olaudah Equiano, Mahommah Baquaqua, and Frederick Douglass wrote penetrating accounts about the tactics of slave control.

Frederick Douglass, for instance, wrote in his autobiography, Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass, that one of the most diabolical tactics of the American slaveholders was to force the slave workers during their six days off for the Christmas holiday to drink themselves into a drunken stupor and forget about the pain of slavery. Douglass wrote, "It was deemed a disgrace not to get drunk at Christmas; and he was regarded as lazy indeed, who had not provided himself with the necessary means, during the year, to get whiskey enough to last him through Christmas. From what I know of the effects of these holidays upon the slave, I believe them to be the most effective means in the hands of the slaveholder in keeping down the spirit of insurrection. Where the slaveholders at once to abandon this practice, I have not the slightest doubt it would lead to an immediate insurrection among the slaves…. The holidays are part and parcel of the gross fraud, wrong, and inhumanity of slavery."[4]

Also, many nineteenth century Black writers discussed the specific tactics of the white slaveowners and how they used Christianity to teach the enslaved Africans how to be docile and accept their slave status. The problem with African American and Black British revelry during the Christmas holidays and the blind acceptance of the master’s version of Christianity are no doubt major issues among Black people today. It is certain that both of these problems were initiated and perpetuated during slavery, and they require our immediate attention.

Many people who embrace the Willie Lynch myth have not studied the period of slavery, and have not read the major works or first-hand documents on this issue of African American slavery. As indicated above, this fictional speech is amazingly used as required reading by some college instructors. Kenneth Stampp in his important work on slavery in the American South, The Peculiar Institution (1956), uses the historical records to outline the 5 rules for making a slave:

1. Maintain strict discipline.
2. Instill belief of personal inferiority.
3. Develop awe of master’s power ( instill fear).
4. Accept master’s standards of "good conduct."
5. Develop a habit of perfect dependence.[5]

Primary (first-hand) research is the most effective weapon against the distortion of African history and culture. Primary research training is the best defense against urban legends and modern myths. It is now time for critical thinkers to bury the decade-old mythology of "William Lynch."



1. For example, see: Lawanda Staten, How to Kill Your Willie Lynch (1997); Kashif Malik Hassan-el, The Willie Lynch Letter and the Making of a Slave (1999); Marc Sims, Willie Lynch: Why African-Americans Have So Many Issues! (2002); Alvin Morrow, Breaking the Curse of Willie Lynch (2003); and Slave Chronicles, The Willie Lynch Letter and the Destruction of Black Unity (2004).

2. See:

3. For this quote and the general Anne Taylor email exchanges regarding the authenticity of the Willie Lynch speech, see:

4. Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (1845), p. 84.

5. Kenneth Stampp, The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South (1956), pp. 144-48.


*Prof. Manu Ampim is an Historian and Primary (first-hand) Researcher specializing in African & African American history and culture. He is also a professor of Africana Studies. He can be reached at:

PO Box 18623, Oakland, CA (USA). Tel. 510-482-5791. Email:

The Willie Lynch Hoax

What some historians have had to say about this hoax:

It’s really sad that so many African-Americans not only beleive this "urban legend" (to put it in decent language), but that so many seem not to care that it is not really true. Anyone who does not care about the truth is in big trouble. For the record, the "Willie Lynch" letter was actually a recent creation, as evidenced by the language used. It was actually created in 1993 as a chain letter which spread like a bad disease throughout Black America. Research indicates that it was "loosely adapted" (to put it nicely) from a section of Anatoli Vinogradov’s fictional 1935 novel "The Black Consul" that dealt with Napoleon’s supposed plans to divide and conquer the Haitians during the Haitian revolution.

We Black scholars and professional historians should take this as a wake up call to get out of the ivory tower and teach the masses REAL Black history to keep them from being misled by the clever crackpots who collect cash by confusing the credulous. The REAL story of the damage done to Blacks from slavery may be found in actual slave narratives like "The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass," and detailed studies by legit scholars such as Carter G. Woodson’s "Miseducation of the Negro" and Kenneth Stampp’s "The Peculiar Institution."

There is a speech attributed to William Lynch which has been circulated on the internet and elsewhere, and which even Louis Farrakhan referred to at the Million Man March of October 16, 1995. By quoting extensively from the "Willie Lynch" speech, Mr. Farrakhan inspired the birth of a new term, Willie Lynch Syndrome, based on Lynch’s supposed speech.

this speech is a ridiculous fake, written in the 1990s (there’s no record of it being circulated before 1993).

First, the writer of this speech has made hardly any attempt to use the writing/speech style of the early 18th century.

Second, the author was not at all successful at steering clear of very specific anachronisms. We’ll name only the most glaring word-choice errors: fool-proof, used in the speech, actually dates from only 1902. The noun program is not used in the sense found in this speech until the 1830s. Self-refuelling is an utter anachronism, as the term refuelling did not arise until the early 20th century. Use of installed when referring to something other than a person did not first occur until the mid-19th century. Moreover, attitude did not refer to anything other than a physical position until the mid-19th century.

Third, a speaker would hardly need to so carefully identify the date and place of his speech, nor would he be likely to refer to King James as "our illustrious King, whose version of the Bible we cherish", unless he were a person of the 1990s making a clumsy attempt at writing a fake speech from the early 18th century. We cannot imagine why the writer introduces the theme of "James… our illustrious king" unless it is merely to emphasize that this took place in colonial times. Only someone creating a fake would need to try to establish a date for the speech within the fake itself. And, by the way, James was long-dead by 1712, the monarch of that era being Queen Anne. Finally, there is no evidence that a William Lynch from a "modest plantation" in the West Indies ever existed. There is, however, plenty of evidence for the existence of Captain William Lynch of Pittsylvania, Virginia, whom we have identified as the probable source of the verb lynch, and who was born fifty years after the date given in the speech above.

There are other obvious characteristics of the speech which render it a 20th-century creation. Some of these are discussed at a web site devoted to the subject and created by Anne Taylor, collection development librarian at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. By the way, Ms. Taylor seems to be one of the first to have posted the speech on the internet. She obtained it from the publisher of a free publication in St. Louis, The St. Louis Black Pages, dated 1994 but published in 1993. This is the earliest reference we’ve been able to find to the Willie Lynch speech in print. We think it’s time to send Willie Lynch’s speech to the urban legends department.

I suspect that the narrator’s name–Mr. Will Lynch–is a humorous put-on. Moreover, when Mr. Lynch thinks about
dividing the slaves, he forgets the division that was most obvious to a West-Indian planter: nationality–both African
ethnic divisions–Akan, Ibo, Mandingo and American divisions between so-called new Negroes [native Africans]
and those born in the New World. His old vs young and dark vs light divisions would be most peculiar among early
eighteenth-century African Americans (in both the West Indies and Virginia) who did not have such color gradations
as in our own time and who still maintained the near absolute African respect for age.

First, I think it is rather odd for a speaker, even in 1712, to go to such lengths to locate the speech in time and space. The hearers of a speech would have no need for such a preamble: they are there and then, and it is not so clear that this was being spoken for a later printing. It is, however, useful to encourage a later reader to place the speech in a time and place, and the florid style fits a contemporary, though usually false, expectation for florid speech by speakers of the time.

Next, "the bank of the James River," is too generic. If the speaker was making the reference as a matter of courtesy, it is unusual — indeed it would have been rude — not to thank the specific hosts: why on the banks of the River, and no reference to a planter at whose landing or house such a speech must have been given? This omission gives rise to another problem: why a speech on such a topic, and given by someone ostensibly imported by ship for the purpose of giving it, would be given to an open riverside assembly, and not in a house or meeting room. It is unlikely that a planter or planters would underwrite the passage of a speaker from the Indies and not have arranged a suitable place for invitees to hear such a speech without fear of being overheard by the lower classes.

Next (and I promise this is my last point about the geography) there is utterly no reason for anyone arriving in Virginia to have thought of a single thing, "As our boat sailed south on the James River". The James River flows north, not south, from Hampton Roads. The only way he would travel south on it is after having given the speech and not before. While such a reference would have been impossible for someone on the banks of the river, it does reinforce, to the modern reader challenged by geography that the speaker is in the South.

As for other reference to time, the speech refers the river as "named for our illustrious King, whose version of the Bible we cherish." While this is a bit afield of my own areas of specialty, I think this is a rather anachronistic manner of referring to the English Bible: such an overt reference to a "version" makes clear that there are other versions, something to me that sounds a tad odd in the mouth of such a declared Anglican. James’s 1611 English Bible had pretty so much fully replaced the Geneva Bible as the Bible of the English-speaking world by 1660, that in 1712, this sounds out of place. A reference to James as "patron of our Bible" would have been much more likely.

There are other textual problems that are better left to others (why is the speech so short when the speaker was imported and is speaking in an age of rhetoric as public entertainment? why "West Indies" and not an island name? why "color" and not "colour"? why bank and not "banks"?), but I wonder most about the reference to controlling slaves for 300 years.

Why would a person be invited from the West Indies to Virginia just to deliver an 8-paragraph speech? Back then, such a voyage would have been too strenuous and expensive for this, especially from an unknown person, especially when letter-writing was still the main form of long-distance communication? Of course, Lynch could have been in Virginia on business just before being spontaneously invited to speak. Still, if there had been a William Lynch whose word was so valued that he should deliver such a short speech in person rather than in writing, then certainly his speech would have been reprinted and commented upon in the local newspapers.

Also, he claims to want to give an "outline of action," yet no such plan is clearly given. It seems that a person who travels from the West Indies to Virginia for a speech would have elaborated more.

Thirdly, in paragraph 6, the author writes that "distrust is stronger than trust," yet only 5 sentences later, contradicts himself, saying, "it is necessary that your slaves trust and depend on us." Such a big contradiction would be expected from someone whose audience is listening intently for detailed information about specific steps in maintaining its livelihood through better control of his property. Why the switch in subjects from 3rd to 2nd person? Why not mention at least 2 or 3 methods of using dark-skinned slaves against light-skinned ones, and vice versa? Contradiction and lack of detail make me leery of any claims that this "speech" is not a hoax.

Furthermore, the obvious stab at the sore points in African-American psyche, such as gender and facial feature issues, makes me believe it was written for a contemporary audience, since "female vs. … male and … male vs. … female." would not have been so major a societal issue amongst slaves in 1712 in the United States.

As a historian, I am generally skeptical of smoking guns. Historical work, like forensic science, is more about the painstaking aggregation of facts that lead researchers to the most likely explanation, but rarely the only one. Slavery was an incredibly complex set of social, economic and legal relations that literally boiled down to black and white. But given the variation in size of farms, number of enslaved workers, region, crops grown, law, gender-ratios, religion and local economy, it is unlikely that a single letter could explain slave policy for at least 151 years of the institution and its ramifications down to the present day.

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

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

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

In popular citations, Lynch has also been – inexplicably – credited with the term "lynching" which would be odd since the speech promises to provide slave-holders with non-violent techniques that will save them the expense of killing valuable, if unruly, property. This inaccuracy points to a more basic problem in understanding American history.

The violence directed at black people in America was exceptional in the regard that it was racialized and used to reinforce political and social subordination, but it was not unique. Early America was incredibly violent in general – stemming in part from the endemic violence in British society and partly from the violence that tends to be associated with frontier societies. For most of its history, lynching was a non-racial phenomenon- actually it was racial in that it most often directed at white people. "Lynch law" was derived from the mob violence directed at Tories, or British loyalists, just after the American Revolution. While there is disagreement about the precise origins of the term – some associate it with Charles Lynch, a Revolution-era Justice-of-the-Peace who imprisoned Tories, others see it as the legacy of an armed militia founded near the Lynche River or the militia captain named Lynch who created judicial tribunals in Virginia in 1776 – there is no reference to the term earlier than 1768, more than half a century after the date given for the speech.

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

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

  1. Thetruthis

    THE WILLIE LYNCH LETTER IS NOT REAL?? Now this I can believe…..I thinks black people need someone to blame for why they are so fucked up instead of taking responsiblity, and this Willie Lynch Letter is perfect for that. Wake up

  2. amber young

    I believe the Willie lynch letter isnt real. I do believe we just want someone to blame our rediculous actions on. If you ask me I dont even think he’s real. I believe it just a huge urban myth that has grew controversy for years now. Theres alot of people out there mainly blacks that belive Willie Lynch and his letter is real. Blaming our actions on him. they are going to believe in him for a long time to come. I dont see why we cant just take responsibilities for our actions more. Its not like its impossible it can happen we just dont try to. COME ON WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THIS!! WAKE UP BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!!!

  3. Natosha

    Best breakdown I’ve seen on debunking this myth, thank you for posting!

  4. chris

    Can Willie Lynch be Uncle Sam….

  5. chris

    It amazes me that I have seen black who don’t like black because one is light and the other dark, I have experience this first hand being dark and some light brothers didn’t like me for that reason…..prior to 1993….Maybe this is a fake, but the substance has some truth….

  6. For something that is Fake,you spent a lot of ” WORDS/ TIME “writing about it.

  7. arsenal

    I do believe there is enough ‘proof’ that the letter is not real. However, the gist of the letter is accurate. The letter being fake does not prove the acts described in it that were used to suprress Blacks aren’t.
    I think that is important.

  8. Tammy

    I find it hilarious that he/she dedicated so much time and energy on a fake letter. What does it matter to you anyway? English literature and Greek mythology is taught in most American schools despite most of it being FAKE. People read it because there’s still WISDOM to be gained from some of it despite it being FAKE. White folks always adding their 2cents, worrying about what the hell blacks are doing. Pretending like you’re actually looking out for our best interest.

  9. Wolfe

    I Find this very amazing, that people are saying this is fake and this is real. From my understanding, of the letter, it is true. I look at how things are and how that letter, both are the same. I KNOW many will say that blacks should not believe, cause it is fake and they need to stop believing in things like. Well we must not , cause in order for things to get better, we must know where we come from, where we at and then we will know where we are going. UNTIL you walk in someone else shoes, DON’T say it don’t happen or has happen.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  10. oznola


  11. LJT

    This was a very interesting read. It definitely made my critical thinking skills surface. One thing I do want to say, in reference to dividing the slaves by color. The Willie Lynch letter states that if you make the slaves believe that the “lighter shade” is superior than the darker shade African American, they will not unite. In regards to slavery, we always read about lighter shade African Americans being house slaves, and darker shade slaves being “field” slaves. Why is this not linked to the divisive intent of the slave master controlling and keeping the slaves divided? Although it’s not a joke, we always hear people refer to light skin African Americans as “house slaves” and how they were the only ones who were good enough to be in the house because of their skin. The letter may be fake, but a lot of connotations that link back to slavery, and the substance of the letter being real.

  12. The writer put a lot of time & energy into proving that the Willie lynch letter is a fraud. No one cares if it is authentic or not, because a lot of these tactics was used on African-American slaves….. Forcing slaves to witness other slaves getting beat and maimed, not allowing Africans to retain their culture and language, breeding men and women and breaking up the family, so black men would not feel attached to his offspring and the woman, women were made the head of their household by force and had to teach their children to fear the white man (today, blacks have to give their children “the talk” about how to conduct themselves around white police officers ect..). The house n___ vs the field n_____ ect.. There is a lot of relevance to all of this, there are a lot of authentic written narratives of slaves/ex-slaves testifying about the horrors of the “institution” of slavery and their experience. Lets face it the sociological, psychological damage is real. Jim Crow and all the millions of slaves who were lynched and tortured is a reality. So what is the author trying to prove again???

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: