Although chain gangs were legal in almost every American state during the 18th century, the southern states seemed to be the only region using them. Following the Civil War there was a labour shortage, and it was the place that appeared to need them the most.
By 1875 most of the states in the south had convict labour; an escalation in crime also led to them leasing out convict labour. Many convicts were also hired out to farms in the south to replace the slaves who were freed because of the Civil War. Tens of thousands of convicts - most of them indigent black men - were snared in a justice system rooted in racism and nurtured by economic expedience.
Chain gangs in America were essentially instruments with which to terrorise, control and humiliate convicts, and what they succeeded in doing was embodying a powerful symbol of the country's legacy of racial injustice and institutionalised oppression. Inmates were often controlled by whips and other harsh disciplines and punishments. While the chain gang's historical connection to slavery is inescapable, it soon became seen as a source of cheap labour where convicts were usually put to work on contract, lease or piecework bases for private industries outside prison.
The use of chain-gang labour slowly disappeared, not because of any moral abhorrence but because of competition with non-prison labour. Interstate commerce in the products of convict labour was restricted in the US in 1934; nowadays most of the country's prison industries are devoted to the production of goods used in state institutions.
Although chain gangs no longer exist in most southern states - Maricopa County in Arizona is an exception - Alabama briefly and unsuccessfully attempted to revive the gangs in the mid-1990s. They didn't last.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article