Talk:Tarring and feathering

Past Discussion
What I would like to know is when in the world would this expression be commonly used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.14.166 (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC) this has just happened in northern ireland bbc news article

How do you clean off the tar and feathers? What would you used in early America around 1906? JB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.243.80 (talk) 18:14, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * Today many tars can be dissolved using a solvent like paint thinner or mineral spirits, but likely a more common option at the time was turpentine. I'm not sure though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezonant (talk • contribs) 22:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Another Wikipedian Americocentrism, I'm sorry to say. The article begins by describing the practice in a purely American context, yet tarring and feathering is clearly a punishment from Britain. Surely the American history of the practice should follow its origins, unless tarring and feathering is clearly identified more (outside the USA) with America, which I feel it doesn't. Wikipedia is read by people in all of the 190 nations, yet a preponderance of its contributors write from the perspective of just one. - PW
 * I invite you to contribute a different point of view to the article. Deltabeignet 20:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scarcely British; the 1696 incident in the article is the only one I have ever heard of ever occurring in Britain, and I only read of it here. The absolute numbers of incidents in America since the mid-eighteenth century to the early twentieth compared with the total paucity of incidents in the rest of the world shows it to be an American phenomenom. Naturally other countries have had their own horrible punishments  ---  such as say, the early bolsheviks cutting off of priests' fingers which never happened in the US. But as with lynching, most civilised countries didn't burn people during that period.

As for the possibility Richard I had it ( whether drawn up by him or someone else ) as putative penalty, I'm gonna go with the fact that that was a long time ago; plus there's no suggestion that this was punishment in Middle Ages Britain, having been allegedly prescribed for crusaders only. Claverhouse (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That the practice originated in Britain is undeniable. And it was widely used by the British in their colonies.  For example, the numerous victims of Lt Edward Hepenstall, the "Walking Gallows" of the 1798 Irish rebellion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.111.158 (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to see some evidence for all this, I cannot find anything about it being in use in the colonies  ---  regular states and lawyers do not favour mob violence, and violent judicial punishments other than hanging and whipping were in decline everywhere after the 17th century  ---  and this fellow Hepenstall only turns up a couple of times by Google.  That something may have happened once or twice does not mean it originated there.  The American Revolutionaries either invented it or re-invented it for their own uses.Claverhouse (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Does tarring severely burn the skin? Does the punishment result in permanent injury? Kent Wang 10:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I recall hearing that tarring and feathering was actually often fatal, as it clogged the pores in the skin to an irreparable extent. Anyone know if there is any truth to this? -R. fiend 01:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The right John Malcolm? The link from the picture seems to refer to someone who was active in a different part of the world and at a later time.

Wording of Corporal punishment vs Capital punishment
I was confused about the statement "...moved from public, corporal punishment to capital punishment and prisoner rehabilitation"... I believe it would be more effectively worded as "...moved from public, corporal punishment to imprisonment, rehabilitation or in some cases capital punishment". But I'm no expert so I'm putting it here. --Rezonant (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Source?
Is there a source for this comment? I don't dispute that tarring and feathering is not rehabilitative, I dispute the cause and effect (that it was abandoned because it was not rehabilitative):
 * It was eventually abandoned in the United States partly because it did nothing to rehabilitate its victims of the criminal behavior for which they were sentenced 

67.183.154.41 18:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Consequences
Are there documented cases of people surviving tarring and feathering? Is it possible to keep the tar cool enough to not cause severe burns? How long did it take to remove the tar, and did people die of heat strokes because their skin pores were blocked? The article seems to assume that the penalty is not fatal, and in some cases does not even cause injury, but is there evidence to back this up? William Smith seems to have survived without serious hurt, but he was apparently thrown into water immediately after being tarred. dab (&#5839;) 11:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * apparently it wasn't fatal as a rule, according to the Straight Dope link at least, Unlike its close cousin lynching, tarring and feathering usually wasn't fatal. One historian says it was employed chiefly when a mob was feeling "playful." [...] A Tory assaulted by a mob in 1775 was stripped naked and daubed with hot pitch, blistering his skin [...] In 1912 Ben Reitman, companion of the radical agitator Emma Goldman, was beaten by a mob in San Diego, then tarred and covered with sagebrush. Afterward he spent two hours cleaning off the worst of the gunk with turpentine and tar soap. dab (&#5839;) 11:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I distinctly remember being told at school in New England that tarring and feathering was usually fatal. On the other hand, many things I was told at school have turned out to be false. M-1 (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The article says that "Third degree burns are sustained after a split second contact with a material that is 160ºF (~70ºC)." I find that hard to believe; third degree burns involve deep charring of the skin and the like (see burn). More likely, first degree burns are meant. Now, I have occasionally had my skin splashed by boiling water (at 212ºF), the contact lasted about a second, and a first degree burn was the result; so, based on this personal "experiment" I am changing the text of the article to say "First degree". If you feel like changing it back, please provide some sources for your unlikely claims. Freederick 23:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between getting splashed with boiling water and sticking your entire arm in the pot for possibly hours. BethEnd 23:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I requote: “split second contact”. End quote. Besides, nobody is talking about boiling people in a pot; tarring is coating with a thin layer of warm (160ºF,70ºC) material that presumably quickly cools.  Third-degree is absurd.  Freederick 03:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I am pretty sure the figures are all wrong. 56C is usually quoted as pain threshold and is several degrees below where damage takes place. There are very detailed figures available on this but I haven't seen them online. --BozMo talk 16:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Now there is another reference to “very high” temperatures of a piddling 140ºF. As the tar layer must have cooled very rapidly, there is hardly a case for a first degree burn, let alone anything worse. Irritation and reddening, most likely. I am removing “very high”, as it is laughable. Freederick 03:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

With just a little effort, I was able to find a well-sourced article on this practice: Tar and Feathers in Revolutionary America. The author was unable to find any example of this procedure proving fatal in that era; nevertheless, I cannot recommend its revival.

To PW's point above, tarring and feathering is unfortunately linked in the public mind with America and particularly with the revolutionary period, despite its British origins. Mitcht (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

HEAT and TEMPERATURE are not the same. HEAT gives you burns. The amount of heat you get depends on temperature, heat capacity, heat transfer characteristics, and time spent in contact. This is why people can walk across hot coals. This is why you can reach into a 400F oven to get your pie out without getting burned, but you can't touch the pie pan. The air in the over and the pie pan are both at 400F, but only one burns you. A wooded outdoor toilet seat and a metal one are at the same temperature, but your naked behind can easily distinguish the difference in heat capacity and heat transfer characteristics. In my work I handle liquid nitrogen and liquid argon; you can hold them in a puddle in your hands, and you don't freeze solid like that hacker in the James Bond movie. But if you get your clothes soaked with them you will get frostbite, because your clothes hold it against your skin. So short sleeves are actually safer when working with these liquids. 50F water will kill an unprotected man in a few hours, but 50F air is only mildly uncomfortable. Do you see the problem? People use "temperature" when they should use "heat".Shrikeangel (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Either way, I agree with OP. We really need a section on how hot the tar is, the extent of damage from the tar itself, the damage from its removal (ripping off the blistered layer of skin, I assume, which leaves vast segments raw), etc, and how this varied from region to region, time to time. Also, a quick example of what tar is, how it was used, and how widely available it was would be nice. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes questioned
Someone has just made some significant changes related to the section about Mormons. I don't have the knowledge to judge these changes, but hopefully someone will take a look. They may be legitimate, but they seem perjorative, and without sources, i think they should be removed. Richard Myers 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

why did people tarr and feather ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.128.25 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The changes made
I feel that whatever changes were made to the bit of history about the tarring and feathering of Joseph Smith now more accurately reflects what happened. The case of his son dying is true. The article as it is reflects the consequences of tarring and feathering, and other persecutions done to people. For sources on this, i suggest looking up the mormon "Church History".(Squeejay 11:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

The Times
Page 3 of The Times today (29 August 2007) contains 4 interesting nuggets of information about tarring and feathering. Each of them seems to have been lifted directly from this article, no doubt with a miniscule bit of background checking. Some of the text is identical. Is modern journalism just a question of having a quick squint on wikipedia in order to fill those spare boxes? Or does The Times and Wikipedia both just lift their material (word for word) from the same common source, in both cases without adequate attribution? Dr Spam (MD) 07:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at the top of this page and you'll see an attribution to EB 11th ed. Rich Farmbrough, 13:41 4 October 2007 (GMT).

The Music Man
Some reference to The Music Man might be considered for the pop culture section. In at least the 1962 film, tarring and feathering was the punishment to be faced by the main character, Harold Hill. Mirutsa (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Long time later, the pop culture section is now re-introduced and contains a reference to The Music Man. Daranios (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Salem source
There's a sentence about a 1767 feathering of Salem customs agent_s_. I only found references to a September 7, 1768, feathering of a single Salems customs agent, which may have been prefaced by a couple in Newburyport, Mass. Anyone have a definitive source? --Thatnewguy (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I just watched the 1st part of the HBO John Adams series, in which is depicted the John Malcolm customs agent incident. In the film dramatization Malcolm is stripped naked, and black tar looking like roofing tar is applied to his chest, then poured from a cauldron over his back, body, and head. The tar is shown to be very hot in the film, and results in Malcolm screaming in pain (not humiliation). I believe the accounts below of tar being much lower temperature than "boiling," and thus the film version looks extremely over-dramatic in perspective. Micahd (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Dubious
There seems to be a tendency for BDSM fetishists to wildly exaggerate our articles about punishments or torture, and so I recommend being careful to properly cite all such articles. (Although as I have tried to check references on this subject, it seems some of these beliefs are moderately widespread; but always undocumented and folkloric in nature.) I have added a tag because of the complete lack of references, and numerous disputed sections some of which have not been attended to for many months. However my biggest issue is the section:
 * First degree burns are sustained after a split second contact with a material that is about 70 °C (160 °F). The same is also sustained after thirty seconds of contact with 55 °C (130 °F) material. The tar of that period was of such a quality that it only melted at about 60 °C (140 °F) but was often heated to higher temperatures. At temperatures of 60 °C (140 °F) burns can be created with a three second contact

I believe this to be complete and utter BS. In fact until the second half of the twentieth century (when the word "tar" came to be commonly misused to mean bitumen), tar would mean either pine tar or coal tar. Both of these materials are semi-liquid at room temperature and fully liquid at the temperature of a baby's bath. The issue is that they are mild chemical irritants, not that they are applied scalding hot. Both have long been used in diluted form for treating skin infections, and pine tar is still put on tool handles to make them non-slip, but when applied copiously in "pure" form they can raise welts on the more sensitive parts of the skin, and possibly later cause some peeling. See, for example, this MSDS for pine tar (note the melting point of 25°C, and the mild skin irritant property) or this discussion of an actual case of tarring and feathering in Louisiana in the 1930s (in which the victim successfully sued his assailants.) In the latter case it is clear that the tar was applied cool, that while there was skin irritation it was nothing like severe enough to cause scarring, and more particularly it is clear that the assailants were surprised that any skin irritation at all had occurred; apparently, this plaintiff's reaction was more than usually severe and he may well have had an unusual sensitivity to it.

Almost as bad is this section:
 * Furthermore, after the tar had cooled, it and the feathers would have to be peeled or rubbed off with lard, usually taking a good deal of skin with them. These would leave ugly scars and infection could set in. Depending on how "complete" the job was done, there was also a risk of heat stroke as the tar would act as a strong insulator.

As both the MSDS and the Louisiana account makes clear (and indeed, from my own personal experience), it is only moderately difficult to remove with ordinary soap and water. (And it is, by the way, easy to remove with turpentine, which was readily available anywhere that manufactured pine tar. Unlike modern "mineral turpentine" which is a petroleum distillate, true pine turpentine is not a skin irritant and has actually been used traditionally to treat burns.) Any small amount of peeling which may occur later is due to irritated surface skin peeling, like a sunburn. The stuff about ripping off whole skin in the cleaning process, or leaving scars, is pure BS. It is also not much of an insulator. (As an side, that line possibly comes from confusing tar with bitumen. Bitumen needs to be heated become a liquid, and bitumen scalds are very nasty indeed -- partly because the outer layer insulates the inner, sealing in the heat, partly because any attempt to cool it quickly creates a hard scab which makes it impossible to remove the rest of the hot liquid. It also shrinks as it cools, so if the splash encircles a limb, it acts as a ligature. As a young man my grandfather saw a transportation accident that resulted in a man being drenched head-to-foot in molten bitumen. With 1950s medical technology there was nothing that could be done to save him.)

Of course because "tarring and feathering" was never officially sanctioned, exact practices no doubt varied. It is certainly possible that at some point, some sadistic mobs boiled pine tar before using it, even though this was both completely unnecessary, and would have turned a cruel prank into murder one. However we haven't yet seen any evidence that this was ever a usual practice. Indeed this American history site (which, unlike most webpages on the subject, actually includes references!) discusses a large number of examples and lists just one in which the tar was heated -- an incident which was considered unusually brutal. Conversely, it notes that molasses was sometimes substituted for tar, so clearly the normal usage did not intend to burn.

And while we're at it, that same site states that quite commonly it was the house rather than its occupant that was tarred; and seems to strongly indicate that most documented cases of tarring and feathering were associated with assaults on government officials and loyalists during the lead up to the American Rebellion. At odds with this, our article gives the impression that it was always a common community punishment throughout the USA. If our article's version is true and not just folklore, it must be documented. -- Securiger (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Tarred with the same brush"
This phrase has little to do with tarring and feathering. Tar is difficult to remove. If you use a brush to tar something, like a fence post, and then you use the brush on something else, even if you clean it well you are very likely to get tar on that other thing. So the phrase means something like "the badness of your associates will stick to you".

OED reference:

To dirty or defile as with tar; esp. in phr. tarred with the same stick (or brush), stained with the same or similar faults or obnoxious qualities. (In quot. a 1612, ? to darken, obscure; in quot. 1622 in allusion to the protective and curative use of tar by shepherds, etc.)Shrikeangel (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Official policy? Questionable edit
A recent anonymous edit changed this sentence:

The practice was an official punishment in the United States, and rather a form of vigilante justice.

to this:

The practice was never an official punishment in the United States, and rather a form of vigilante justice. (emphasis added)

The statement needs sourcing, one way or the other. Richard Myers (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hattie Lowry
I think this paragraph is kind of a mess:

"Tarring and feathering was not just something males did. The November 27, 1906 Ada, Oklahoma Evening News reports that a vigilance committee consisting of four young married women from East Sandy, Pennsylvania, forceful and determined, stirred that community to enthusiastic admiration by correcting, in whitecap style, the alleged evil conduct of Mrs. Hattie Lowry, a neighbor, also the possessor of a husband. One of the women was a sister-in-law of the victim. The women appeared at Mrs. Lowry's home in open day and announced she had not heeded the spokeswoman and leader. The group then took from a package a box of stove polish and a dauber. While two women held Mrs. Lowry to the floor, the other two smeared her face with stove polish until it was completely covered. They then poured thick molasses upon the victim's head and emptied the contents of a feather pillow over the molasses. The women then marched the victim, tied by the wrists, to a railroad camp, where two hundred workmen ceased operations to watch the spectacle. After parading Mrs. Lowry through the camp, the women tied her to a large box, where she remained until a man released her."

I don't have access to a resource that would verify the 1906 Evening News, and every Google result is just quoting this paragraph of this Wikipedia article. I assume it's out there, because that picture has to come from somewhere. But this reads like it's quoting the article in parts without indicating that it is doing so, and if it's not, then it's just clunky. For example, I believe we can infer that a woman with the prefix "Mrs." is indeed "the possessor of a husband." Nor do I think it is necessary to say "tarring and feathering was not just something males did", as if that were a common assumption that needed correcting. Several of the preceding examples refer to "mobs" and "groups", without specifying that no women were involved. It's just an odd distinction to make.

Again, I would clean up the language myself, but I have no idea if what I'm changing is actually a direct quote from an article that is improperly presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brymc210 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

'Hypothetical comparison of tarring materials'
This section appears to be original research, since it cites no sources on the 'Hypothetical comparison of tarring materials'. 86.191.152.40 (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Since nobody has responded after a week, I've deleted the section. 86.191.152.40 (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

John Meintz, punished during World War I - NARA - 283633 - restored.jpg}} to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File: will be appearing as picture of the day on November 24, 2019. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2019-11-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! --valereee (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC).

Globalize tag
I went looking for sources to add a bit about use of tarring and feathering in other parts of the world and had I couldn't easily find anything (i.e., I could spend hours looking, but its no so much of a world-wide issue if it's hard to find it.

The intro paragraph states that it was generally a European and early American practice.

I am going to remove this tag. If someone can provide some sources, I would be happy to present a more world-wide viewpoint. Another option is to move this page to something like Tarring and feathering (Anglo practice).–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)