Definition
Extortion is the wrongful taking of money or property from another person by abuse of power, force, or threats. The term carries two related but distinct meanings that have evolved significantly over time:
1. COMMON LAW / HISTORICAL MEANING (official extortion): The corrupt act of a public officer who, under color of office, unlawfully takes from any person money or anything of value that is not due to him, or more than is due, or before it is due. This was the primary legal meaning at common law and remains the basis for the historical dictionary definitions.
2. MODERN / BROAD MEANING (private extortion): The obtaining of money, property, or any valuable thing from another person through compulsion — by force, threats, intimidation, or the wrongful use of actual or threatened harm. This meaning does not require the actor to be a public officer. It encompasses what is commonly called blackmail when threats of reputational or economic harm are used rather than physical force.
Both meanings share the core concept of wrongful compulsion: the victim parts with something of value not voluntarily but under duress created by the wrongful conduct of the extorting party.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The practice of extorting money or other property by the use of force or threats.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The act or practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge. Also, the offense committed by an officer who corruptly claims and takes money or other thing of value that is not due, or more than is due, or before it is due.
The common-language definitions align reasonably well with the modern legal meaning but obscure the historically critical distinction between official extortion (by a public officer abusing his office) and private extortion (by any person using threats). Historically, only the official form was technically extortion at common law; the private form was handled under separate doctrines. Modern usage collapses this distinction, and most contemporary criminal statutes follow the broader definition.
Common Confusion
EXTORTION VS. BLACKMAIL
These terms are frequently used interchangeably in modern speech and in many modern statutes, but they carry distinct historical meanings. Extortion at common law required a public officer acting under color of office. Blackmail historically referred to obtaining property through threats — a form of private coercion requiring no official position. Many modern penal codes have merged the two into a single offense or use "extortion" as the umbrella term covering both. Researchers working in historical sources must attend to which meaning is operative, as the same word will govern entirely different conduct depending on the era and jurisdiction.
Why It Matters in Research
The single most important navigational point: the word "extortion" in historical legal sources almost always means official extortion — wrongdoing by a public officer under color of office. A researcher reading an 1880 treatise or case discussing extortion should not assume the modern, popular meaning (anyone threatening anyone). The common law offense was narrow and required official status. Modern statutes have largely expanded the definition to reach private actors, but the timing and scope of that expansion varies significantly by jurisdiction.
The shift from a predominantly official offense to a general coercion offense is the central doctrinal evolution of this term. Researchers tracing extortion charges in historical case law will find that much of what would today be charged as extortion was then prosecuted under duress, oppression, threatening letters, or early blackmail statutes. The corpus connections between extortion, blackmail, duress, and oppression are essential navigational links.
The "color of office" element in historical entries is critical. It is not enough that an officer demanded money wrongfully — the demand had to be made under the pretense of official authority. Acts entirely outside official capacity were not extortion at common law, though they might be robbery, fraud, or another offense. This element frequently appears in historical case analysis and is often the pivotal legal question.
Modern researchers should also note that federal extortion law in the United States, particularly under the Hobbs Act, operates on a broader definition and has generated a large body of case law on what constitutes "wrongful use of force, violence, or fear" — a framework that postdates the common law authorities reflected in the historical dictionary sources.
Historical Dictionary Support
The six historical sources show strong agreement on the core common law definition and notable divergence on scope.
All six sources converge on the official-extortion formulation: a public officer, acting under color of office, takes money or something of value not due to him, or more than due, or before it is due. Burrill, Bouvier, Rapalje & Lawrence, Black's (both editions), and Anderson all anchor the definition here. This unanimity reflects the settled common law position.
Burrill provides the broadest framing, defining extortion first as "an unlawful or violent wringing of money or money-worth from any man" before narrowing to the officer-specific formulation. This suggests awareness of the broader popular meaning even within the common law tradition.
Anderson is the most candid about doctrinal duality, explicitly offering both the official-abuse formulation and a second definition — "obtaining money or other valuable thing by compulsion, actual force, or the force of motives applied to the will" — without requiring official status. This is the earliest signal in the shelf sources that the concept was expanding.
Black's (both editions) quotes Preston v. Bacon for the general principle that extortion includes "any oppression by color or pretense of right," which is the broadest common law framing and the one most hospitable to extension beyond official actors.
Bouvier notes that "at common law, any oppression by color of right" qualified, but that technically the term referred to taking by an officer — acknowledging the tension between general principle and technical doctrine.
What the historical sources collectively do not address is the private extortion or blackmail variant as a fully developed legal category. That development occurs in statutory law after these dictionaries were compiled, and researchers should not read the silence as an indication the conduct was unregulated — only that it was regulated under different names.
Jurisdictional Note
Modern extortion statutes vary considerably. Many U.S. states define extortion broadly to include private actors obtaining property through threats of any kind, including threats to reputation or economic harm. Federal law under the Hobbs Act covers extortion affecting interstate commerce. Some common law jurisdictions retain a narrower definition closer to the historical official-abuse formulation. Researchers should verify the applicable statute's date of enactment and its definitional scope before applying any historical authority.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Extortion and Blackmail (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)