Va-Hist subscribers will no doubt find this book review of interest.
Please respect the letter and the spirit of the copyright notice at the
end of the review.

Brent Tarter
The Library of Virginia
[log in to unmask]

Visit the Library of Virginia's web site at http://www.lva.lib.va.us



H-NET BOOK REVIEW
Published by [log in to unmask] (August, 2004)

Lisa Lindquist Dorr. _White Women, Rape, & The Power of Race in
Virginia,
1900-1960_. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004. 327
pp.
Notes, selected bibliography, index. $49.95 (cloth), ISBN 0-8078-2841-6;
$19.95 (paper), ISBN 0-8078-5514-6.

Reviewed for H-Law by Gail Williams O'Brien, Department of History,
North
Carolina State University.

The Conundrum of Black-on-White Assault

In an analysis of 288 cases in which black men were accused of raping or
attempting to rape white women, Lisa Lindquist Dorr determined that,
despite the powerful rhetoric of the "black beast rapist" and of white
men
as protectors of white women that gained momentum in the South in the
wake
of the U. S. Civil War and the end of slavery, Virginia juries between
1900
and 1960 rendered a variety of decisions.  Indeed, 58 percent (133) of
those convicted were convicted of a lesser crime (52 were sentenced to
five
years or less) and 13 percent (35) were acquitted or saw the charges
against them dismissed.  Additionally, governors shortened the length of
time African American men served by granting pardons.  Although Dorr
could
not ascertain the exact number of those pardoned because of the sampling
technique she used, she concluded that "it was not uncommon for black
men
convicted of assaulting white women to be released before they completed
their full sentences, and many returned to the communities in which they
were convicted without further incident" (p. 252).

Dorr's findings do not mean that African American men were treated
fairly
when accused of assaulting white women.  The author makes this clear
when
she notes that 6 percent (17) of the defendants in the 288 cases being
investigated were killed through extra-legal violence, and she
underscores
this point as she describes the strong influence that the potential for
crowd violence could have throughout the legal process.  Above all,
conviction rates in black-on-white assaults point toward prejudice and
discrimination against African American defendants.  While, as Dorr
notes,
studies of rape indicate that conviction of men in intra-racial rape
cases
(white or black) is rare, 87 per cent (230) of the men in Dorr's study
were
convicted of some crime and spent time in prison.

Dorr's main point is that the variety of decisions reached in
black-on-white assault cases, and in subsequent appeals for pardons,
bolstered racial, gender, and class hierarchies and gave segregation and
white supremacy the flexibility that they needed to survive.  The varied
decisions also allowed white officials to believe, and to demonstrate to
the wider world, that they were rendering justice.  In sum, through
persuasive arguments, supported by extensive, solid evidence, Dorr shows
very clearly that Virginia's "reality" differed considerably from its
"rhetoric" in black-on-white assault cases.

The author's richest sources for her findings were clemency files
located
in Virginia governors' papers.  In these documents, white officials
"often
candidly revealed their honest opinions about the case, the defendant,
the
victim, and the jury's verdict," and it was here that Dorr learned that
the
defendant's reputation, age, mental capacity, and ties with influential
whites mattered, as did the victim's reputation and family background,
and
the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault (p. 13).

Unfortunately, because documents retained in case files were determined
by
county authorities, extensive variation occurred, and the author was not
able to obtain detailed trial information as systematically as she did
clemency records.  While Dorr's lack of attention to jurors' thinking
and
motivations is understandable, some consideration of the composition of
juries, in addition to the timing of service by African Americans, would
have been helpful.  How were juries chosen in Virginia?  Tax rolls?
Voter
registration rolls?  Did poor white men serve?  When did women begin
serving on Virginia juries?  This kind of information would help
illuminate
the extent to which white Virginians, apart from the elite, were willing
to
deviate from the rhetoric of black-on-white assault, and the extent to
which elite views and values were shared.

Additionally, one suspects that there must have been some variation
among
white legal officials that clemency files did not reveal.  Were
divisions
detectable in other sources, and if so, how might they be explained?
More
importantly, what implications, if any, did they have for the defendant
and
the alleged victim as the legal process unfolded?

In her conclusion, Dorr broadens her argument that rhetoric and reality
differed considerably, and in a way that made segregation and white
supremacy more flexible and thereby more durable, beyond Virginia's
borders
by briefly summarizing the results of her survey of state court appeal
records for five southern states (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North
Carolina, and South Carolina).  In all, she found approximately 60
black-on-white assault cases that were appealed after trial.

While one strongly suspects that Dorr is right and that rhetoric and
reality probably differed in other southern states as in Virginia, her
work
nevertheless begs for additional studies, especially in either Deep
South
states or Black Belt regions or counties.  After all, lynching studies
have
found not only significant  differences among southern states in the
number
of people killed, but also distinctions in the leadership and nature of
the
crowds as well as in the reasons for, and the timing of, these
horrendous
episodes.[1]  These studies, coupled with the type that Dorr has
pioneered,
would help us understand, even more, distinctions within the South among
elites and among ordinary people, black and white, and they just might
aid
us in doing a better job of dealing with all rape cases in ways that are
fairer to accused and accuser alike.

Lisa Lindquist Dorr deserves high praise for her thorough study.  It not
only provides original insights but also stirs thought about possible
new
investigations.  In this way, it opens doors for all scholars interested
in
law and society as they pertain to race, class, and gender.

Note

[1]. W. Fitzhugh Brundage, ed., _Under Sentence of Death. Lynching in
the
South_ (University of North Carolina Press, 1997), pp. 113, 122, 124.
See
also pp. 1-14 for an excellent overview of the historiography of
lynching.



Copyright (c) 2004 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the
redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit, educational
purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web
location,
date of publication, originating list, and  H-Net: Humanities & Social
Sciences Online. For other uses contact the Reviews editorial staff:
[log in to unmask]


To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html