History 790: Stories of Scottsboro

(November 22, 1999)

Gary Quinn

gq1. On page 87, Goodman writes that "the hand of the Court [in ordering new trials]", that Communist party said, "was again forced by 'the powerful mass protest'..." I'm not denying that might have bee true, and certainly there seems to have been a lot of protest against the verdicts- but I didn't see how the CP arrived at the conclusion that that was what influenced the Court's decision.

gq2. When reading about the second Patterson trial (chaps. 18-19), I jotted a question, "why didn't Judge Horton simply set aside the jury's verdict?" In chapter 28,he does, but I have to ask, with some of the African-American newspapers, "what took him so long? Why did he wait two months to do so?"

gq3. On page 121, Goodman makes an interesting observation: Leibowitz's surprise at the openness of the racism he encountered in the court room,especially from the jury commissioners. "When Leibowizt accused them of prejudice, they denied it...they seemed not to comprehend what he was accusing them of. Where Leibowitz saw racism, they saw nothing." I'm not sure exactly what my question is, but it brings up an interesting question about racism. If people are not even aware of their attitudes, how do you deal with that type of racism? What sort of assumptions are others working under that we (as historians or as people) simply can not understand because we simply don't see it. It makes a very good case for the writing of "outsider" history.

Brent Trublood

BT 1. Goodman claims when Victoria Price made the decision to sacrifice those nine African-American boys to save herself that she, "made the choice that most southern whites would have made." (Pg. 192) Is the author justified in making such a sweeping statement? What evidence does he provide that most white southerners would have been willing to send nine innocent African-Americans to their deaths rather than face possible legal troubles themselves?

BT 2. Goodman writes in an unusual fashion. He states, "I have tried hardest of all to convince readers that we cannot fully understand that conflict, or any other without trying to understand it from many different points of view..." In my opinion, Goodman does an excellent job of weaving together various arguments and points of view that provide at least on the surface a more realistic view of the past. Does this style of writing history actually provide a clearer picture of the past or does it merely better hide the guiding hand of the historian better than in most historical texts? I would also like to discuss what are the pros and cons of this style of writing?

BT 3. Goodman writes, "In the minds of a great many of the southerners who came to see the Scotsboro and Decatur verdicts as unjust, the injustice in the courtroom, like the injustice of lynching, was the consequence first and foremost of the poor white southerner's problem with the Negro." (Pg. 165) This rationalization of southern prejudice which places the blame on the poor white southerners seemed a rather weak argument. Was Goodman actually arguing that there was such a clear cut difference in attitudes and prejudices between poor and rich white southerners or was he merely demonstrating the belief that many wealthy southerners had from the time? I was further wondering how many sources were used in either event to back up this claim that racism of the poor whites led to the unfairness of the trials and guaranteed the guilty findings.

BT 4. Throughout the book, Goodman states how racism seems to be unconscious to the people of the South. For instance he wrote, "Where Leibowitz saw racism, they saw nothing at all." (pg. 121) What evidence does the author show that the endless acts of prejudice throughout the book were done without conscious thought? While many acts and actions may have been the result upbringing, the author does not seem to leave room for the possibility of actual conscious hatred and prejudice that would cause people such as Knight and Callahan to pursue the death penalty for these boys with such dogged determination for such a long period of time. Even if their prejudice and racism had started at an unconscious level it seems likely that during the course of being under the national spotlight that these southerners would have had to reflect on their own ideas and beliefs in contrast to all of the letters and telegrams they were receiving from the outside world, yet Goodman never seems to question their motives as being a deliberate or planned attempt to uphold white sovereignty in the South.

Thomas Priddy

1. (TRP) Throughout the Scottsboro saga, Northerners and Northern-based institutions (such as the ACLU) play an important part in a Southern case. Does this imply a new trend toward national unity (or, alternatively, a trend toward stronger national dominance by Northern culture) in the 1930s? Or does Goodman's book simply describe a continuity of regional antagonism (and Northern intervention) dating back to the nineteenth century?

2. (TRP) Goodman relies heavily on contemporary newspaper and magazine articles as sources, and he emphasizes their importance with regard to the trial. For example, he describes the Northern public's outcry upon reading accounts of the Decatur trial written by Northern journalists (or re-written by Northern editors) (pp. 148-149). To what extent is this indicative of the new mass media culture of the 1920s and 1930s, and its ability to shape popular opinion? Ultimately, how important was the role of the media in manipulating popular beliefs about the Scottsboro case?

3. (TRP) As he explains in his preface (pp. xii-xiii), Goodman's telling of the Scottsboro story is an attempt to be true to his sources and retell the stories of others while at the same time imposing his own order, themes and contexts. How successful is his narrative approach? Would his study have been more effective if he had removed himself to a greater degree, and relied more on the voices of his subjects? Or would this result in too amorphous a view of such a complex story?

4. (TRP) Although the Communists are still viewed suspiciously as radicals by mainstream America in Goodman's book, their prominence in the Scottsboro case stands in contrast to their status in earlier decades. Goodman describes opposition to the CPUSA's attempt to set up a newspaper in Birmingham in 1929 (p. 24), but their is little of the violent anti-Communist hysteria typified by the 1919 Red Scare. Is this due to Goodman's editing of the story, or is it indicative of changing perceptions and beliefs in America in the early 1930s?

Michael Lumish

ML 1) On page 342 Clarence Norris complains to Morris Shapiro that everything that the ILD and SDC "did seemed to be done for 'Show and for the Benefit of Some one Else.' He was tired of being used." This is a theme that runs through the book. The Scottsboro Boys were being used to further everyone's agenda. This definitely seems to be the case, but can't it also be argued that at least some of the players were not necessarily involved in using "the boys" as pawns in a personal or political agenda? Wasn't Judge Horton, at least, attempting to see justice done?

ML 2) Goodman employs the technique of shifting perspective throughout the book. For instance, on page 352 we get the Scottsboro Boys version of their meetings with Governor Graves, versions that seem to question Graves' rationality. Earlier we get Graves version in which the Scottsboro Boys come off poorly. How effective is this use of shifting perspective? Does it lend depth to the narrative or does it tend to confuse issues? Where can we differentiate Goodman's perspective from the perspective of the various characters?

ML 3) On page 304 Goodman writes, "Solicitor Hutson asked the jury for a guilty verdict and a death sentence that could be written in golden letters across the Alabama sky to discourage outsiders from meddling in Alabama's affairs." Those "outsiders" were Northerners. The book strongly implies that the Scottsboro case was not just about rape or racism, but about continued strife and misunderstanding between the Northern states and the South, even though the defendents were arrested over 65 years after the end of the Civil War. Was the Civil War, in a sense, still being fought? (Personally, I suspect so.)

ML 4) In the preface Goodman tells the reader that, "I decided who should have the first word, and who should have the last. I imposed order - at the very least beginnings, middles, and ends - where there was rarely order, created the illusion of stillness, or comprehensible movement, out of the always seamless, often chaotic, flow of consciousness and experience." (xiii) Why does Goodman feel he needs to tell us this? Don't all historians impose order? Don't the vast majority of readers know that historians do not present a "God's Eye" perspective on the events they recount and that the historian imposes structure and his own beliefs into the story?

Aimée Klask

1) alk- On the first page of James Goodman he points out some of his assumptions that run throughout his book. "Communist Party officials said the charge was a frame-up and the trials were a circus, nothing but a legal lynching: the women were prostitutes who had to be coerced to cry rape. Thousands of northerners, white and black, agreed with the Communists and joined them in protesting the convictions" (xi). I am not saying that these things didn't happen but my point is that by using the 'facts' and voices of the players of this story I think Goodman is a little bias on some of the facts. I was dismayed at the fact that Goodman kept on bringing up that these women were prostitutes as if a prostitute could not be raped. Yes, he brought it up in context of what the defense was for these men tried for rape. but a part of me believed that Goodman as well believed that these women being prostitutes hindered their character. Maybe I am wrong and Goodman is just really good at writing a narrative history.

2) alk- The other assumption in the above quote was that thousands of black and white northerners agreed with the Communists and protested. Throughout the book the north was depicted as a supportive north looking for the truth in Scottsboro. Is that an accurate depiction of the north? The north had prejudice. I am sure many northerners thought that the men were guilty. The north had lynchings (not as many as in the south). Many northerners were racist and anti-Semitic. My point being is that throughout this book one gets a sense that the North was more enlightened than the South. Is that an accurate depiction of the North or the South?

3) alk- In his preface, Goodman states that there is no end to understanding these court cases. "I have not told all the stories of Scottsboro, and I have not told all the stories that follow with the same depth" (xiii). What stories do you think that he has left out? I thought that maybe a more in depth expose on the stories of Victoria Price and Ruby Bates would have really added to his story, although he did look at where they came from (the mills and their family background). It would have been nice to see their stories carried out until the end and in more detail. Although I am a little hesitant in my advice because this book was quite long to begin with.

4) alk- This is more of a technical question. I was wondering about the word usage of Negro, African-American, black etc. As wannabe historians I would like to discuss when how and where to use certain terms such as the one above. I thought that Douglas in Terrible Honesty did a horrible job in using these terms. In my opinion she used the word Negro too much. But I think that Goodman is not only deliberate in his usage but he is decision of when and where to use Negro instead of black and black instead of Negro was right on the mark. Here are two examples. A good example of the word Negro. He uses it (I think) in order for readers to get a sense of that time (1930s) and the place (the South). "Price and Bates alarmed spectators and jurors with their description of insatiable sex-mad savages. And even more with their description of self-conscious sex-mad savages, Negroes who knew exactly what they were doing, who were driven by a force much more frightening than instinct. The Negroes they described understood that they were violating the South's greatest taboo, and took pleasure in it. The Negroes they described wanted more than sexual satisfaction" (23). And then when he provides a historical description of the cases he uses the word black. "There were black schoolteachers in the South and black ministers. There were some prosperous black farmers who, in spite of the invasion of the boll weevil and the collapse of the cotton market, had acquired or held on to tools, livestock, and land. There were black artisans who had not been forced out of their trades" (60). So when should terms, such as Negro and black, be used and not used.

Lindsay Schubert

LS1) Goodman states that "he decided whose stories to tell and how to tell them" and "chose central themes and some of the contexts in which I would like them to be understood."(xiii) How does his self-proclaimed imposition of order on the "seamless, often chaotic flow of consciousness and experience" work as a tool aiding him to structure his central themes and contexts? Why does he organize the book in the way that he does? What are the major themes of the book, and does Goodman effectively tie them into the narrative of the story?

LS2) How does Goodman portray radicalism and class-conflict in Stories of Scottsboro? Is the role of the Communists and the ILD more significant than the mere fact that they won control of the defense? What is the role of the Depress ion in determining the outcome of the defense and in gaining black support for the ILD? What caused the opinions of those black supporters to differ from those of what Gordon characterizes as a fairly conservative NAACP? Following Goodman's logic, how would (or would) the defense's strategy and the outcome of the trials have differed if the NAACP had taken control? How does Goodman ties issues of class to those of race? Many liberals argued that the case had nothing to do with class. What is Goodman's position on the significance of class?

LS3) Goodman claims that, among Southern liberals, "preexisting prejudices against the lower-class whites and women made it likely that when the South's 'best people' searched for Scottsboro villains they would look beneath themselves before they looked anywhere else." (169) How do the Southern liberals differ from the Northern liberals? In general, how does Goodman portray the South? How does it differ from the North? What is the role of 'Northern sentimentality' in the Scottsboro trials and surrounding debate among Northern liberals?

LS4) In the last paragraph of the book, Goodman ends an otherwise pessimistic final chapter by describing crowds of blacks and whites, two black assistant attorneys general, one of them a women, a judge, and a black member of the Alabama House of Representatives. What do you think Goodman views as the major gains in the social, political, and legal aftermath of the Scottsboro trials? What do you think he would claim to be the least changed? Did Goodman write Stories of Scottsboro simply to relay a sad story of injustice, racism, and classism or does the narrative hold more significance?

Chad Pound

CP Goodman's unique use of brief chapters which move "from one point of view to another" until Goodman has the "perspective of a wide range of participants and observers" could present a problem of continuity within the larger narrative. For example does the chapter dealing with Neal Cobb's journey into the communist party play a significant role in answering "what happened?" Does Goodman succeed in telling a "story about the conflict between people with different stories of Scottsboro" or does the story become too segmented by its chapter style?

CP In several chapters Goodman looks at the legacy of the Recontruction by demonstrating the historical accounts which were prevalent around the period of Scottsboro. Does Goodman impose these views onto participants legitmately when making statements such as "that was Reconstruction in the minds of some of the seventeen thousand Harleam residents...?" (160)

CP The back cover refers to the Scottsboro case as a "a watershed in American racial justice." Goodman traces the devastating impact of the case on those accussed from 1931 to 1976 when Norris is finally pardoned. Nowhere is justice for the accussed highlighted in his accounts. In the case of the Supreme Court, Goodman seems rather hesitiant to proclaim real significance of the Scottsboro rulings. He states that an "optimist ... might even have been inclined to see ... a gathering momentum, a court moving slowly but steadily in the right direction." (252) Yet he demonstrates that the same day the Supreme Court upheld the Democratic Party's right to exclude blacks. One could make the case that the watershed developed from the black and white collabroation in the effort to bring about justice. What exactly is the legacy of Scottsboro, why is it a watershed?

CP Goodman argues "Price had a choice between her own well-being and the well-being of a bunch of black teenagers whom she had never seen." (192) Goodman places a great emphasize on personal agency in shaping the developments of the Scottsboro case. He even demonstrates how the accused ultimately had final say in the feud between the ILD and the NAACP. Does the personal agency diminish in any way the complexity of the racial aspects of the case which shaped individual reaction?

Melissa Ashley

MLA 1. I'm still not quite sure how the extended discussion of reconstruction fit into the book. Specifically, the first part of chapter 15 was about Leibowitz and then it moved into a discussion of the different historical interpretations of reconstruction.

MLA 2. In the preface, the author promises that he has "struggled to be true to his sources and I have kept myself, as a character, out of my stories, writing each of them from a third person point of view." (xiii). Does he successfully accomplish this task?

MLA 3. This question is related to the previous question. At the same time that he promises to keep himself out of the story, he also promises that he has "tried to convey my sense of the essential facts of the case." (xiii). Can both of these things be accomplished at the same time?

MLA 4. The way that the author presents this story really helped it to come alive. The narrative style and the short, quick chapters helped to keep the story moving. It also helped to illustrate the injustice of the entire episode with painful clarity. At times it was a little confusing when he presented one version the story and then in the next chapter would present the same part of the story through a different set of eyes. I believe that this book is an excellent example of what a powerful tool narrative history can be. I think it also illustrates that a narrative history does not necessarily mean that some voices must be excluded from the narrative.

Michael Donohue

I found it disturbing that almost everyone in this book at all times viewed the life and death of these young men as a political issue. One might expect it from the state of Alabama and its various governors,the Communists, the ILD, etc. but Goodman implied that even Leibowitz viewed the case as a way to further his career, and may have really harmed the chances of the accused by insisting on staying on. George Wallace shaking Norris' hand was surreal. Its hard to find a question in this, but I believe that this was part of the subtext of the book. Does everyone agree?

Goodman makes the point that the character of the accused had nothing to do with their guilt or innocence, but repeatedly calls into question the character of Bates and Price. In light of Bates' confession and all the other evidence, it seems cetain that indeed, they did lie, but calling into question the character of real rape victims is a problem in our legal system. In other situations, with different contexts,it is a dangerous. Did the ends in this particular book justify the means? Could he have sold the point a little softer? Michael Donohue

Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not remember a point in the book where the men were offered even so much as an apology. Lebowitz had hopes that he could find some money for these men to go to vocational schools, but this did not happen. Didn't the state have more responsibility in way of reparations towards these men from whom they took so much? Michael Donohue

It was my impression that Goodman really blames for this tradgedy a society that considered it acceptable for white women to accuse black men as a solution to their problems. Also, poverty is a kind of villain in this book. But didn't Bates and Price deserve some kind of punishment for robbing these men of some of their best years? It seems that on no count was justice done, and Bates and Price should have had more responsibility for there own agency.

Michael Donohue

Jaime Garcia-Dealba

JGD #1- Goodman discusses issues of rape in the south. Goodman argues that the accusation of rape against Black males in Alabama was used as a justification for lynching. Goodman believes that interracial sex occurred regardless of the anti mesigination laws which existed. In the case of Price and Bates, it wasn't uncommon for the white poor class in Alabama to have relations with Blacks. Goodman even goes as far to argue that most whites in the south had hidden desires to engage in relationships with blacks. Back to the point Goodman makes, even though black and white relations wasn't completely unheard of , in Alabama anyway, the threat of an accusation of rape was commonly used as a vehicle to lynching, or what Goodman describes as "legal lynching", which serves the white poor class as a defensive devise against black working class social mobility-aside from just racial descrimination. What are your views?

JGD #2 Goodman shows the Scottsboro trial as yet another manifestation of the animosity between North and South. On page 306 Goodman quotes prosecuting attorney Melvin Hudson who typified the states point of view throughout every trial which was the northern led conspiracy "to vindicate the laws of Alabama against the onslaughts of powerful forces in the North aided by skillful and resourceful counsel." In regard to the numerous slurs and accusations the state of Alabama uses against the intentions and efforts of the CP, the Alabaman's belief that the CP's efforts to unionize the black working poor in the south as another version of Reconstruction, did the Scottsboro trial turn into another battle ground between the ideologies of liberal, egalitarian northern ideology and conservative, segregationist southern society?

JGD #3 After eleven trails, and Bate's confession, what or who kept Victoria Price from pushing on. Bates' confession should have clinched the trial years earlier, yet the state continued to support Prices' accusation. After this trial grew and transformed into a much larger issue after the trail at Scottsboro, was your conclusion conspiracy? Look at Goodman's sumation of the trail on page 304, "solicitor Hutson asked the jury for a guilty verdict and a death sentence that could be written in golden letters across the Alabama sky to discourage outsiders from meddling in Alabama's affairs. "Does Goodman also suggests earlier in the book that the Scottsboro nine were to be used as an example to discourage communist inspired black organization, or simply aggression against whites?

JGD #4 Even though the effects of the depression is not the main theme of Scottboro, the depression era is certainly a central theme. The nine were traveling in search of work, as where Bates and Price. Goodman describes working life in the mills, "hobo jungles," vagrancy laws targeting migrant workers which could land them in chain gang slave labor camps etc. How crucial is the depression experience as the cause of many factors in this book, not only on an individual basis, as in the rape incident, but also socially and politically.

Mark Rempel

MKR1: The alleged rape of two women by black men became a national scandal. What made it into a national debate and why at that time? Why is the subject important, considering white women had accused blacks of raping them for generations? Was This stereotype no longer valid by 1931?

MKR2: Why was the International Labor Defense so interested in the case to the extent it brushed aside other interested parties and managed to have the consent of the mothers to represent them? It would seem that the blacks accused would be beneath their notice as they were not industrial workers but rural day laborers looking for jobs. what were the political agendas of the ILD to promote this case?

MKR3: Why did the ACLU have so much trouble getting the facts out? (p. 44) Is it possible the naivete and optimism of the New Yorkers on the ACLU board inhibited the ACLU's ability to publicize the facts that lay behind the case? What were the cultural forces which created the situation in the first place? Did the presence of blacks in the South serve as a symbol for something?

MKR4: How is it the NAACP was forced to withdraw from the case when it seemed they were the most appropiate organization to represent the Scottsboro eight? And why would the case be better off in conservative hands? (p. 37)

MKR5: Goodman's book is not a straight chronology but a switching back and forth of perspectives. Is this an appropiate form of presentation or does it slow down the narrative?