Race and the Law: The Trials of Ossian Sweet and the Scottsboro Boys

There exists a myriad of reasons for why the law played out differently in two very similar cases; the trial of Ossian Sweet and his co-defendants versus that of the nine Black young men in the "Scottsboro case." The two cases resembled each other in a number of ways; however, the enormous circumstances that differentiate the two cases led to a disparity in judgment. The objective of this paper is to analyze the way in which the law was drawn differently in the two cases, and how the circumstances for each dictated the decisions. Ultimately, this analysis and understanding provides us with distinctions in the law between theory and practice. The final objective of the paper will be taking into account this issue in regards to race and the observations from both cases.

In analyzing the cases it's important to understand the material and abstract causality for separate and opposing decisions that resulted from these circumstances. First, I will be dealing with the material notions of region and class that distinguished the defendants of both cases, and how these played a role in the respective judgments. Following this assessment, I will take a look at the abstract nature of the charges themselves that would lead to disparity in the judgments arrived by the courts. These circumstances represent the fundamental causalities that explain this rift in judicial decision making. The class distinctions between defendants played a significant role in the disparity for the judicial outcomes of these very similar criminal cases.

While classism runs thick through the American socio-economic system, it manifests itself in an unsubtle manner throughout the legal system as well. If we examine closely the defendants of both cases, we can arrive at the conclusion that there were key differences between the defendants of the Sweet Trial and those of the Scottsboro case. The experience of most African-Americans in the early to mid 20^th century was that of poverty, despair, and repression. Many black youths at the time were forced into a class of subservient manual labor by the social injustices that had become institutionalized by the common notion of racial superiority and de jure segregation (Ransdall 14). The segregation that had limited the potential increase and exercise of the capacities of all Southern blacks permeated the lives of the nine Scottsboro defendants as it had countless of others in their situation.

The nine defendants, aged thirteen to nineteen, occupied a class of illiterate, uneducated, and predetermined social outcasts. Many of the young men in the Scottsboro case came from homes that forced them to leave school and enter the workforce in order to help support their families. None achieved an education beyond the sixth grade, one of which was credited as having an IQ of only 64(+) (O'Linder, Biographical Sketches). All of these young men had been involved with various forms of manual labor; ranging from share-cropping, to working in lumber camps, and other forms of unskilled labor. These young men were at a disadvantage because it is unlikely that without proper education and the ability to read, they fully understood the complexities of the law, as it applied to them (O'Linder, Biographical Sketches). They represented a sect of society, viewed by whites, as undeserving, unnecessary, and socially predisposed to crime. Contemporary attitudes towards the majority of working-class blacks in the south (who indeed constituted the majority of the black population in general) was that of contempt, distrust, and in need of repressive control to sustain law and order in civilized society (Ransdall 13-14). Compare and contrast this to the sophisticated, professional demeanor of Ossian Sweet, who more or less operated as the "face" of the defendants in the Sweet trial, and you get a much different picture.

Ossian Sweet had worked his way up from a life of adversity in Bartow, Florida to eventually become an esteemed and respected professional (Boyle 21). Dr. Sweet had been a respected member of the Black community who was willing to break the de facto color lines of 1925 Detroit and move into a White working-class neighborhood. When presented before the jury, Dr. Ossian Sweet represented the opposite of the stereotypical uneducated, boorish Black that occupied the minds of even the most well-intentioned White individual. Dr. Ossian Sweet had been fully educated, financially successful (compared to the overall economic position of Blacks at the time), was the husband of a cultured, sophisticated wife who had been raised amidst middle-class White society, and had ascended to the top of his race through hard work and determination. While racism was undoubtedly a factor in both cases, the notion of class bleeds even deeper. Dr. Sweet offered a different type of Black man to the courtroom, and more importantly, to his jury of peers. This was not the image of a savage, illiterate, indecent man that had been burnt into the minds of those blinded by prejudicial views of Blacks. Rather, it was the face of a determined and respectable man who, out of necessity, defended his right to his property-a right held dear in the American way of life as both a demonstration of one's own success and a representation of one's willingness to work hard.

This contrast in class offers an insight into a very different notion of how justice plays out. Dr. Sweet was able to command the respect and attention of the jury as his story was brought to their attention during examination by his defense attorney, Arthur Garfield Hays (Boyle 286). Unlike the "Scottsboro Boys," he was an educated professional man, willing to ingratiate himself in the values of the petty-bourgeoisie. Dr. Sweet undoubtedly faced discrimination and prejudice throughout his lifetime, but succeeded in overcoming these challenges, and henceforth served as a model Black citizen. Upon achieving this success and triumph over adversity, it was possible for Dr. Sweet to embody the role of heroic martyr for the cause against segregation in the real estate market and as a weapon against restrictive covenants (Boyle 219). Ossian had demonstrated a key value that was predominant amongst the accepted Anglo-Saxon culture of the United States: he had succeeded against all odds of financial instability and put forth the effort to achieve goals that were commendable for any man. He was the embodiment of the American dream, and had professionalized himself by ascending the social ladder and integrating himself amongst the most respected echelon of the Black community: the Talented Tenth.

The issue of Dr. Sweet's class membership was crucial in the examination intended to project the antithetical image of White society's view of Blacks. Clarence Darrow specifically used Ossian's life story as a means of achieving not only empathy for his client, but to emphasize the successes he had achieved, and convey to the jurors how much the doctor had at stake in the trial itself. This was not the case for the Scottsboro boys, who had neither experienced success nor the capability of formulating eloquent responses that could match those of Dr. Sweet. The Scottsboro boys were barely (if at all) literate, and only learned the basic writing/reading abilities to compose letters to their families while in jail (O'Linder 4).

By observing the case in a way that takes class into consideration, we are able to confront the case with a certain perspective of how White Americans view the Black man, and moreover see his role in society. By addressing the issue of class, we can attempt to see what was at stake for not only the defendants, but how the jurors would see them and their respective social designations. We're confronted with a false dichotomy between a professional man who triumphed over adversity, Dr. Sweet, and the epitome of the baseless stereotype of the uneducated Black man toiling in the fields. The former will undoubtedly be seen objectively as less of a threat to society; the latter representing the very worst of the cognitive fallacy that endures in the minds of those racial supremacists. Class is not the only issue, however, but the regional political culture is an objective standard that necessitates inclusion as well.

While it need not be stated that racism manifested itself in the North just as it had in the South, there is something peculiar about these contrasting cases that aided in the disparity of the law. Prior to the 1920's, Detroit had seen an influx of African-Americans from the rural south, looking for industrial and manufacturing jobs, hoping to take advantage of the new opportunities allotted them through war-time production. New opportunities created by a new demand for labor that couldn't be met by the White population alone fed the hopes of a new life for many Blacks (Boyle 251). This migration was often met with violent reaction by Whites who were taken back by this new population increase. Efforts to maintain Anglo-Saxon control culminated in 1918, when the reactionary elites were able to accomplish their goals of "cleaning out the city" by launching an assault on petty crimes, and the poor (usually Black) individuals who committed them (Boyle 138). Detroit saw its fair share of violence throughout the era, in the form of riots, violent attacks on Blacks' homes, and the development of the influential Detroit chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.

Despite these antagonisms, Detroit was also home to an ambivalent progressive/liberal White community that had sympathized with the plights of the incoming African-Americans and denounced the violence and crudeness of the attacks. This liberalism manifested itself in both the community polity, but also through the judiciary. The election of progressive Whites who sympathized with African-Americans and understood the damage of prejudicial thinking, created at least some feelings of resistance to Ku Klux Klan takeover, and in some ways deterred the chaos of total racial animosity. The election of Mayor Johnny Smith in 1924, and then again in 1925, represented the mobilization of the Progressive bloc of White Detroit citizens (Boyle 141, 249).

The presence of a liberal/progressive cadre willing to (at the very least) concern themselves with the injustices facing Blacks was a promising sign that there would be pressure for the law to be carried out in a manner somewhat resembling true justice. One must even consider the judge whom presided over the case, Mr. Frank Murphy. By arguing in front of a liberal-minded judge, the defense was assured some relative level of confidence that they would be treated equitably. Judge Murphy had denounced racism and racial preference, and was responsible for providing as fair a trial as possible for Dr. Sweet and his co-defendants (Boyle 139). His assurance that the trial would be fair and not take into consideration racial preference proved a significant advantage for the defense. It allowed them to operate on a rather level playing field, at least compared to the Scottsboro trials. Looking southward, we're yet again confronted with a disparity in political culture and attitudes; where racism was the base for the common ideology in Jackson County, Alabama.

The trials of the Scottsboro boys took place in a much different climate than those of Ossian Sweet and his co-defendants. Racism had deep roots in the Southern way of life, and notions of racial superiority and hatred permeated themselves in almost every corner of daily life. The social structure was organized in such a manner that a White minority was able, through repression and authoritarian practices, to keep the Black majority to a position of socio-economic-political subservience. The atmosphere of Jim Crow, regular lynching, and misunderstood conceptions of Blacks fed an overall fear and resentment towards African-Americans that made justice in 1930's Alabama nearly impossible for the nine youths charged with the rape of two white women. The contextual evidence of a climate of hatred and fear would deter any real chance of attaining justice. The presence of lynch mobs outside the jail must have created an impending feeling of doom for the defendants, and furthermore, could not have been ignored by the all White, all male jury. This racial hatred and fear grew in concert with the widespread frustration of economic depression that left millions of Southern Whites without jobs (Licht 3).

There was absolutely no question in the minds of the community what was to be done with the defendants of the Scottsboro case: they were going to die. The over-riding attitudes of the era led to two obvious choices - lynching or execution by order of a Judge. The trial was never meant to discover the objective truth of the case-it was merely an attempt to put a legal face on a more formalized lynching (Ransdall 14). This type of subjective interpretation of "justice" coupled with a flagrant disregard for the truth cultivated a trial that was merely for show. A statement by a one Southerner commenting on the trial offers the general assumptions and opinion of the White population-those whites that rallied around the jail with hopes of hearing a speedy conviction, "We white people just couldn't afford to let these Niggers get off because of the effect it would have on other Niggers" (Ransdall 13-14). The presence of a liberal minded White population was crucial in building popular support and assurance for a fair-trial.

The climate of Detroit's progressive community had given rise to men like Judge Frank Murphy, who would not yield to the pressures of the calls for conviction of Dr. Sweet and his co-defendants. The judges who presided over the case of the Scottsboro boys were of a complete different mindset, and were operating under the assurance that the defendants would be given a "legal lynching," further demonstrating the "show-trial" atmosphere of the case. Judge A.E. Hawkins, who presided over the first round of cases in 1931, made it clear that the objective of the court was to execute the young men as soon as possible. Upon issue of the guilty verdict, Judge Hawkins ordered eight of the young men (the ninth being a minor would not be executed) to be executed as soon as the law would permit - 90 days (Ransdall 7).

There was no substantial progressive White community to apply pressure to ensure the trial was fair or to amass themselves in support for the defendants and the anemic case against them. The ostensive racist presuppositions of the populace and the general acceptance of racist attitudes had an impact on the trial itself, and must therefore draw a stark contrast to the polarized climate of Detroit. What little White progressive and liberal voices that came out in support for the Scottsboro defendants were systematically silenced by a majority opinion that wanted the boys to pay the ultimate price for their alleged volatile crimes (Klarman 50-51) . Even organizations throughout the South that had typically come to the defense of Blacks faced with impending Southern-style White justice failed to do so because of the inherent public frenzy and threatening attitudes of the community towards the Scottsboro case in general (Klarman 51). The fact that there was no significant local White objection to the proceedings only ensured that the decision in the case would placate Southern White racism and prejudices.

Class and regional political climate/attitudes offer two material grounds for understanding why the law was decided and carried out in two contrasting and opposite ways in cases that were quite similar to one another. However, there is something unique about both cases that coincide with respect to class and regional political attitudes that deserves special consideration as well. The very nature of the cases themselves deal with issues far beyond the actual defendants and the cases; something quite different and unique outside prima facie perceptions of the cases. Both cases fall into a greater category of the overall question of the relationship between the minority and majority, and the claims the former have on the latter. The issue of racial strife penetrates the very fiber of both cases, but their contextual distinctions and characteristics offer yet further understandings for why the law may have played out differently.

At first glance, the Sweet case was a prime opportunity for progressives and Black rights organizations to attach themselves to in order to incur greater struggles against racism, both material and ideal. It was a case that was easy to manipulate into a political frenzy, showcasing the hardships and violence that threatened Blacks when they dared step outside of the boundaries Whites had drawn for them. This was a case of a respectable man, who happened to be Black, defending his property against a mob who intended to inflict harm upon him, his family, and his property. It offered a chance for the NAACP and the Black rights activists to make visible to the entire country what was a daily experience for Blacks. The case of Dr. Sweet and his co-defendants was the opportunity the NAACP had been looking for to make its argument against provisions like restrictive covenants, and de jure segregation in terms of real-estate and housing.

These developments made for a highly politicized case for all the right reasons---it included all the necessary elements for a landmark trial in which the Black community could publicize the wrong-doings of the repressive White forces that sought to keep them in their place. The charges against Dr. Sweet, despite the case against him by the prosecution, were considered objectively true of the behavior of any man thrust into such a position. Invoking the element of class again, Dr. Sweet was not the deficient stereotypical sharecropper acting in contempt of social standards or assumptions; he was what may be considered the "top" of his race, one for all other African-Americans to look up to. Dr. Sweet defending his home and family from a violent mob illustrated an opportunity to be taken advantage of, for a greater purpose.

The case against the Scottsboro boys did raise the same political and emotional attachments, worthy of becoming a popular cause for Black rights, as that of Dr. Sweet. The Scottsboro boys had been accused of committing the greatest crime that any Black male could commit throughout the entire South: they had dared to touch a White woman. Southern fears and misunderstanding of Black men had changed very little since the antebellum period where the utmost concern was accorded to White women, who were thought in need of protection from aggressive, overly-sexual, Black men who sought to violate them. Charges of rape are a serious matter regardless, but bringing such charges against nine young Black men in Alabama in the 1930's meant disaster. The charges brought against these young men fueled a hatred and fear that struck the hearts of even the most moderate Whites. Even Dr. Ossian Sweet had witnessed what happened when Black men were accused of raping a White woman, and the eventual burning of Fred Rochelle (Boyle, 2004). White attitudes regarding such baseless fears that Black men instinctively raped White women were commonplace. Even the once governor of South Carolina was claimed to have said:

I have three daughters, bus so help me God, I had rather find either one of them killed by a tiger or a bear and gather up her bones and bury them...than to have her crawl to me and tell me the horrid story that she had been robbed of the jewel of her maidenhood by a black fiend. (Boyle 65).

The presence of these false and fearful assumptions about Black men only further fueled the intensity and desire for a quick, speedy trial. The image that must have been in the minds of the White men and women as they interrogated the nine Black youths prior to their official arrest must have stirred a hatred so intense that only the arrival of the National Guard could have prevented their vigilante justice (O'Linder 2).

This observation is significant because, while both cases were criminal in their nature, the case of Ossian Sweet did not deliver the same animosity, nor aggravate the brutal underlying fears of Whites as the Scottsboro case had. Ossian Sweet had done something that was seen as distasteful, unwelcome, and threatening to the White community on Garland Avenue, but it fell short of violating the most threatening assumption of Southern racism: that of the oversexed, savage Black man lusting over a White woman (Klarman 53-54). The nine young men of the Scottsboro case would have indeed been lynched had the National Guard not been called in to impede the wishes of the White crowds that had gathered outside the Scottsboro jail to assure justice was served. The boys had committed the ultimate crime, raping a White woman, and the evidence in support of their innocence simply did not matter. Objective truth was denied on numerous occasions, demonstrated when the court ignored the expert testimony of Dr. M.H. Lynch, who stated that the girls showed no signs of rape or forced sexual intercourse (Ransdall 6). These assumptions and fears, which fed and perpetuated feelings of hostility and morbid hatred towards the Black race, played a significant role in the decisions caused the law to be played out differently than it had for Ossian Sweet and his co-defendants.

Such visions of inborn tendencies of Black men to rape White women, and the related sense of ferocious response to such alleged crimes, made justice all but impossible in the handling of the case. The Sweet trial was conducted under much less adverse public perceptions, allowing the case to be made quite easily into a political rallying call for the Black community as a whole. The Scottsboro case was merely a matter of formulating a legal response to the most heinous crime in the minds of Southern gentleman. Significant response didn't come until later in the development of the case, with social outcries coming after doubts had been cast on the case's legitimacy.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are other important reasons for why the law played out in such drastically different ways. It should not be concluded that their lack of mentioning throughout this paper takes away their significance, but the objective of this paper was rather to convey the most pertinent a priori evidence as to why there existed disparities in the law. These disparities, in cases not all that dissimilar, allowed the law to be carried out in such inconsistent and unjust ways.

The experience of the defendants in their crusade against injustice and hatred concluded in two very different arenas, under completely different circumstances, and amidst different political climates that led to such disparities in the law. The object of class distinctions and class antagonisms played an integral role in both cases. Dr. Sweet, typifying the amicable Black professional class, was acquitted in part because he was perceived as a valuable member of society, contributing to social utility rather than draining it. The nine Scottsboro boys represented the very image that inhabited the mind of every racist, bigot, and beholder of misconceptions of the Black race. The regional differences that allowed one case to be carried out with the presence of a boisterous liberal/progressive resistance, as well as a motivated and organized Black call for justice, worked to the advantage of Dr. Ossian Sweet. Contrary to this, the Scottsboro defendants faced a hostile judicial system that sought not justice nor the truth, but a quick execution within the realm of the law, as opposed to public lynching. The sole purpose of the trial was to demonstrate the legitimacy of those in power to prevent mob violence in the form of lynching. Dr. Sweet and his co-defendants had been given a comparatively fair trial by a liberal Judge who understood the fragile nature of the case, and did what he thought was best to ensure justice was served. The Scottsboro boys faced Judges who sought to silence their defense, get their execution over as soon as possible, and put the whole ordeal behind them-clearly an obstruction of the distribution of justice in the courtroom. Finally, the very nature of the charges brought against the defendants in their respective cases aided in the eventual judgment that would capture the disparity in the provisions of justice. A Black man (much less nine uneducated, illiterate youths) stood little to no chance of avoiding their inevitable fate when faced with charges of raping a White woman in the Southern United States in the 1930's. These elements, while working interdependently of one another, represent independent variables explaining why justice was served in one case, but completely denied in the other. One would hope that the present day in time would assure that such perversions of the law and criminal justice system would not occur, but it is with little doubt that class and region still play a significant role in the way in which the law plays out. We should look to the past and observe the mistakes, so that we may educate ourselves, and furthermore, question our true affliction towards justice-whether it is real, or just a fallacy of our misguided desires.

Race continues to be a sensitive issue in all facets of American society, but it contains special significance through the application of law. In theory, the Constitution and principles that guide the American legal system hold that the law is colorblind. In contemporary legal theory, the law is supposed to ignore differences amongst citizens beyond their control: race, sex, creed, ethnicity, religion, and so on. However, there lies a disparity (and in sometimes it is beneficial) in which the law is applied in practice. Regardless of abstract theory, the law in practice takes race into serious account and becomes a recognizable characteristic of any case. Historical evidence sustains this conclusion through the ways in which the law has never been truly "color blind."

The cases of Dr. Ossian Sweet and the "Scottsboro Boys" are demonstrative of the American legal system's failure to produce consistent and equal results. Had either set of defendants been white, there is little doubt the law would have been carried out in a drastically different fashion. The disparity between concepts of the law as theory and the law in practice manifests itself as the most explicit similarity between the two cases. The theoretical tenets of the American legal system that hold that every man and woman is to be held of equal status and given equal consideration when brought before the law is an admirable and worthwhile goal. However, the everyday practice of the law points us in another direction-one that clearly indicates that this goal has not been achieved.

In practice the law does take into consideration differences amongst citizens, particularly race. This is not always associated with negative connotations, such as affirmative action. However, many times making such distinctions in practice bring about negative and undesired consequences for those who become distinguishable from the majority on the basis of their race. Going back to the cases in question, assumptions were made about the defendants and painstaking attempts at achieving justice had to be made that simply would not have existed had either of the defendants been White. There is no denying that the question of race must have been on the minds of every individual involved in both cases. While both cases were criminal in nature, the real issues on trial (in the abstract) were the racial assumptions and prejudices that dominated American society at the time. These were injurious elements of American society that were in clear violation of the philosophical principles for which the American justice system was alleged to hold in such high regard. The question then becomes whether or not it will ever be possible to reconcile the disparity between the law in theory and law in practice. Much of this depends on our willingness to acknowledge that such a disparity exists and from there we can progress to bridging this social gap.

The trials of Dr. Ossian Sweet and the "Scottsboro Boys" offer insights into the disparities that exist in the American legal system. Through observations and analysis we arrive at the conclusion that the law played out differently for both cases. The issues of class, regional political climate, and the nature of the alleged charges all played a crucial role in determining how the law would be interpreted. The issues of class and regional political climate provided the material basis for which the separate defendants were viewed and received by their fellow citizens and peers. The nature of the cases, especially the rape charges involved in the Scottsboro case, provided the means for the law to be interpreted and judgment to be reached in such differentiated forms. Overall, these disparities provided the basis for the inconsistent application of the law. Furthermore, the overriding theme behind both trials is the visible climax of the way in which law is viewed as theory versus its application in practice. The difference between legal theory and legal practice demonstrates the inherent contradiction in the American criminal justice system. This contradiction accounts for the gross disparities in the distribution of justice for minorities in this country. While much progress has been made since the days of slavery and Jim Crow, our society is still confronted with this contradiction. It is a contradiction that must be resolved with the utmost consideration it deserves; until then we will continue to fail to achieve the philosophical principles for which our society was built upon and ignore this hypocrisy within the American national character.

Works Cited

Boyle, Kevin. (2004). Arc of Justice. New York: Henry Holt and Co.

Klarman, Michael J. "Racial Origins of Modern Criminal Procedure. Michigan Law Review 99.48 (2000): 48-97. JSTOR. Binghamton University Library. 10 Nov. 2006 < http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-2234%28200010%2999%3A1%3C48%3ATROOMC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U>.

Licht, Mary. "I Remember the Scottsboro Defense".1997. World History Archives. 10 Nov. 2006 < https://createpdf.adobe.com/cgi-pickup.pl/047.pdf?BP=&LOC=en_US&CUS=5ad5db15501ad374c270278f4224b262&CDS=4574482B-71A4-2852F6>.

O'Linder, Douglas. "Biographical Sketches of Key Figures of the 'Scottsboro Boys' Trials." Great American Trials. 2006. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. 4 Nov. 2006 < http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/scottsboro/SB_biog.html>.

O'Linder, Douglas. "The Trials of the 'Scottsboro Boys'." Great American Trials. 2006. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. 4 Nov. 2006 < https://createpdf.adobe.com/cgi-pickup.pl/Scottboro%20Boys.pdf?BP=&LOC=en_US&CUS=5ad5db15501ad374c270278f4224b262&CDS=45744423-0CFE-083A66>

Ransdall, Hollace. "Report on the Scottsboro, Alabama Case". Great American Trials.1931. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. 31 Oct. 2006