Waldrep, C. (2002). The Many Faces of Judge Lynch: Extralegal Violence and

Punishment in America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Professor Christopher Waldrep is Pasker Chair of American History at San Francisco State University. ASide from authoring The Many Faces of Judge Lynch, he authored many books including Night Riders, Roots of Disorder, Vicksburg's Long Shadow, and Lynching in America. He will soon be adding a book about the Surpeme Court and civil rights to his body of work.

The main focus of The Many Faces of Judge Lynch is to trace the history of the word ‘lynching’ in the United States as rhetoric, not as a behavior or act of violence. It sheds light on the importance of language in shaping people’s behavior and creating new meanings and definitions and popularizing them. Waldrep is interested in showing how the history of the term ‘lynching’ has determined America’s acceptance of extralegal violence throughout history. His focus is on the United States, starting in Virginia and spreading west all the way to California. His study also explores the time period beginning with the American Revolution to present day, showing how the term evolved not only by location but by time period as well. He highlights how Americans have used the language politically to justify or condemn extralegal punishments and mob violence in America and how it influenced public opinion. The book sheds light on how rhetorical support and language importance was well understood by all different sides fighting to make extralegal violence seem legitimate or illegitimate.

While emphasizing that lynching was not exclusive to the United States, Waldrep began his research on the term by looking at the invention of lynching and the earliest rhetoric about the word. This brought him to the state of Virginia where he showed how the word began to make its way into the lives of Americans. He introduces two figures who were credited to use the word to justify their use of extralegal violence. These figures are Charles Lynch and William Lynch and it was through them that “Judge Lynch” became an icon for extralegal justice. At that moment in time, the word lynch remained a part of an oral culture. Waldrep claims that people who were familiar with the techniques of William Lynch began to spread out across America and began using these techniques in vigilante-type violence which helped with the spread and awareness of the word. It was also established that these vigilantes saw themselves as a “brotherhood, whose duty it was to purge the community of its unruly members.” (25) As Americans migrated to the west, those who could convincingly claim to act on behalf of "Judge Lynch" had taken an important step toward legitimacy and power by making themselves seem like the representatives of their whole community.

The riot in Vicksburg pushed lynching into the national spotlight. The Vicksburg riot consisted of a conflict between the Vicksburg militia and a group of white gamblers. At the time, gambling was seen as a huge problem in the area. During an ambush, a group of gamblers shot at the militia, killing a member. This resulted in the hanging of five men. The news of this event spread with the help of circulating newspapers. Waldrep showed how newspaper editors were influential in the reporting of these events. This riot was no exception. Editors of many newspapers supported this lynching, as the gamblers in the city were not being contained properly and therefore were becoming an epidemic. This event was also important because it showed how violence influenced the political agenda of groups. One group in particular is the Whigs, who opposed Andrew Jackson's administration. Whigs saw the Vicksburg riot as an example of sovereignty gone wrong. It had the ability to cloud one's judgment and make it difficult to act within the laws that are set. They believed that law-and-order should be the main focus.

Waldrep shows how the Western community’s support for this act of violence made the violence legitimate. Although lynching was an act of violence of ordinary people acting entirely outside the law, it was seen as the work of a community or neighborhood united against outrageous crimes when local courts were non-existent or ineffective in punishing criminals. To support this view, Waldrep presented an argument in support of vigilantism that originated in California and was adopted in other western states, including Kansas and Montana, both of which are discussed in the book. First, it was important to show that the people flocking to California migrated with selfish intentions. They also had to be portrayed as people who paid no regard to the law. Second, the people had a duty to ban together to take of the law from those who were deemed lawless. Third, popular sovereignty was emphasized. Finally, the effectiveness of vigilantism was evidenced by the "peace and quiet" that ensued. For example, the media helped justify the hanging of Henry Plummer and his group in Montana because it was said that Plummer was responsible for the murders of one hundred people. While this argument originated in California, it was Montana that cemented the argument.

By 1867, the Reconstruction act was passed and brought with it an adjustment in words. There was a preference of the word "outrage" in describing violence rather than lynching, showing that people did not think "lynching" applied to violence at the time. There was also an imbalance in the support of community violence. Many people including white members of the community were against violence, which deemed California's argument invalid because community support was not achieved. It was also noted that violence was used against various types of people. For example, the Ku Klux Klan targeted people who were against the group's vision. This included white members of the community, thus showing that violence was not a racial act at the time.

In the 1870s, the press created a narrative that was used in print when referring to a lynching or an "outrage." It consisted of four parts. First, newspapers have to show that a horrible crime occurred and resulted in the creation of an uproar in the community. Second, there has to be evidence that the horrible crime created a need for justice and retribution in the community.  Third, the courts have to be considered ineffective when the community feels the crime was not punished fairly. Finally, there has to be a unanimous or near unanimous support for action. The last condition is the one that the press emphasized the most.

Waldrep also highlights how Black opponents of lynching succeeded in the 1980s in redefining the meaning of lynching and making the practice seem exclusively racial. Waldrep showed that whites' perspective on lynching remained unchanged. T. Thomas Fortune and Ida B. Wells were featured prominently in this section. Fortune urged Black Americans to unite and fight back, proclaiming that "lynchers should be lynched." (98) He also encouraged Black Americans to fight violence through self-improvement and education. Waldrep also documents the evolution of Ida B. Wells from being accepting of lynching to becoming a crusader against lynching. The basis of her crusade was her belief that black victims of lynching did not commit the crimes that whites accused them of.  She believed that whites used rape as justification for the execution of blacks, deeming that justification as an "old threadbare lie." (109)

In the early twentieth century, there were two groups who came together to create a concrete definition of lynching: the Tuskegee Institute, headed by Jessie Daniel Ames and Monroe Work and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). One of the objectives that Ames sought to achieve was a "lynch-free year." If this objective was achieved, it would show that there was no need for an anti-lynching law, as the lack of public support for lynching would not warrant such a law.  The NAACP took every opportunity to show that Ames's objectives were unfounded, as lynching still occurred. The organization also fought for a broad definition of lynching which included murders committed in a covert fashion and murders committed by members of the law while Ames and the Tuskegee Institute preferred a more narrow definition. While the two groups could not agree on a specific definition of lynching, they did come up with four measures. First, a dead body is needed. Assault or flogging does not count. Second, the manner in which death was met has to be in unwarranted and illegal. Third, the murder has to be committed by a group of three or more people. Finally, the murder committed must be a "pretext of service to justice, race, or tradition" (149) in order to be seen as a lynching. 

Waldrep considers the murder of Emmett Till as the point in which the public achieved a better understanding of what lynching was. Waldrep also shows how the popularization of various media including radio, movies and nationalized newspapers aided Clarence Thomas in his accusations of being a victim of a "high-tech lynch," meaning that consumers can now be reached almost instantaneously. Finally, Waldrep highlights how community-sanctioned lynchings were largely seen by Americans in 1985 as acts of the past and how the term ‘hate crime’ became the new term for an "alienated individual's offense against society" (186) whose inspiration comes from prejudice against a particular group.

To recap, Waldrep demonstrates that lynching as a behavior is universal. He emphasized that it is the term "lynching" and not the behavior that was invented by Americans. Lynching as rhetoric was used to legitimate a pervasive practice through description. He also suggests that violence was not automatic for Americans, but rather the product of a complex mechanism that legitimate violence through language, description and popular opinion. Waldrep argues that Americans have used words and rhetorical truths to convince themselves that violence is right, and if not right, then an uncontrollable, or a force of nature or history, all in an effort to influence a community to act.

Waldrep’s book is invaluable and interesting; it is a great historical resource for any student or any person who seeks to learn about the evolution of lynching in a rhetoric sense in the United States. The book was written so that anyone reading it could understand it. Although there is no terminology or no specific knowledge that is needed to read and understand the text, this book would greatly benefit those who are interested in mass communications, history, criminal justice, mob violence and rhetoric. Waldrep was able to cover a great range of time and regions in only 232 pages. To reiterate, he covers the history of the term ‘lynching’ in all of the United States, from Virginia to California, starting from the American Revolution to the present day.

Waldrep also succeeded in selecting an interesting title to his work, which reflects the main focus of his book. It shows how the term "lynching" or "Judge Lynch" was used. It also shows how it was interpreted and understood by all different competing groups in the U.S. fighting to make lynching legitimate or illegitimate. Waldrep’s concern was to examine the rhetoric of lynching only as applied against Black Americans. While Waldrep briefly touched upon extralegal violence against Mexicans especially when referring to lynching in California, he did not give any attention to the history of lynching against other non-Black minorities such as Native Americans and Chinese Americans, giving the misconception that Blacks were the only victims of extra legal violence in the United States. (Reviewed by Sahar El Zahed)