|
|
|
Book Review
| Tony A. Freyer, Little Rock on Trial: Cooper v. Aaron and School Desegregation, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007. Pp. 238. $35.00 cloth (ISBN 978-0-7006-1535-3); $17.95 paper (ISBN 978-0-7006-1536-0).
|
| Tony Freyer wrote the first comprehensive review and interpretation of the Cooper v. Aaron case (The Little Rock Crisis: A Constitutional Interpretation [1984]). That text remains a classic. This new book, Little Rock on Trial, is part of a University Press of Kansas series intended to be used as teaching materials. The press web site describes the book as "a concise, lucid, and eminently teachable summary of that historic case and shows that it paved the way for later civil rights victories." |
1
|
|
The book will serve well as adjunct reading in a course with a broader textbook and a professor's lectures. A lengthy introduction (twelve pages) summarizes the entire book. Each chapter begins with one to three pages summarizing that chapter's contents. The bulk of each chapter then provides the meat of the material. The bulk of the first four chapters chronologically relates the actions of numerous groups: the plaintiffs (local African Americans, local NAACP groups, and their lawyer), the defendants (Little Rock School Board and their lawyers), the national NAACP, segregationist groups, Arkansas governor Faubus and his consultants, the Department of Justice, and President Eisenhower and his administration. Chapter five does the same thing in describing the interactions of the different members and factions within the United States Supreme Court when drafting its opinion in the case. The final, sixth, chapter provides a summary of subsequent Supreme Court cases in which Cooper v. Aaron is cited as precedent, indicating how the Court's use of that precedent has changed over the past fifty years. |
2
|
|
The book is best when Freyer focuses on the details of specific events; for example, those leading to filing of the case, concerning its first phase (court approval of the desegregation plan proposed by the Little Rock School Board), and the second and final phase (the School Board's petition for delay in implementing the plan and the Supreme Court's final opinion denying a delay). Freyer's behind-the-scenes review of the struggles between the Justices in the drafting of the final opinion in Aaron v. Cooper (chapter 5) also provides good description and nicely delineates the various positions and goals of various members of the Court. |
3
|
|
As a stand-alone text, or for the reader without background knowledge of the period, the book poses problems. It is too concise a summary for general knowledge and its organization makes it seem repetitious and difficult to follow. In an effort to keep the reader clear on the context, chronology, and the interrelationships among the different groups, Freyer is required to repeat enough information in each chapter to remind us of the different roles and action taken in the larger story. The average reader is likely to be confused; the reader with some knowledge feels frustration. |
4
|
|
There is excuse for the problem with providing context. The Little Rock case was not straightforward in its procedural progression or narrow in its cast of characters. It takes a brave person to attempt such a review, since trying to keep continuity flowing while describing the actions of numerous entities and persons is almost impossible. This is particularly true when the product is not expected to provide full coverage. Not surprisingly, some references feel like bullet points on what was occurring elsewhere and leave the reader with all sorts of questions. For example, Freyer notes the difficulties that the Little Rock events caused for the Department of State in its cold war propaganda dealings with foreign countries. As proof, references to newspaper and other comments on the difficulty are inserted throughout the text (see 43, 67–68, 125–26, 149–50, 192, 212, 214–15). However, if one does not already have knowledge of the Cold War and its issues, these references do not provide much help and seem merely repetitive. |
5
|
|
A similar difficulty occurs when Justice Frankfurter's decision to publish a concurring opinion is discussed. Beginning on page 184, the description notes that the other Justices believed the act detracted from the unanimity of the majority opinion. Freyer quotes (188–89) from a letter to a friend where Frankfurter says that his words were aimed at "a particular audience" made up of "Southern lawyers and law professors," in an effort to encourage them to work for desegregation by tying Cooper v. Aaron to the flexible "all deliberate speed" standard of Brown II (Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 [1955]). References to Frankfurter's effort to reach southern lawyers are repeated on pages 194, 197, 198, 199, 199–200, and 200. The point has some significance, but the space devoted to making it seems excessive. |
6
|
|
All in all, this book will be a useful resource for history and other courses. |
7
|
| Judith Kilpatrick
|
| University of Arkansas |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|