I've wondered this ever since I first learned that various lynchings or race riots were supposedly sparked or driven by claims that a black man had raped a white woman or girl. And about that -- which came first? Did a claim of rape then lead to or spark violence? Or did the desire to commit some violence come first, and then the claim of rape came up as pretext?
Who was it that typically made the claim that rape had occurred? The alleged victim? Male relatives? Local leaders of the community?
What did the community generally think had happened? That it was rape and it had happened? That it was just an excuse for lynching/violence? That it was a lie to cover up a consensual relationship between a white woman and black man?
Did the woman want the claim or rumor of an interracial rape to be public, to spread among the community? Or did she (or relatives) want it to be kept private? Did the woman ever refuse to go along with the story? Did it even matter what she said?
How was the alleged victim's reputation impacted? Did it lower her reputation? Did it "save" her reputation? Did it ever elevate her reputation?
Was the woman seen as an innocent victim, still honorable? Was she seen as somewhat responsible? Was she treated as "damaged goods"? Did it impact her marriage prospects? If the woman had been assumed to be a virgin prior to the alleged rape, what then? Was it assumed that the woman was still a virgin, that the rape claim being false? Or was it assumed she was no longer a virgin, that the rape claim was either true or that the claim was a cover up of a consensual relationship?
How was the issue of pregnancy dealt with if sexual intercourse had in fact occurred (whether consensual or non-consensual)?
Do we know how people (particularly women) felt about the difference in the way accusations of rape were treated when a white man was claimed to be the perpetrator vs. when a black man was claimed to be the perpetrator?
After retribution had been dealt, was it still maintained (by the community, by the men, by the woman) that the claim was true, that rape had occurred?
I think its important to understand that the rape of white women by black men was mostly used as a pretext. The simple idea that an black man could rape a white woman was more than enough to cause a lynching or a riot or both. Jim Crow controlled every aspect of African Americans lives and because of that the community didn't need a reason or even the truth for violence.
In Tulsa Massacre of 1921, that riot was caused because Dick Rowland was accused of assaulting a Sarah Page in the middle of the day in the middle of town. Initially even the police didn't take it seriously because only a black man with a death wish would do something so bold. That didn't stop the Tulsa tribune from writing stories about a negro assaulting a white woman in an elevator and there are rumors that other papers called for a lynching but those accounts are second hand if they existed, they were destroyed in the years after the riot. As the Tulsans read the afternoon paper after work, they showed up at the courthouse ready to lynch Dick Rowland.
Under Jim Crow any and all sexual interactions between black men and white women was within the Jim Crow definition of rape, Together with the widespread stereotype that Black men were dangerous, violent, and uncontrollable hypersexual aggressors. All of this fueled the popular belief that lynching's were necessary to protect white women from black rapists but also that rape included all sexual contact between black man and a white woman.
Ida B. Well once wrote "Nobody in this section believes the old thread-bare lie that Negro men assault white women. If Southern white men are not careful they will over-reach themselves and a conclusion will be reached which will be very damaging to the moral reputation of their women."
After this article they tried to lynch her too.
Speaking about the "victims" in these cases, because most of these lynchings were either based on lies or greatly exaggerated, I haven't read any cases were "victims were treated any differently. in the case of Emmett Till, the 14 year old lynched for flirting with Carolyn Bryant in 1955, Her husband Roy Bryant was very upset and she insinuates that he may have beat her, but he spent most of looking to lynch Emmett. As far as the community. There was a warrant out for her arrest but it was "lost" in the basement of the courthouse for 80 years.
Between 1877 and 1950 the EJI states that 4084 African Americans were document to have been lynched and of that nearly 25 percent were accused of sexual assault. Fears of sexual contact between Black men and white women was prevalent it alone caused many lynchings. Then the sympathetic press would justified the violence by perpetuating the stereotype of black men being hypersexual threats to white womanhood
Sources