Don’t you just love situational irony?
I’m sure Carteret, Belmont, and McBane do. After all, it was Carteret’s article that, referring to the murder and robbery of Mrs. Ochiltree, said, “an atrocious assault upon a defenseless old lady, whose age and sex would have protected her from harm at the hands of anyone but a brute in the lowest human form” (185). And I couldn’t agree more with them in this instance.
At the time, of course, it was their hatred of African Americans that both lead them to believe the crime was committed by a black man and gave them the confidence to write such words. But, later, after Carteret is made aware that it was a white man of high social standing (one he was prepared to marry his ward off to) that killed and robbed her, what then? The words are as true post-reveal as they were pre-reveal. Carteret can hardly retract the article, and that’s gotta sting the white pride.
Or maybe, internally, Carteret accepts it. Maybe he recognizes that Tom is trash and a horrible person, and he would gladly see him punished if not for his own agenda. The problem would still remain that when it was a black man taking the blame, the article was used to discredit and condemn the entire race. But Carteret obviously doesn’t believe that Tom’s actions can condemn the entire white race.
Anyway, just some more super cute double standards.
My Thoughts on African American Literature 
I agree with you, Rachel. It is very ironic. And then Carteret wanted to keep Tom innocent and not use his name because he was afraid it would invalidate the conspirators (Carteret, McBane, Belmont) sentiments regarding their race and the blacks. They kept promoting how much better and more civilized whites were in comparison so if the true culprit would have been revealed they would have looked really silly. It would have put them on the same level which is the opposite of what they want. It just makes me wonder though how they are really validating to themselves a reason for disliking African Americans since this reason was clearly proven not valid, at least to Carteret. It is very double-sided and only working towards their own agenda like you said.
LikeLike