Brothels, Depravity, and Abandoned Women: Illegal Sex in Antebellum New Orleans. By Judith Kelleher Schafer. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2009. Pp. 221. Cloth, $32.50.)Reviewed by Jennifer M. SpearFrom Manon Lescaut, Abbe Prevost's 1731 novel about a French prostitute exiled to Louisiana, through turn-of-the-twentieth-century Storyville, to today's Bourbon Street, New Orleans has had a long association with prostitution and other forms of sexualized commerce. Using the First District Court's pre-Civil War years of operation (1846-1862) as her timeframe, Judith Schafer's Brothels, Depravity, and Abandoned Women focuses on an understudied era in this history, revealing the dynamics of the sex trade, as well as the lives of some of its more notorious practitioners and clients, during the middle of the nineteenth century.Once again, Schafer has proven herself an indefatigable researcher in the city's court records. As with her earlier book, Becoming Free, Remaining Free: Manumission and Enslavement in New Orleans, 18461862 (Baton Rouge, LA, 2003), Schafer immerses herself in the trial transcripts from the First District Court, which opened its doors for the first time in 1846 and closed in 1862 during the Union Army occupation of the city. Because it was a trial rather than appellate court, there are no case reports for the First District, nor have these transcripts been indexed. Even with a subject index, Schafer's task would have been demanding, as prostitution itself was not during this era (brothelkeeping, however, was). In order to uncover evidence of illegal sex, Schafer read through more than two thousand trial transcripts, looking for women who were arrested for a variety of crimes, including being lewd and abandoned, vagrancy, assault, larceny, and cross-dressing. She also examined the entire run of the New Orleans Daily Picayune and several other newspapers for the same thirteen years. In addition to fleshing out the mostly dry trial transcripts with gossipy details (9), the newspapers also summarized the daily reports of the court's recorders, whose own books have been lost. Because court recorders were required to send only more serious offenses to the First District Court, many prostitutes' involvement with the law appear in these reports alone. While Schafer necessarily had to cast her net wide, she is careful to refer to her subjects as women (misbehaving) in public, rather than public women per se.Regardless of what crime provoked their arrest, most women were quickly released, perhaps after being assessed a minor fine or serving a short period of confinement in the workhouse, that could be imposed by court recorders. Even when prosecutors became involved, many cases never saw the inside of a courtroom. Prosecutors had a variety of reasons for dropping charges. Accusers might withdraw their charges, witnesses might foil to appear (especially if doing so required them to acknowledge that they had been in a house of ill repute), defendants might bribe or threaten their victims, or prosecutors might have insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. Schafer also argues that the women had the support of wealthy and powerful landlords, among them prominent philanthropist John McDonogh, who sought to keep their tenants out of jail and working to pay the rent. Cases that did make it into the courtroom frequently resulted in not-guilty verdicts. In one 1854 case, the defendant was found not guilty of brothel-keeping despite the testimony of several police officers, including the chief of police, against her. Even those who were found guilty often received trivial sentences (144). Instead of reading these numbers as prosecutors' overwhelming failure to convict offenders, Schafer instead argues that the system was used to tax, rather than seriously punish - let alone eradicate - prostitution. …