Jack Johnson Will He Be Pardoned?

How blind are you in your hatred for the past legends?

He was in a relationship with her, traveled with her BEFORE the Mann Act was enacted. They shoulda ticketed him for every stop sign he passed before the signs went up as well!

This is an open and shut case of a wrongful conviction. Your bias is weird.

 

I find the arguments put forward by those defending the charge to be somewhat bizarre.

They are basically saying “look the Mann act could be interpreted that way, therefore Johnson had it coming”.

At the end of the day, this is somebody who was jailed for nothing more than taking a rain across a state boundary with his girlfriend.

If that falls within your definition of justice, then it is somewhat wanting!

 

The rights and wrongs of a law passed 100 years ago are really beside the point. People used to get hanged for stealing. Us thinking it was bad centuries later has no relevance to why it happened. The Mann Act was passed and it was interpreted a certain way (clearly beyond its original spirit and intent), and Johnson was just one of many, many people who ended up falling foul of it. The point is he wasn't the only person prosecuted, he wasn't even the first person prosecuted, it wasn't passed just to 'get' him, and he wasn't jailed because he beat Jim Jeffries and had a white girlfriend.

 

I have to seriously doubt your assertion that he was not targeted.

Virtually all of the key sporting figures of the period consorted with women who were not their wives, and travelled across state lines with them.

If Johnson was prosecuted within the normal practice of the law, then you would have to ask why so many prominent athletes avoided prosecution.

It must also be noted that pardons are often given out to people who were treated within the normal legal practice of the day.

Alan Turing would be an obvious example.

 

If Johnson was targeted then you'd have to say that all the other people prosecuted under the Mann Act, including many less prominent individuals than him, were targeted too. Which other athletes of the day were in breach of the Mann Act?

As noted above, pardons for long dead individuals are usually dished out for current political purposes.

 

Like i said, the mental gymnastics of johnsons apologists are beyond laughable. The law was enacted to combat prostitution, particularly interstate prostitution. Johnson ran a ***** house, funded another, and travelled across state lines with prostitutes for the purpose of ***, etc. If anyone was guilty under the letter of the law it was johnson. Whether you agree with that law by trying to apply you 21st century values to a century old case is irrelevent. Like i said, pardon him and youve got to pardon all the guys the feds chased after who took their girlfriends (who werent paid *** workers) to tahoe for the weekend. Twist that into a black/white issue all you want but dont accuse me of hating the old timers "reznick" because it takes more than some hack youtuber to make that connection. Go back and look at the dozens of posts where ive defended Johnson the fighter. The difference is i can seperate johnson the ******* woman beating ***** mongering social outcast (by his own doing no less) from the great boxer that he was. When youve spent 1/100th of the time i have researching these old timers come see me. Until then stick to your little youtube hobby.

 

Right, and 2+2=4 is mental gymnastics for you too.

This law was created to prevent unwilling prostitutes. "The purpose of the act was to make it a crime to coerce transportation of unwilling women."

By calling Johnson guilty, you are saying he kidnapped a girl.

"Whether you agree with that law by trying to apply you 21st century values to a century old case is irrelevent."

Wow, you are surprisingly shallow. That's like saying black people rightfully were denied the ability to vote. You know, since you can't apply 21st century values to abusive laws.

 

I think anyone who actually reads my book will find that it is very fair, balanced, and thorough on the Mann Act issue. The facts against Johnson are there, as well as the facts for Johnson. The cases for both guilt and innocence are laid out. There also are separate issues regarding whether he was given a fair trial, separate from his actual factual and legal guilt or innocence. In general, a person who is not given a fair trial is entitled to a retrial. Usually. Then there is the issue of the true motivation behind the prosecution. Some think that matters. Some do not. What a lot of folks do not realize is that Johnson's conviction was partially overturned by an appellate court, and its ruling is quite fascinating. It is all in the book.

 

You are incorrect. By the time the act got through congress in its 1910 version, the interpretation was.."persuade, induce, entice, or coercein interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or the District of Columbia" if the travel was "for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose ... whether with or without her consent."

 

Bull****. Just because you or someone else says it was to protect against kidnapping doesnt make it so. There were already kidnapping laws on the books. Dont insult my intelligence or anyone elses by pretending the Mann act was some redundant kidnapping law. It wasnt. And anyone who has spent any time reading newspapers from the turn of the century up through the 1930s can tell you that prostitution was a major issue of the day. The progressive movement which legislation like the Mann act and Prohibition had its roots in was concerned primarily with moral issues. I cant recall a single instance of kidnapping ever having been a topic of debate among any of the early 20th century progressives that I have read about. A topic that you cant avoid getting hit in the face with when reading those old papers is prostitution both forced and willing and its interstate trade which boomed as transportation became faster, cheaper, and easier. That is exactly what the Mann act was enacted to combat. Clearly you arent familiar with this era or this law so why are you trying to argue out of a position of ignorance?

No Im not, and neither did anyone else. Im saying he was a pimp who transported more than one prostitute across state lines. Profitted from it both ***ually and monetarily. So yes, he was guilty. The only way you could possibly believe Johnson wasnt guilty under the letter and spirit of the Mann act is if you believe every ounce of his testimony on the stand. That testimony is riddled with lies. I dont believe and neither did those who judged him guilty despite being instructed to judge him not by the color of his skin but as anyone else would be judged under those circumstances.

Then go back and give all of those dead people who didnt have the right to vote their vote back... First of all its a pointless exercise. Second of all its a fool who judges anyone centuries later based on his own modern morality. Why dont you ***** about the vikings or romans slaughtering christians? Most people just accept it as a fact of life, move on, and dont try to make Danes or Italians pay reparations. If you have some white guilt you need to get off your shoulders then by all means go out change the world. Donate all of your money to the NAACP. For me I choose to judge history and its people within the context of the day. By todays context and 100 yrs ago Johnson was a pimp and an *******. If you think his behavior would be acceptable today more power to you. You probably also think Floyd Mayweather beats the **** out of his women and acts like an ass because "the man" keeps him down. Whatever. Good luck with your pointless pardon. Im sure it will mean a lot to Johnson. The funny thing is the people who will get the most out of it are a bunch of white liberals who think its some kind of moral victory and a bunch of white politicians who will have fooled african americans into thinking they give a **** when none of them including John McCain know anymore about Jack Johnson than the average 12 year old. In the end it will have accomplished nothing except to show that you can be a woman beating pimp who was such an ******* he got chased out of every country he ever visited regardless of how tolerant they were in regards to race and yet still get held up as a symbol of oppression because you were good at sports.

 

The White-slave traffic Act, otherwise known as the Mann Act, approved on June 25, 1910 and effective as of July 1, 1910, said in part,

That any person who shall knowingly transport or cause to be transported, or aid or assist in obtaining transportation for, or in transporting, in interstate or foreign commerce…any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose, or with the intent and purpose to induce, entice, or compel such woman or girl to become a prostitute or giver herself up to debauchery, or to engage in any other immoral practice; or who shall knowingly procure or obtain, or cause to be procured or obtained, or aid or assist in procuring or obtaining, any ticket or tickets, or any form of transportation or evidence of the right thereto, to be used by any woman or girl in interstate or foreign commerce…in going to any place for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose, or with the intent or purpose on the part of such person to induce, entice, or compel her to give herself up to the practice of prostitution, or to give herself up to debauchery, or any other immoral practice, whereby any such woman or girl shall be transported in interstate or foreign commerce…shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment of not more than five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

 

Klompton, I don't have to insult your intelligence. You do it yourself every time you speak.

Johnson MARRIED the girl he was charged for transporting. Under your logic, in 1910, that was immoral since he was black. And so he must have deserved it.

"It's better to let 100 criminals free, than to imprison one innocent man." - Franklin.

You so vehemently supporting Johnsons imprisonment, despite not being guilty of the spirit of the law, despite the law being amended, and despite a crooked trial, speaks volumes about your character.

 

If understand the concept correctly, a pardon does not dispute the guilt of the convicted or the merits of the conviction at the time it was handed down.

Personally I couldn't give a toss who the POTUS pardons. Or the PM of UK. I certainly don't look to them and their governments for endorsement of historical figures or moral guides in that direction. Far from it.