Jack Johnson Will He Be Pardoned?

Here's a little blurb about the Mann Act of 1910 taken from Wikipedia.

"Although the law was created to stop forced ***ual slavery of women, the most common use of the Mann Act was to prosecute men for having *** with under-age females. The phrase "immoral purpose" in the statute allowed an extremely broad application of the law following the United States Supreme Court ruling in Caminetti v. United States (1917), which held that "illicit fornication" even when consensual constituted an "immoral purpose." The law was also frequently used to prosecute interracial and unapproved pre-marital and extra-marital relationships in addition to its stated purpose of preventing human trafficking. The penalties would be applied to men whether or not the woman involved consented and if she did the woman could be considered an accessory to the offense. There was also a strong racial bias against black men with white women such as in the case of Jack Johnson. It was also used to harass others who had drawn the authorities' wrath for "immoral" or controversial behavior. "

 

First of all, the president and a governor are on a different footing.
A president's pardon is controlled by federal law and federal court rulings.
A governor's is controlled by state laws, which may well be different than federal laws.
The part about restoring a person's innocence, is simply wrong when it comes to a presidential pardon.

Google Bur**** v United States

That's Burd ick v United States. Leave out the space in the first word.

 

Well I do realize that Federal and state law are too different things,
so that's point one.

I did a bit more research on this and apparently you're correct, however, Bill Clinton did pardon a deceased individual named Henry Ossian Flipper, so there is precedent in allowing for a pardon for Johnson. When I googled the word "pardon" it must have just referenced some generic term about what it meant in general as opposed to how it specifically related to the US president and his powers.

 

Reznick and Mcvey can call me all of the names they want. They wouldnt say that **** to my face so it makes no difference to me. If they did theyd have more gold teeth than Johnson. The fact remains that youd have to be a ****ing moron to believe everything johnson said and thats the only way you could possibly buy his defence which was uncompelling then as it is now. Furthermore if I hated Johnson so much would I vigorously defend him in all the arguments I have in regards to his ability? No. I wouldnt. If anyone doubts that go back and read what Ive written on the man. The difference is you have a few biased and/or deluded fans who think the sun shone out his ass and the man **** rainbows both in and out of the ring. Then you have me who thinks the man was an amazing fighter but a ****ty human being. Which of us sounds like the more balanced interpretation? Is there more evidence that Johnson was a lilly white angel who did no wrong and was just horribly pursued and persecuted for the color of his skin or that he really was an *******. Because regardless of Adams books or a couple of near sighted fanboys the evidence is legion across several continents that Johnson was a lot more like Im depicting than some whitewashed version you guys want to paint.

 

We arent in a court of law Adam. Im not asking what the appellate court ruled. Im asking you based on what you know.

We arent in a court of law Adam. Im not asking what the appellate court ruled. Im asking you based on what you know.

Two very lawyerly ways of ducking an honest question.

Is there any more proof that these women were prostitutes than that Johnson didnt run or profit from prostitutes? Does your evidence hinge on the testimony of one over the other? If Schreiber admits she is a prostitute you accept that but not her testimony about Johnson? Thats what I mean. We start to get awfully picky about who and what we decide to believe and suddenly the case changes doesnt it? You may choose to believe Johnson. I dont. I find his testimony unconvincing and evasive.

So if he travelled with them for *** then he was guilty. Period. His skin color doesnt matter, their skin color doesnt matter, the possibility that he may or may not have profitted from it doesnt matter. They were prostitutes, he transported them interstate for ***, it was illegal. He was guilty. Case closed. Whether you agree with the law is neither here nor there. It was a different time and white men who werent screwing *****s and paying for it got convicted of the same law with less cause. Hence its a weak argument for a pardon unless its a blanket pardon for all the men who were found guilty and then where do you draw the line. As our modern morals and values shift and the only thing that determines right and wrong along with it when and where do stop? Why start with Johnson? What makes him so much more special than the others? Oh, hes black and was a boxing champion, i.e. he was famous and gets more publicity.

Again, this is if you believe HIS story.

No these are two seperate issues. He didnt have to have *** with her to be guilty. The Mann act was prohibiting interstate transportation of women for IMMORAL PURPOSES. Johnson sending a prostitute money to travel interstate to either set herself up, have *** with, support her illicit activities, etc. are all under the letter of the law illegal. Period. That law wasnt just designed to go after Johns it was designed to go after pimps as well. Johnson sending her money to support herself, get back on her feet to ***** again, or come to him to have *** were all illegal. I dont understand why we are tiptoeing around that and playing these silly games of legal pitty pat. Im not in a court. Im not a lawyer. I dont care about the technicalities. He did it, you admit that, he was guilty. I couldnt care two ****s if some lawyer got part of his case overturned on a technicality. The guy was guilty. He was more guilty than many who got prosecuted and persecuted under the Mann act so why should i care about him exclusively? Why should I start with him? I dont hate Johnson, I dont care one way or the other about him. I dont like that some people strive to believe he was a good, honorable, decent man. He wasnt. I dont have to write two books on him to know that. Ive done enough research into first hand sources to know that as Im sure you have as well. What I do have a problem with is this need by some to whitewash his story, set him up as some kind of a hero, and then waste tax payer dollars and legislative time by trying to get him pardoned over a century after the facts and 70 years after his death. Its a stupid, ridiculous waste of time and resources.

 

Sh*t... I gotta make some more popcorn!

 

No, because I never quoted the Mann Act. I quoted the US senate resolution.

Why is this hard to grasp.

 

Nobody has delusions about his personality, but the conclusions you derive off his personality are delusional.

Jack Johnson achieved heights that many thought were impossible because of his race. You might not like Obama, but because of him, every black child in America believes that they can become president. Just like every black child in his day, believed that they can become the heavyweight champion of the world, which at the time, was an extremely prestigious title. It gave hope and courage to people who were oppressed beyond reproach.

Obviously this won't penetrate that dumb brain of yours. And please, don't cry about name calling when you jump into threads calling people re****ed for no reason.

Also, your physical threats are pathetic. Like your life. You sound like a cranky Larry Merchant telling Mayweather that he would kick his ass!

 

Oh, boy. The level of ignorance here is truly sad!


You criticize Adam for believing his story. Okay, obviously you have evidence to counter that. No? Oh, your counter argument is that you DON'T believe his story?


"I dont understand why we are tiptoeing around that and playing these silly games of legal pitty pat. Im not in a court. Im not a lawyer. I dont care about the technicalities. "
Translation: Derp derp

Okay, you want to ignore the "legal pitty pat?." Fine, let's throw that out the window. Do you believe Johnson should have been imprisoned for sending his girlfriend $75? Because that's what it boils down to.

If we're ignoring legal proceedings, then we're talking about morals and ethics. Therefor, your argument is that Johnson deserved to spend years behind bars for sending his girlfriend pocket change. Yeesh, you give evil dictators a run for their money! What other minor offense that don't require substantiated proof, do you think people deserve to go to jail for?


The pardon may be wasted resources for YOU. But America is bigger than grumpy ol' Klompton. Step outside that shabby inventory box of yours, and you will understand that.

 

And he was prosecuted under what? A resolution?

You've grown far too tiresome on this one. Give up while you're still behind.

 

You interpretation disabilities are not my problem.

 

He's a sad pathetic man, hellbent on bringing people down to his level.

 

Yeah, but what's so wrong with that ?

 

Like i said: stick to posting your little mickey mouse youtube videos. Leave the history to trained historians. You know people who actually have a college degree in it, unlike anyone else posting on this topic. The one good thing to come out of this is youve stopped sending me pm's that went unanswered begging for footage for your little tribute videos. I cant wait for your next one, a tribute to woman beating pimps with felony convictions who made themselves a pariah in every country he stepped foot in.