Why Jack Johnson’s Family Should Refuse Any Exoneration

Found this interesting so thought I would see what people think

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-jack-johnsons-family-should-refuse-any-exoneration/

 

Yeah I was wondering about that, don't know too much about US law etc

 

It is my understanding that Johnson left no direct descendents. All these years later the closest relatives He may have out there can only be great great "grand nephews or nieces"at best. I am not sure many people feel too much of a bond with a great, great, great uncle, it's not like being a sibling or even a cousin is it?

 

Let’s assume that there were descendants with the lineage to pronounce upon this:

Yes they should accept it, because it might not come around again.

You can't refuse it from one administration, and then hope that a better administration will offer it to you.

It would say a lot in terms of the verdict of history if he was pardoned, and that is why it should happen.

Let history damn those who brought the charges against him for no reason other than the facts that he was black and inconvenient!

 

It's odd that such a permiscious man had no children of his own.

 

I don't think one can "refuse" an exoneration. I mean, the courts don't leave it up to the defendant to stand trial or not if they are deemed ahead of time to be not of sound mind, for example. It's simply thrown out of court, you can't say "no no no, I want to be tried, you need to try me right now!"

Seems nothing more than a meaningless gesture, to be frank. Man's been dead a really long time. This changes nothing about his life, nor of anyone he knew. It's a political grandstanding move, nothing more.

 

He must have had a problem. His treatment of women was not good. One of his wives killed herself.

I am not so sure feminists would celebrate his pardon.

Usually I prefer to comment on a boxing career rather than a personal life but with fascinating characters such as Johnson it is difficult to separate the two.

 

if I was a relative I'd argue that he never needed n exoneration, therefore there is no need to give one.

It would be preferable to hear it admitted that the original "crime" was just a shoddily manufactured lie.

 

He beat his wife to an inch of her life. Johnson also beat up a sick 120-pound man, claiming self-defense.

 

Johnson's night club in Chicago doubled as a ***** house. He was found guilty of the Mann Act, among other crimes and had trouble in many places where he went, including being kicked out of European nations. But such is not the narrative the times wants to present.

 

None of this is even remotely relevant.

The only, repeat only thing that should influence the decision, is how the original charge stands up on its own merits.

 

The Mann Act was created to imprison Johnson right?