Coming Soon - In the Ring With Jack Johnson Part II: The Reign

I agree w/ apollack's statement that it appreciation for Johnson didn't always come immediately. Aside from his general style, Johnson also had a lot of skills and abilities that he didn't show in every bout. It took seeing against varied opposition to realize the full breadth of his skills.

 

Did JJ weigh in and does anybody know if it was a same day weigh-in?

 

Its disengenuous when on one page you list the laundry list of arrests, lawsuits, tickets, etc Johnson got involved in in just a few short months, then gloss over the beating and say the judge was biased because he held Johnson over with a large bail. The "bias" comment was your opinion. Its a leading opinion. However, judges, as you know Im sure being an attorney, look specifically at things like that laundry list of legal intanglements when deciding things like bail and whether to hold over someone like Johnson for trial. If its bias then every judge in America for generations who has actually been doing his job has been guilty of bias. It would be one thing if you could say Johnson was a paragon of virtue and an upstanding citizen but he wasnt and no amount of twisting his actual record can change that. This is of course proven by the fact that Johnson did eventually flee justice while on bail and became a fugitive in an entirely different court case. That alone, in hindsight, illustrates that judge in the beating case was justified in being stringent against Johnson.

Maybe I miscounted but I counted two or three incidents you listed of black on white or black on black crime during the riots. There were many many many more and they werent hard to find. When you list a laundry list of white on black crime and almost completely ignore black on white or black on black crime it strains credibility and gives the impression of trying to set the narrative. Like I said, Im not accusing you of this Im just stating how it looks to the outsider and its certainly been done to death by most of Johnson's biographers. Im also not interested in white washing the riots as the fault of one or the other (black or white) but it certainly didnt seem like an even handed account to me. The simple fact that you say categorically that most of the black on white violence was self defense. This simply isnt supported. There are dozens of accounts of blacks, drunk from the celebration of Johnson's victory, attacking whites unprovoked. There are also several accounts of white on black crime as self defense. My point has always been that issue is nowhere near the black and white (no pun intended) issue that it has always neatly been painted as. The simple fact that you say MOST newspapers back then spun things in the favor of whites... well, really? Have you spent any time at all reading the black press of the day? Youd be hard pressed to find a more racist and biased press, outside of the KKK newsletters of the day, than the black press. Keep in mind that a large segment of the papers of that era actually had a negro section written specifically for african americans by african americans. Its this kind of revisionism that pretends every white person of that era or before was a rabid racist that really does no favors to anyone and isnt factual. For every cartoon you can find lampooning an african american with big rubber lips and coal black skin you can find editorials in white papers across the country supporting the rights of african americans. The idea that there was a large conspiracy nationwide to paint these riots in a light favorable to whites simply isnt supported when you can read almost to a paper of white on black violence in the same columns describing black on white violence. That is being totally ignored here. Nevermind that you can back and look at your own sources and see that some of those incidents werent even written about in your book but appear in those papers.

Im not saying you didnt cover any of it. Im saying it was a pretty soft touch you handed Johnson. The impression given by many of the statements in your book from the black press gives the impression that they were saying "be subserviant, quiet, keep your head down, and dont court trouble." Thats a far cry from what many in the black press were saying which often echoed the white press in that Johnson was a loudmouthed, arrogant *******, who didnt pay his bills, didnt adhere social norms or the written law, and as such was not a role model.

Its good, and again, Ive said before its a good book and a great edition to the collection. I would heartily recommend it to anyone. Maybe I came off a bit harsh. I just still dont think that Johnson has really had his story told with the varnish off so to speak.

 

Not to say that any case for a 20 scheduled round distance for Jack Johnson vs. Battling Jim Johnson hasn't already been vaporized -- it has -- but, if so, apollack has now plasmacized all argument for anything but a scheduled 10 round distance (which Johnson completed despite breaking his radius in round three).

 

Guys let's be honest .. on a macro level it is not even comparable .. one race was one or two generations removed from slavery at the hands of the other .. Jack Johnson's father was born a slave .... to try and claim any form of remotely level playing field in the Reconstruction Era and culture that followed is way off in my opinion .. it's not even a rational discussion.

As far as Jack Johnson goes, at his worst he was no worse than many before him .. the difference is that none of them had to deal with any where near the brutality he was forced to .. in addition the vast majority of his problems came post Jeffries victory for obvious reasons ..

That being said the book is far and away the finest study on Jack Johnson I have ever read and I have read and reread them all .. it dwarfs the next best (Papa Jack) and makes the others such as Unforgivable Blackness look like the non-historian bodies of work they are ..

 

This is plainly wrong. Peter Jackson had more than his share of bar room brawls. The most famous from memory was when he kod Paddy Slavin but there were others as well.

Sullivan, i think it is fair to say, also had his share of barroom brawls, as no doubt did most if not all other World heavyweight champions. The difference was that Johnson's reign was for whatever reason one of the most politcally scrutinised reigns ever. I think that only Max Schmelling and to a lesser extent Muhammed Ali could come close to this.

 

There was also an incident in a bar with Jim Corbett's older brother :bbb

 

That was my point. It was your opinion. Does personal opinion have any place in an objective historical account? I dont believe it does. Regardless, Johnson was in the news regularly for run ins with law ranging from smuggling, to assault, to unpaid bills etc. He was also, at this time, travelling not just around the country but around the world. What was the judge supposed to do? Just let him walk because he said he beat the **** out of a sick 120 pound man in self defense? Thats crazy.

Nevermind that you neglect to mention that Pinder was never found after the incident. Pinder was a poor consumptive black man who fell off the map. It happens. He could have died or disappeared down a bottle. You suppose that he failed to show because there was no merit to his case. In fact there are dozens of possibilities just as likely. The fact is we dont know the full story. What did happen is hardly a vindication of Johnson. To write it as such, or characterize it as you did as the justice system coming down too hard on Johnson is irresponsible.

Do you consider AP reports primary sources? I dont. Several of the accounts you listed were cribbed from AP reports.

Mounds, IL (just 30 mins south of me BTW)- One dead and one wounded is the result of an attempt by four negros to shoot up the town on Jack Johnson's victory today. A negro constable was killed when attempted to place them under arrest.

Atlanta- A group of whites and one negro were arrested after the whites chased a negro into an alley after he had brandished a knife in a crowd and shouted "hurrah for Johnson."

Fort Worth- "The most serious attack was by two negroes with beer bottles on a white woman."

Pittsburgh- Less than half an hour after the decision of the fight was announced here three riot calls were sent in to two police precincts in the negro Hill District. Street cars were held up and insulting epitaths were hurled after "all the black men in Pittsburgh seemed to have lost their equilibrium." Among the incidents was a black man attacking a white man yelling "I aint no kin to Jack Johnson but I can fight!" and another black man shooting a roman candle into a crowd of people. John Campbell rode up and down Lincoln St on a horse brandishing a gun and daring "anyone to call me ******." Five negroes were arrested when one became imbued with the spirit of Jack Johnson and dared anyone to fight. His compatriots followed suit. Three were injured (interestingly one of the uninjured arrested rioters was Charles Crutchfield, who would later become Kid Crutchfield, a local Pittsburgh fighter).
Another report has this riot as being almost exclusively black on black violence with with some blacks flashing money and taunting others who had bet on Jeffries, leading to violence.

Louisville- Negroes attack newsboys selling extras.

Wilmington- Negroes attack white man. Michael Brown was attacked by a mob of Negroes and severely injured about the head and cut with a razor. The gang then fled and one of them was cornered in an apartment building. Negroes in the apartment building began throwing anything they could find, injuring several whites.

St. Louis- Negro neigborhoods raise up in riot. Police forced to club many.

New York- Reserves were called out to rescue police officer who is attacked by crowd after attempting to arrest two negro rioters.
- In the negro districts the blacks became overbearing, jostling whites off the sidewalk and making insulting remarks. Numberless serious fights occured.
-In Manhattan one negro was clubbed to death and more than one hundred beaten up while numerous whites had serious stab and bullet wounds (gee I guess they gave those to themselves).

Cincinnati-Negroes chased off of street for insulting remarks.

Uvalda- Negros insult whites. Pitched battle follows.

Washington D.C.- Negroes pursued after attacking whites.
-Joseph Benham was hospitalized with multiple stab wounds after being attacked by a knife wielding negro upon disembarking from a streetcar.
-At 11pm on Third Avenue three negro women attacked two white women. One of the negro women seriously wounded officer Bennett by biting his arm upon her arrest.
-Arthur Smith, 24 years old, was dangerously assaulted at 8th and G streets by an unidentified Negro.
-Detectives Pratt and Mullen were called into service by a riot call and quickly found a man badly beaten amidst a mob. A negro, George Brown and his wife were arrested for the offense.
-Salvatore Demma was slashed on the leg by an unidentified negro.

Baltimore-70 negroes, half the number women, were arrested tonight in the "black belt" of this city for a disorderly celebration. One negro badly cut another.

Philadelphia-The reports there make it clear that many of the incidents of violence were caused by black on white, or black on black violence in which razors and knives were used.

Dayton-Immediately after the flash which announced Johnson the winner of the fight, several negroes in front of the bulletin board in this city assaulted a party of white men and a result police reserves were called in.

Keystone, WV-Boisterous negroes celebrating Johnson's win have taken over the town. The police are powerless to disperse them. A negro man has been stabbed by a negro woman.

Talulah, La- Conductor Roberts of the Iron Mountain railroad was shot and probably mortally wounded when he demanded the fair from a negro passenger. The negro is being sought. This one is often lumped in with the Johnson-Jeffries riots, Im not so sure it wasnt isolated.

Los Angeles- Elated Negroes in Jeffries home town looking for trouble start riots. Eight arrested.

Augusta- Railroad negroes fill up on mean whiskey and enrage citizens, kill three of them, more fatalities may follow. Several negroes from the railroad tie camp became riotous after taking in too much liquor. When authorities went to the camp to arrest the ring leader they were met with a volley and returned fire.

Indianapolis-White man severely beaten and kicked by four negroes.

Chicago- William Kelly, a white teamster was setupon by a gang of negroes and beaten into unconciousness, his skull was fractured.

Here is what Im talking about. Lets compare accounts shall we?

You post here:
Baltimore, MD – 70 blacks were arrested for disorderly celebrations.
In your book: Baltimore, MD - As a result of arguments regarding the fight several blacks were stabbed and injured in a race riot. One was cut badly, and two others assaulted by whites were injured severely. 70 blacks were arrested for disorderly celebrations.

That really gives a different slant and impression doesnt it. Did you consult the Baltimore Sun, or American for this?

You add in your description of the riots a lynching in Missouri that you admit was unrelated.

You discuss the Cincinnati riots and describe whites entering the homes of blacks to assault them. In reality Cincinnati was actually quite quiet the night of July 4. The AP report for that riot, which eminated from Cincinnati was actually describing a riot in nearby Covington, KY., you describe that as a separate riot stating that "several whites stabbed a black man who barely was saved from lynching. That riot was actually kicked off when a black man stabbed and cut several white men while "celebrating" Johnson's victory. He fled and hid in the home of another black man. The crowd chased him and dragged him out and he was very nearly lynched before being saved by authorities. Did you use primary sources to discuss this incident? Because if so then misrepresented the riot and if not why hold me to a standard you didnt hold yourself to?

You go into great detail on the riots in New York but dont list a single instance of the numerous black one white assaults or how several of those riots were touched off by blacks being aggressive towards whites on the streets after the fight.

You mention a black man being killed in the riots in Omaha. You neglect to mention he was killed by another black man...

You say in Phoenix AZ a mob seriously injured a black man. Not true. The riot in Phoenix was at a bulletin post for the fight but had nothing to do with it. A black man was standing reading the bulletin amid the crowd and someone dropped a fire******* behind him scaring him. He got angry and challenged anyone to fight, calling them names and cursing. A young white lineman took up his challenge and knocked him down. A friend of the black mans then jumped the white man and a riot ensued. There were no serious injuries. The next day the two black men were fined and declared they were satisfied with the judges ruling.

The Uvalda riot was insighted by blacks insulting whites. You simply mention that they led to the deaths of three blacks.

 

contd

The Wilmington riots were touched off when a white man was attacked by a gang of black men. They beat him severely and slashed him with a razor. They then fled and were chased into a black apartment building. Somehow this got turned into: Whites attempted wholesale lynchings...



I could go on and on. But the bottom line is that these riots have historically been painted as: Jack Johnson beat a white man, the white race took its revenge upon common black people during the riots. It wasnt nearly as simple as this neat little package its always been sold as. Nobody is saying that blacks didnt have it bad back then. But somehow extrapolite this into all whites raging against blacks during the July 4, 1910 riots and somehow trying to solve the ills of history by rewriting it to pretend a large portion of blacks didnt incite those riots is both incorrect and irresponsible.





Like I said, its a minor quibble IMO and Im certainly not going to ally myself with Mendoza and start looking for horns and a forked tail on Johnson. My lone criticism is the same criticism I basically have for every other author that ever wrote a book about Johnson. So its not like you did anything that hasnt been done before. I also understand the draw to do it. I just dont agree with it. I think its clear, even from these posts, that lean toward Johnson in many of these incidents outside of the ring. I just dont agree and dont think thats an objective stance. I still heartily recommend the book.