Why Jack Johnson’s Family Should Refuse Any Exoneration

See if you had shown me how the Jack Johnson issue takes away from justice reform, tangibly, you would have a great point.
But you can't, because it doesn't.

Highly, HIGHLY doubt that if McCain could use his time on Johnson to reform the justice system, that he wouldn't be doing that. You presume to know his schedule, how effective his participation in specific areas are, and what he is and isn't able to do.

I have more faith in McCains ability to assess his own time and effort properly, than your ability to guess how he can assess his time and effort properly.

My opinion doesn't consist of presuming to know how to spend John McCains time better than John McCain.

But you realize that it's not John McCain and Barack Obama breaking their Jack Johnson discussions at 6:00PM, to start justice reform discussions at 6:30PM. You realize that right? That the government is multifaceted, with various groups, committees dedicated to specific issues?

Jack Johnson time doesn't take up justice reform time. You understand that, right?

Don't worry, you're wrong.
If you think you're right, can you tell me how the Jack Johnson issue has harmed McCains ability to work on more significant issues? With real, tangible examples?

Lol, you want to take a crack at predicting the cost for total justice reform?
And then you to take a crack at predicting the cost to pardon Jack Johnson?

I'm doing you a favor with an obviously extremely conservative estimate, probably by a factor of 10. 100,000 to 1 is more likely. That fact that you didn't take the 10,000 : 1 is the kind of things that tells me that you still have lots to learn.

It's not that I disagree with you about the importance of said issues.
It's that I know for a fact that you are naive in your opinion of how these politicians are spending their time.

Don't you think you're getting a little ahead of yourself to presume how efficiently McCain is spending his day? You and I both know that you don't have a ****ing clue. lol, cmon man.

It's as if you are standing on his and Jack Johnsons head to make a political statement that has no actionable meaning. If you understood the art of politics, and could make an accurate case demonstrating how Jack Johnson takes away from other more important initiatives, your stance would be very good.

But you don't, so it's not.

I agree, I just know that Jack Johnson is not hindering any of those initiatives.
The government is bigger than handling one issue at a time.

 

It is not surprising about Parkin. He was one of the main forces behind the passing of the Mann Act in the first place. He is one of the co-authors of "Fighting the Traffic in Young Girls, or, War on the White Slave Traffic, A Complete and Detailed Account of the Shameless Traffic in Young Girls" published in 1910.

The text is on the internet. I advise dipping into it to get a feel of Parkin's thinking. It is obvious he considers prostitution a great, and perhaps the greatest, evil. His recommendation:

"In view of all this, it must be clearly apparent that the need of the hour is legislation which will make it difficult and dangerous for a white slaver to take his victim from one state into another."

Parkin was writing here about state laws, but this is basically the Mann Act.

"He was targeted before they knew or thought he had committed a crime."

But Louise Cameron's mother brought Jack Johnson into it by charging he kidnapped her daughter.

"wrongful arrest driven by racism"

Well, after reading Parkin, I don't think he needed racism for motivation. He was totally committed to fighting prostitution. I would say fanatical about it.

"before they thought he had committed a crime"

Evidence? How do you know what Parkin thought? Did he put in writing that he didn't suspect criminal activity but was going to seek a conviction anyway? Are you charging him with faking evidence?

Bottom line--whether Parkin went after Johnson out of anti-prostitution zeal (or fanaticism) or submerged racism, it still begs the issue of whether Johnson in fact was guilty.

More importantly, for me, 1913 was the year in which Woodrow Wilson fired long-time African-American employees of the Federal Government in order to institute segregation. Now this was an outright and obvious outrage and all amends to the families of these individuals are called for.

Johnson? I at least am not certain at this point that he wasn't guilty.

 

Huge amount of work?
There have been a total of 3 resolution meetings since 2004.

You seem out of touch. This is peanut crumbs compared to the issues that McCain and the rest of the Govt deal with.
And yeah. Jack Johnson definitely deserves a couple hours a decade to clear his name. Growing up in America, we learn about the trailblazing African American athletes, because they were the first ones to break some of the largest social barriers in the country. This is part of America's identity, and our identity as Americans. Jack Johnson has been completely absent of this remembrance and celebration, despite having come DECADES before the other folks. And this is largely due to his image being tarnished.

Icons matter, history matters, justice matters.

Maybe if you grew up here, and understood how these figures shape your perception of the world (in small and sometimes large ways), you might think differently.

I've always believed that politics is not only about meta issues, but it's also about individuals.
Obama every night reads 10 letters and responds to them.

Could he use that time on issues that deal with millions of people?
It's easy to play armchair politician. But dealing with personal issues, and things that affect you emotionally keep you grounded and true to yourself.

I could argue that McCains interest in Johnson gives him fuel and newfound energy because it is something he is personally passionate about. And thus, helps him keep a healthier mindset when dealing with larger issues. Which is probably actually true.

I expect politicians to stand up for the political positions they campaigned on.
I don't expect to micromanage their jobs, and tell them when they can get up to take a ****.

You want to see what McCain has been active on? Here you go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain

If you notice, Jack Johnson is not mentioned a single time. You know why?
Because it's a ****ing tiny project of his that has little to no significance compared to his daily job.

How do you know that McCain didn't dedicate off hours to this?
You just presume the worst, that this senior US Senator doesn't know how to manage his time between a boxer and, say, foreign affairs? lol

The reason you aren't choosing is because your ideas are almost certainly ineffective since you have zero understanding of the nuances of his occupation.

He didn't spend 8 years. 8 years is 16,000+ full time hours.

You don't need a diary. You need a very basic grasp on the scope of the job of a US Senator.
Which you don't have.

Again, if you want a general idea of his work load, look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain

Not only is what you're saying arguable, it's wrong.

US Army equipment shortages isn't even a problem.
It's the US Army.

Again, you don't count years like that when you are referring to time spent on work. You use hours. He didn't spent anywhere near 8 years on Jack Johnsons pardon. This isn't a cartoon lol.

We usually don't criticize our politicians when they work bilaterally on good issues.

Because you exaggerate the time/money being spent on this. It is ridiculous.

 

Have you dipped into it?
There was a fear campaign against prostitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act#/media/File:60000girls.png
Lmao
"60,000 girls will die!"

Feds wanted control over everything. To expand their power to be able to indict more people.

Feminists at the time laughed at the exaggerated claims of forced prostitution.
These 1910 men couldn't come to terms that girls were making their own money doing sleezy things.
Women couldn't even vote now, and all of a sudden they're becoming entrepreneurial by selling their bodies?
Of course the Feds are going to want control over all of that.

And when he was cleared of Cameron, they STILL targeted him. That is illegal. The quote I posted would be incriminating today.
You cannot say "Look into person X, and find me crimes he committed." Law enforcement have enough laws at their disposal that they can indict or arrest anyone if they choose.

I just posted proof.

"Assistant U.S. District Attorney Harry A. Parkin was not satisfied, and began looking for other women who Johnson might have transported across state lines. He asked the Justice Department's Bureau of Investigation (forerunner of the FBI) to mount an all-out effort to "secure evidence [of] illegal transportation by Johnson of any other women for an immoral purpose." Federal agents fanned out across the country, looking for something — anything — to suggest that Johnson had violated the Mann Act."

Do you not realize why the above quote is illegal, immoral, and despicable.
And why Johnson should be exonerated on this quote alone?

He ordered his men to "secure evidence" for a crime not committed.

By entertaining the validity of this conviction, all you are doing is being taking a reaaaalllyy long ride by some racist dude from 1910. It's a very outdated product of systemic oppression and racism done by the precursor to the FBI. The part of the law that was used on Johnson has been amended.

Are you really being fooled by some 1910 bigots?

The NYT says it perfectly:
"In 1915 the paper published an editorial pointing out how the act led to extortion. In 1916 it labeled the Mann Act "The Blackmail Act", noting that its dangers had been clear from the start. The act made a harmless spree or simple elopement a crime, and the blackmail that resulted from the Mann Act was worse than the prostitution it sought to suppress"

People naturally have this assumption that the FBI is this magical filter where good guys are cleared and bad guys get arrested and indicted.

Unfortunately it's filled with over zealous nut jobs who will destroy innocent people if it scores them a high profile W to advance their careers.

 

Reznick

Well, I just read the brief asking for the pardon, and it makes a strong case for him being unfairly railroaded, especially the part about re-interpreting the Mann Act from prostitution to vague "immoral" sexual relations.

Re-reading Geoffrey C. Ward (necessary for old guys like me as the memory isn't what it used to be) the evidence seems to boil down to she said-he said. My take is that Johnson's claim that he didn't know that Belle would use the $2000 he gave her to set up herself in a brothel should be taken with skepticism. Should the skepticism overrule reasonable doubt. I don't think so. The testimony of her maid supporting Belle's claim that Johnson sent her $75 to travel from Pittsburgh to Chicago tips the balance on that issue.

If the brief is accurate, it appears the bottom line is the evidence for pimping after the Mann Act was passed was weak, and so they resorted to "immorality" which does strike me as pure railroading.

Still, all the charges of woman beating and all the implications of pimping--at least before the passing of the Mann Act--leave me a bit cold about Johnson.

 

Huge props for looking into the brief and letting reason preside over ego.
Yeah, Johnson was no saint.
A true "Sportsman" of the era. Definitely had some personal issues.

He did do a lot of good too though. A polarizing life.

 

I don't necessarily at this point disagree with you that much. My position is evolving the more I read. The Mann Act was certainly poorly written, whatever one thinks about the questions of prostitution and pimping.

For all the "fan out across the country" Belle Schreiber came to the attention of the authorities through a letter from Chicago where the grand jury had been established. Your quote is after all from an historian's interpretation, not from a primary source.

"Grand Jury--A jury of inquiry who are summoned and returned by the sheriff to each session of the criminal courts, and whose duty is to receive complaints and accusations in criminal cases, hear the evidence, adduced on the part of the state, and find bills of indictment in cases where they are satisfied a trial ought to be held."

I might be wrong but isn't the whole point of a Grand Jury to discover if there is evidence for a trial.

Are they restricted to the original crime? For example if a Grand Jury investigates a gangster for a murder and can't find evidence for that murder, but do find evidence for others, is it beyond the range of their duty to bring the murders they do have evidence for to trial?

Anyway, nice exchanging thoughts with you.

 

The tip is dubious since it comes on the heels of illegal targeting. It also suspiciously follows the exact narrative of the overblown fear campaign. White mothers losing their daughters to foreigners and black people who kidnap them for prostitution. lol, I actually just realized that one now.

Assuming it's true, it doesn't even matter since they wrongfully used the law to indict Johnson either way.

Johnson was charged for being a black man travelling with a white girl who had worked as a prostitute.
This is what they stripped him of his freedom for. His ability to earn a living, and live a normal life was taken because he was black, and not white.

Grand jury is a rubber stamp. It's intended purpose was to prevent wrongful accusations, but prosecutors very quickly learned how to get around it.
It bears no meaning on the validity of evidence, and is essentially known as a joke of a procedure in the legal industry.
Indictments are almost never stopped by a grand jury because it is a one sided ordeal.
It is high on the list of things that need to be reformed in our system.

 

Reznick

I will yield to your superior knowledge about this case, even if my doubts about Johnson's character remain.

About Grand Juries, the old cliché is that they will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor asks for it.

Anyway, thanks for the exchange.

 

I like that one!

cheers edward

 

How much work does it take to get a meeting with others? 3 times is a lot.

90% of Americans don't even know who Jack Johnson was. It's likely even higher that that. But take his name out as ask Joe Average on the street if a man who beat his wife to an inch of her life, attacked a 120 sickly man claiming self-defense, ran a ***** house, fled on a bond, one who was kicked out of other nations, jailed and deceased deserves a 4th meeting on whether he should be pardoned.

 

Again your judgement on resource expenditure sucks.
The first black champion of any sport in America deserves the very few resources that have gone into procuring his pardon.

The top professionals in the field agree. US politics is cut throat, and nobody is giving McCain any crap for this. If anything some dems are salty that McCain is leading the proposal, not because Johnson doesn't deserve it, but because they want to be the ones to sponsor his pardon.

"Most people, I think, are comfortable judging politicians on how they spend their time."

Nope. Most people do not try to micromanage the jobs of politicians because it's dumb.

 

No its not. Jack Johnson is not even on John McCains wikipedia page of political issues.
It's bread crumbs of an issue. I haven't heard it mentioned a single time in the news, outside of searching for Jack Johnson on google.

Yeah, 90% of Americans don't know Johnson, and that's kinda the problem. He's been somewhat erased form history.

Okay. If I take your 5 worst actions, exaggerate them a bit, and tell someone to judge you based on them, what will they think?

Johnsons track record isn't that bad for a guy from 1910.
Take someone like Mayweather. If Johnsons acted like Mayweather, and did all the things Mayweather has done, he would still deserve a pardon.

I love how racist oppressive America is totally guilt free here, and yet you put JJ on the chopping block, lol.