S11,E7B: The B-Side/A Timetable of Injustice
S11,E7B: The B-Side/A Timetable of Injustice
Series 11: The Collateral Damage of Revenge in Science
This the final part of this short B-Side episodic sequence on the 1916 lynching of Jesse Washington in Waco Texas. The counterpart to this episode is S11, E7: Rekindling Old Flames which will be published simultaneously (if you subscribe and don’t see it, it may be too long for your email client, so please find it online).
It was through the undercover journalistic efforts of British Suffragette Elisabeth Freeman, that this atrocity was brought to the attention of the American public. For reasons that will be stipulated at the end of this piece, this story has many parallels with the modern Title IX case described in the main ‘A-Side’ of this series.
Freeman’s mission (and that of the NCAAP whose agent she was) was not to exonerate Washington but to expose the injustice. The Robinson mob who promised not to lynch Washington if only he would waive his legal rights; the politicians who ensured the case would be tried in Waco as part of an election campaign; the law enforcement that forced a confession; his sentencing to death after 4 minutes of jury deliberation and the connivance of the judge, sheriff and court officers, in allowing the Waco mob to take him.
Washington’s apparent lack of self-preservation is still difficult to understand. Nowhere is there a suggestion that he was in the least bit combative with law enforcement. To recap on what was alleged:
Monday May 8, 1916
So the official story requires us to believe that after committing a heinous crime for which is knows he would be hanged, he finishes his work for the family of his victim and continues with his day normally, making no attempt to get away or hide. Freeman remarked that he was likely to have been ‘mentally deficient’ but that raises more questions than it answers.
When the murdered woman was discovered suspicion pointed to Jesse Washington and he was found sitting in his yard whittling a stick. He was arrested and immediately taken to jail in Waco.
ibid. [“The Waco Horror”, Supplement to the Crisis, July 1916]
Other accounts suggest he had blood on his clothes and that he claimed it came from a nosebleed. Freeman does not relay why he was the only suspect or who discovered the body despite having sight of the case file.
S11, E4B: The B-Side/"Strange Fruit"
Does this make any sense at all?
When arrested Washington complied and later didn’t say a word in his own defence in court. When told the mob were after him he seemed indifferent according to a deputy sheriff who didn’t approve of what happened.
The timeline of events after the murder and up to the eve of Jesse Washington’s court appearance was covered here:
Continuing with Elisabeth Freeman’s chronology as published in her Crisis report.
Monday May 15, 1916
"Some one had arranged it so that it would be easy to get the boy out of the courtroom. A door which opened by a peculiar device had been fixed so that it would open. One of the jurors was a convicted murderer with a suspended sentence over him.
“The Waco Horror”, Supplement to the Crisis, July 1916
This quotation is not clearly attributed but from what follows, it looks like this was said by Barney Goldberg a deputy sheriff. It is definitely him that says this though:
"Lee Jenkins is the best deputy sheriff, but he is under Fleming. […] If Lee Jenkins had had it, it would never have been, but we are working for the man higher up and must take our orders from him.'
ibid. (Barney Goldberg)
Barney Goldberg knows perfectly well that if Fleming is not re-elected, and the other candidate gets in, he will be out of a job. The other nominee for sheriff, Buchanan, is reported to be unable to read and write, but is said to have three dead '******s' to his 'credit.'
ibid.
It was Sherriff Fleming had consented to the mob taking Washington. Deputy Sheriff Barney Goldberg who did not know that at the time, drew his revolver when the crowd surged forward in the courthouse. The Crisis account does not make clear what Goldberg did next but he evidently lived to tell the tale.
"The boy, Jesse Washington, was asked what he thought about the mob coming after him. He said, 'They promised they would not if I would tell them about it.' He seemed not to care, but was thoroughly indifferent."
ibid. (probably Barney Goldberg)
So what exactly was he promised in return for his confession - that the lynch mob would not be allowed to take him, or that he would not be hanged at all? Was he led to believe that he would only be hanged if he did not confess? Was he indifferent because he believed the mob would keep their word and he would be protected? If any of that seems too speculative, we can surely agree that he didn’t understand the danger, nor did he have any decent defence or the competence to defend himself.
The trial was hurried through. The Waco Semi-Weekly Tribune, May 17, says: "The jury returned into court at 11:22 a. m., and presented a verdict: 'We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of murder as charged in the indictment and assess his punishment at death.' This was signed by W. B . Brazelton, foreman.
" 'Is that your verdict, gentlemen?' asked
Judge Munroe.
"They answered 'yes.'
"Judge Munroe began writing in his docket. He had written: 'May 15, 1916: Jury verdict of guilty,' and as he wrote there was a hush over the entire court room. It was a moment of hesitation, but just a moment. Then the tall man started over the heads of the crowd. Fred H . Kingsbury, who was standing alongside of Judge Munroe, said, 'They are coming after him,' and as the Judge looked up, the wave of people surged forward." The court room accommodates 500 persons, but the Judge had allowed 1,500 persons to crowd in.
Our investigator continues:
"The stenographer told me that there was a pause of a full minute. He said the people crowded around him and he knew what was coming, so he slipped out of the door back of the Sheriff, with his records; and Sheriff Fleming slipped out also.
" Fleming claims that all he was called upon to do in the way of protecting the boy was to get him to court.
ibid.
By other accounts the jury only deliberated for 4 minutes. I will spare you the horror of what happened next but if you can manage it, the full account can be found via the links provided, earlier in this piece.
The Silent Minority
"There is a bunch of people in Waco who are dying to see someone go forward and make a protest, but no one in Waco would do it. Ex-Mayor Mackaye and Colonel Hamilton both said, 'We do not know what to do. We are not organized to do it. It is a case of race and politics.'
" I put out a lot of wires for a lawyer to take up the case, but no human being in Waco would take it up. I wrote to a friend in Austin and one in Houston, and the Austin friend telegraphed me that he would send me word as soon as he had found someone. I had a letter from the Houston friend who gave me the names of three lawyers, but am not sure whether they would take up a case of this kind. All have their doubts of ever getting the case into court.
" I did not dare ask much about lawyers.
ibid.
The fear was palpable and paralysing.
"W. A . Brazelton, the foreman of the Jury, was very outspoken against the whole affair and blames the officials for it.
ibid.
It is important to remember that these officials were elected into their positions and were seeking imminent re-election.
He felt that as foreman of the Jury he could not lead in a protest but thought some protest ought to be made.
ibid.
" Mr . Ainsworth, one of the newspaper men, seemed the only one who wanted to start a protest.
Also
"Colonel Hamilton, a man of high standing, a northerner, and at one time a big railroad man, was outspoken against the whole affair, but said that if he led in a protest they would do the same thing to him.
Whereas others sought and got assurances that a lynching would not be allowed. Allan Stanford was another ex-Mayor of Waco.
" Allan Stanford, ex-Mayor of Waco, saw the Sheriff and the Judge before the trial and received assurances that the lynching would not take place.
But as you will see from the original account neither the Sheriff or the Judge had any intention of trying to prevent the mob from taking Washington.
[…] the Robinson people had promised not to do it. […], but they did not get the pledge of the disreputable bunch of Waco that they would not start the affair.
Judge Spell discussed the incident with Freeman:
"Judge Spell said the affair was deplorable, but the best thing was to forget it.
And also talking to Mackaye:
"When representing myself as a news reporter, I asked, 'What shall I tell the people up North?' Ex-Mayor Mackaye said, ' Fit it up as well as you can for Waco, and make them understand that the better thinking men and women of Waco were not in it.'
I said. ' But some of your better men were down there.' The whole thing savors so rotten because the better men have not tried to protest against it. Your churches have not said a word. Dr. Caldwell was the only man who made any protest at all. "
So why am I running this as a B-Side to a series on a relatively recent Title IX case? They are comparable in the sense that for both a mob decided to take the law into their own hands. Of course, the consequences to the targeted person were vastly different, but the real similarities are to be found within the dynamics of the mobs and their organisers.
For now here is a list of drivers that were common to both the Washington case in 1916 and the Marcy Title IX case in 2015. Over the next six A-Side (Marcy) episodes I will justify the connections outline here.
There was a political dimension: in the earlier case for votes and in the latter case to acquire power.
Fear was a factor: people were fearful of trying to do the right thing in Waco and the same applied to the Berkeley faculty, postdocs and student body who were under threat of being targeted next.
Processes were intentionally subverted: those responsible for upholding them made no attempt to prevent it, prior to, during and after the investigation.
Lack of consequences: those who decided to mete out their own vengeance did so with impunity.
Testimony was coerced: it is no longer possible to know the full truth of either case beyond noting inconsistences that are incompatible with a just process.
None of this was about protecting women but their cause provided cover for a different agenda. The murder allowed for a politically expedient lynching and an opportunity to intimidate the black population (to the delight of the white majority). The academic assassination was a means to intimidate the faculty into handing over power to administrators and activists.
Next: S11,E8: The Preemptive Strike
