Confederate "Heritage" Month 2021, April 25: More on the Tulsa race massacre of 1921

It will be interesting to see how much attention the 100th anniversary year of the gruesome Tulsa race massacre of 1921 gets in the press. I assume it will be quite a bit.

Rachel Maddow recently did a retrospective on the event, Rachel Maddow Remembering The Tulsa Race Massacre As The 100th Anniversary Approaches MSNBC 04/20/2021:

A very important source on the incident is the one I quoted in an earlier post, Tulsa Race Riot: A Report by the Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921 02/28/2001. One of its sections is "Assessing State and City Culpability: The Riot and the Law" by law professor Alfred Brophy, which looks at the role of public officials whose purpose is to enforce the law in blatantly violating it instead:

The Tulsa riot represented the break down of the rule of law. As Bishop Mouzon told the congregation of the city’s Boston Avenue Methodist Church just after the riot, “Civilization broke down in Tulsa.” I do not attempt to place the blame, the mob spirit broke and hell was let loose. Then things happened that were on a footing with what the Germans did in Belgium, what the Turks did in Armenia, what the Bolshevists did in Russia. That break down of law is central to understanding the riot, the response afterwards, and the decision over what, if anything, should be done now.

That opening paragraph shows both the strength and weakness of many of these official commission reports. Studies like this are good to have. Historical commissions can actually contribute to their purpose of describing and situating the history of the events in question. While official commissions on current issues are very often just stunts to substitute for actual action. (Although their reports can also be valuable for people who actually care about the issue in question.)

It's good to see Brophy defining this straightforwardly as an instance of "the breakdown of the rule of law." But why does he say he does "not attempt to place the blame," my question is, why not? That's actually part of what historical accounts should do. And he follows it in the ame sentence with "the mob spirit broke and hell was let loose." Which is true, but could also be taken as some kind of excuse for the guilty. I don't think that's what he is trying to do here. In the bulk of the chapter, he focuses on the question of ongoing legal liability of official bodies. So in that context, the "mob spirir" has to be distinguished in some way from official culpability.

And with the three historical examples he gave of "things ... on a footing" the Tulsa massacre of 1921, it's not clear what he takes the parallel to be. I assume he's referring to the atrocities committed by Imperial Germany in Belgium during World War I (which were also famously an example of exaggerated claims being used as war propaganda by the Allies) and the Armenian genocide (which is not especially familiar to a lot of a American readers). But "what the Bolshevists did in Russia" refers to as a parallel, I can't even make a guess just reading that paragraph.

But Brophy does make an argument that public entities have a continuing legal culpability for the events. And the bulk of his essay is devoted to looking at the legal precedents for that. He writes:

Tulsa failed to take action to protect against the riot. More important, city officials deputized men right after the riot broke out. Some of those deputies — probably in conjunction with some uniformed police — officers were responsible for some of the burning of Green wood. After the riot, the city took further action to prevent rebuilding by passing a zoning ordinance that required the use of fire proof material in rebuilding.

He also cites contemporary accounts that provide damning details of the murderous incident. It's certainly not the case that white people across town in some other part of Tulsa had no idea what had happened. And it was not a matter of "rednecks from out in the country" doing the bad acts; that was a favorite line local officials used in the Jim Crow era.

Brophy is also the author of Reconstructing the Dreamland: The Tulsa Riot of 1921, Race, Reparations, and Reconciliation (2002).

Confederate "Heritage" Month 2021, April 16: White racism and Oklahoma statehood

Victor Luckerson writes about racial politics in Oklahoma during the early 20th century in The Promise of Oklahoma Smithsonian Magazine Apr 2021.

Next month will be the 100-year anniversary of one of the most violent white racist atrocities in American history in Tulsa, Oklahoma. An official commission issued this report on the incident in 2001, Tulsa Race Riot: A Report by the Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921 02/28/2001.

One chapter of the commission report, "History Knows No Fences: An Overview" by John Hope Franklin and Scott Ellsworth, gives this description:

For those hearing about the 1921 Tulsa race riot for the first time, the event seems almost impossible to believe. During the course of eighteen terrible hours, more than one thousand homes were burned to the ground. Practically overnight, entire neighborhoods where families had raised their children, visited with their neighbors, and hung their wash out on the line to dry, had been suddenly reduced to ashes. And as the homes burned, so did their contents, including furniture and family Bibles, rag dolls and hand-me-down quilts, cribs and photograph albums. In less than twenty-four hours, nearly all of Tulsa’s African American residential district — some forty-square-blocks in all — had been laid to waste, leaving nearly nine-thousand people homeless. [my emphasis]

And they describe the cost in human life this way:

All told, considerable evidence exists to suggest that at least seventy-five to one-hundred people, both black and white, were killed during the riot. It should be added, however, that at least one credible source from the period — Maurice Willows, who directed the relief operations of the American Red Cross in Tulsa following the riot — indicated in his official report that the total number of riot fatalities may have ran as high as three-hundred.

Luckerson's article focuses on efforts by African-American and Indian activists to influence the course of events that led up to Oklahoma's statehood. He reminds us that history is complicated:

Black people arrived in Oklahoma long before the prospect of statehood. The first to settle in the area were enslaved by Native American tribes in the Deep South, and they made the journey in the 1830s as hunters, nurses and cooks during the brutal forced exodus known as the Trail of Tears. In Indian Territory (much of today’s eastern Oklahoma) slavery as practiced by the Creek, Choctaw, Cherokee, Chickasaw and Seminole tribes sometimes resembled the vicious plantation systems of the South. During the Civil War, the Five Tribes sided with the Confederacy, but after the war most of the tribes, bound by new treaties with the federal government, granted formerly enslaved people citizenship, autonomy and a level of respect unheard of in the post-Reconstruction South. In the Creek and Seminole tribes, black tribal members farmed alongside Native Americans on communally owned land, served as justices in tribal governments, and acted as interpreters for tribal leaders in negotiations with the growing American empire.

And he reports, "In pre-statehood Oklahoma, it was common for white and black children to attend the same schools as late as 1900. Black politicians held public office not only in tribal governments but also in Oklahoma Territory, the modern-day western half of the state. In the early days of Tulsa, black residents owned businesses in the predominantly white downtown district and even had white employees."

Indian leaders also knew their people had some to lose if Oklahoma were to become a state, since the Five Tribes had considerable autonomy in the pre-statehood situation. Luckerson argues, "Oklahoma was evolving into an unusually egalitarian place."

But he notes that the egalitarianism wasn't universal::

Black communities in the Twin Territories also wrestled with deep internal tensions. At first, black tribal members clashed with the African Americans who immigrated later. The freedmen viewed the black interlopers as participants in the white man’s plunder and called them “state Negroes” (or sometimes a Creek word for “white man’s Negro”). The new black migrants called the black tribal members “natives.” In Boley, an all-black town populated by migrants, freedmen would gallop through the streets at night shooting out residents’ windows. In the pages of the black press, businessmen admonished freedmen for betraying the race by selling their land allotments to white men instead of black entrepreneurs. Black migrants and freedmen, in other words, did not see themselves as sharing a racial identity.

But many of the the white advocates for statehood advocated Jim Crow type segregation lawswhich would be allowed under their proposed state constitution. Minority leaders appealed to President Theodore Roosevelt - the Republican who was a trust-busting hero of the Progressive movement of the time - to block the admission of Oklahoma with its bad state consitution. Roosevelt accepted Oklahoma as a state.

On November 16, 1907, the president signed the proclamation turning Indian Territory and Oklahoma Territory into the 46th U.S. state, Oklahoma. Despite Roosevelt’s professed misgivings about admitting a state that discriminated against a portion of its citizens, the [new state's] constitution itself enshrined the segregation of schools. With the president’s signature secured, state leaders moved aggressively to enact the rest of their Jim Crow agenda.The very first law passed by the state legislature segregated train cars. Next, the legislature passed the so-called “grandfather clause,” which circumvented federal voter rights protections by instituting a literacy test on any person whose ancestors had not been allowed to vote before 1866. Naturally, that included all descendants of slaves. Ultimately, the legislature would segregate nearly every aspect of public life—hospitals, cemeteries, even phone booths. Oklahoma’s formal and fully legalized racism was actually more rigid than that in much of the Deep South, where Jim Crow was sometimes upheld by custom and violence rather than legal mandate. In the South, segregation emerged from the vestiges of slavery and failed Reconstruction; in Oklahoma, it was erected statute by statute. [my emphasis]