Regardless of the outcome of the Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha, it was certain that America would once again be attacked as the most racist nation in history. Had Rittenhouse been found guilty, it would confirm the worst about America. If innocent, America-haters would claim the decision constituted clear evidence of a racist white power structure that continues to oppress minorities. Our nation could only lose—regardless of the fate of Mr. Rittenhouse.
It appears today that Black Lives Matter activists, socialists, Antifa anarchists, and race-baiting hucksters like Joy Reid and Representative Cori Bush seem to hold all the cards. In any event—regardless of facts, the character of the individuals involved, or decisions by our judicial or law-enforcement authorities—in the end, the only thing that matters is whether a Leftist goal is upheld. And usually, regardless of outcome, American institutions and ‘whites’ are always to be found ‘guilty as charged.’ So it was once again with the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. Among the numerous false claims associated with the 17 year old defendant were: that he was a ‘white supremacist’ who had been influenced by skinhead-type racists, that he had an illegal firearm, that he crossed state borders for the sole purpose of the pursuing vigilante justice and to hunt down those who were lawfully exercising their right to protest the unjust “murder’ of Jacob Blake, and that he stalked and then deliberately murdered his victims.
Prominent Democratic leaders--Jerry Nadler, Bill deBlasio, Andrew Cuomo, and even the vice-president and president—have referred to the trial’s outcome in disappointing and racial terms. Many persons have referred to the shootings as a ‘racist’ act of ‘white supremacy.’ These claims persist, despite the fact that of the four persons who attacked Rittenhouse, his shots only struck his white assailants. A Black career criminal [Maurice Freeland] who kicked him in the head while he was down, escaped without harm. While scores of critics have wrongly charged Rittenhouse with illegal possession of a firearm, few Americans know that it was Gaige Grosscreutz--who pointed his sidearm at the teenager before being shot in the arm--who was the one illegally carrying a firearm that night.
While it's easy to expose the falsehoods of such racial hucksters, it may be more revealing to compare their claim that American has always supported white supremacy to the facts associated with the 1925-1926 trials of Dr. Ossian Sweet’s family and friends. Dr. Sweet was an African-American doctor who purchased a home in a predominantly white working-class neighborhood in Detroit in 1925. As he moved his family into the home, a white mob gathered to protest across the street for at least two nights. Despite a police presence, angry agitators in the mob threatened violence against the family. The first night of protest passed without much actual violence, but an alarmed Dr. Sweet brought male friends and relatives into the house along with ten firearms to defend it the next day. He was aware that similar white mobs had chased two other black families from their homes in white neighborhoods only months before and, with their help, he was determined to defend his property and remain in the home.
After dusk on the second night, a mob once again gathered across the street from the Sweet residence. Soon, while Mrs. Sweet was preparing dinner for the 10 men, rocks were heard being thrown upon the roof of the house. Dr. Sweet shut off the lights and the men took positions at windows on the second floor. After two windows were broken, shots rang out from the ten armed Black men inside the home. Two white men were hit. One man was wounded in the leg and the other, Leon Breiner, was fatally wounded by a shot in his back. Mr. Breiner was not part of the mob in the street in front of the Sweet home and had at the time been talking to neighbors on the front porch of a home across the street. The police now immediately dispersed the crowd and arrested Dr. Sweet, his wife, and the nine other Black males. All eleven—including Mrs. Sweet—were charged with the murder of Mr. Breiner.
There were two trials involving Dr. Sweet and his accomplices—both before all-white male juries. In preparing for the first trial, the NAACP retained America’s most famous attorney—Clarence Darrow—to lead the defense. Before that first trial, three of the eleven defendants had charges against them dropped. At the trial’s conclusion, the first jury—despite a majority favoring “not guilty”—could not reach a unanimous verdict and the judge was forced to declare a mistrial. Darrow’s call for separate trials for the defendants was then accepted and the first of the second trial cases—that of Dr. Sweet’s younger brother, Henry—took place in 1926. As expected, Darrow’s eloquent and successful defense of Henry Sweet’s actions to defend his older brother’s property against a white mob made legal history. During Henry’s defense, Darrow repeatedly contrasted his education, personal reputation, and good character—along with the other members of the Sweet family—with the less educated and rough nature of several witnesses from the mob.
One of Darrow’s most effective arguments was leveled against the police who were present. One speaker reminded the mob that allowing the Sweet family to remain in the neighborhood would result in everyone’s property value being reduced. He reminded them that Dr. Sweet had been told he wasn’t welcome in the area and yet he moved into the home anyway. It was now time for the "neighbors" to take matters into their own hands to resolve the matter. Stones were beginning to be thrown against the roof of the house at this point. “Why was he not arrested?” Darrow asked the jury. “Gentlemen, that man stood there and harangued a mob and urged them to violence and crime in the presence of the officers of this city, and nothing was done about it!” To the prosecutor’s claim that Breiner had been shot on the porch of a neighbor’s home, Darrow retorted, “If he had remained at home, it [his being shot] would not have happened.” To the prosecution’s argument that no shots had been fired at the mob the night before, Darrow reasoned events during the second night were worse. Sweet and his supporters had waited until windows were broken before firing, Darrow argued, and the Black men were rightfully defending themselves from a real danger to their lives. He went on:
Let me tell you what you must do, gentlemen. It is fine for lawyers to say, naively, that nothing happened. No foot was set upon that ground; as if you had to put your foot on the premises. You might put your hand on. The foot isn’t sacred. No foot was set upon their home. No shot was fired, nothing except that the house was stoned and windows broken; and an angry crowd was outside seeking their destruction. That is all. That is all, gentlemen. I say that no American citizen, unless he is black, need wait until an angry mob sets foot upon his premises before he kills. I say that no free man need wait to see just how far an aggressor will go before he takes life.
… Every man’s home is his castle, which even the King may not enter. Every man has a right to kill to defend himself or his family, or others . . .
So far as that branch of the case is concerned, there is only one thing that this jury has a right to consider, and that is whether the defendants acted in honest fear of danger. That is all.
… I appeal to you, gentlemen, to do your part to save the honor of this city, to save its reputation, to save yours, to save its name, and to save the poor colored people who can not save themselves.
… Why, I can remember when the early statesmen of Michigan cared for the colored man and when they embodied the rights of the colored men in the constitution and statutes. I can remember when they laid the foundation that made it possible for a man of any color or any religion, or any creed, to own his home wherever he could find a man to sell it. I remember when civil rights laws were passed that gave the Negro the right to go where the white man went and as he went. There are some men who seem to think those laws were wrong. I do not. Wrong or not, it is the law, and if you were black you would protest with every fiber of your body your right to live.
Michigan used to protect the rights of colored people. There were not many of them here, but they have come in the last few years, and with them has come prejudice. Then, too, the southern white man has followed his black slave. But that isn’t all. Black labor has come in competition with white. Prejudices have been created where there was no prejudice before. We have listened to the siren song that we are a superior race and have superior rights, and that the black man has none.
It is a new idea in Detroit that a colored man’s home can be torn down about his head because he is black.
… This case is about to end, gentlemen. To them, it is life. Not one of their color sits on this jury. Their fate is in the hands of twelve whites. Their eyes are fixed on you, their hearts go out to you, and their hopes hang on your verdict.
This is all. I ask you, on behalf of this defendant, on behalf of these helpless ones who turn to you, and more than that,--on behalf of this great state, and this great city which must face this problem, and face it fairly,--I ask you, in the name of progress and of the human race, to return a verdict of not guilty in this case!
After Henry’s acquittal, the prosecuting attorney dropped all charges against the remaining seven defendants.
America today routinely looks upon the 1920s as one of the most racist periods in history. Tremendous changes were taking place within our nation demographically, socially, politically, and economically. Membership in the Ku Klux Klan increased due to its campaign to sell itself as a patriotic organization that would protect the Christian and Eurocentric character of the nation from the millions of poverty-stricken Catholic immigrants now coming from Eastern and Southern Europe. Jim Crow laws segregated the races in Southern states and public property rights permitted businesses and individuals to practice racial, ethnic, religious, gender, and economic discrimination. As a result, one’s group identity in the 1920s grew as strong if not stronger than one’s national identity—a period not unlike our nation today.
Like the Sweet Trials, the Rittenhouse Trial will make history. A comparison of the societal changes since the times of the two cases gives an indication of the vast changes that have taken place in America over the last 100 years. In 1920 our nation had a 90% white European population. Today, whites comprise a minority of citizens and Hispanics have replaced African-Americans as our largest minority group. In 1920, we had unlimited immigration from Europe. Today our nation is flooded by a seemingly unending wave of immigrants at a southern border that no longer exists. In 1920, most immigrants were screened at Ellis Island and Angel Island so that the infirm, sick, or disabled would not be a burden on local governments. Today, when the Border Patrol performs chiefly baby-sitting and transportation services for immigrants, many arrivals are not even tested for highly contagious diseases such as Covid or tuberculosis. In 1920, it was necessary for immigrants to have individuals within the United States agree to sponsor and support them until they found employment. There were no federal programs to assist them and all those proven to be criminals were returned to their native lands. Today, many urban centers under Democratic control safely operate as sanctuary cities, openly defying federal laws to protect those illegally in our nation—even those who have been charged with or convicted of serious crimes. Moreover, a plethora of government and private programs target benefits to immigrants, even those in the nation illegally or who have no means of supporting themselves.
In 1920, white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males dominated all institutions through both custom and law. Today, and since affirmative action in the 1960s, white males have been systematically discriminated against for the benefit of women and most minorities. In 1920, Black males were stereotyped in Jim-Crow advertising as having mostly comic, subservient, or negative personalities. Today, an entire generation of white males has been depicted in countless television ads the same way. Compared to Black males, Madison Avenue doesn't depict white males in anywhere near their ratio in the population. Moreover, the current trend is to generally portray Blacks and females in positions of authority over white males—who now constitute modern-day Jim Crow characters. In 1920, the achievements of Black males—with notable exceptions such as Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, and Langston Hughes—were absent from our literature and history books. Today, it is common for all whites to be regularly portrayed in governmental, corporate and educational ‘diversity workshops,’ and on social media platforms as “oppressors” of minorities who led lives of unearned “privilege.”
Despite Democratic President Wilson’s expansion of racial segregation to the federal government in the years prior to 1920, neither it nor the nation’s schools and colleges portrayed one racial group as superior or inferior to another. Today, the federal government—through its adoption of Critical Race Theory principles and workshops—supports the demonization of all whites for their ‘negative’ and ‘oppressive’ past. Our Constitution and legal system prohibit the punishment and stigmatization of children for the sins of their parents. Critical Race Theory, however, has no such restriction. Most Americans are unfamiliar with the truly revolutionary nature of the legal precedent established by the 1957 Brown v Board Supreme Court case. The Court broke legal precedent by allowing sociologists to testify and submit sociological—not legal—evidence to the pernicious influences of Jim Crow segregationist laws upon African-Americans. Hearing that young Black girls preferred white dolls over Black ones helped override the legal precedent of “separate but equal.” Today, it is increasingly common for whites to portray themselves as minorities to advance their careers or be accepted into college. One recent study revealed 34% of white applicants lied about being minorities on college applications. Eighty-five percent of those who did, felt it helped them be accepted. That the stigmatization of racial roles has now been reversed in the nation is silently acknowledged by most observant individuals today.
Following decades of permitting voluntary racial segregation on college campuses for such things as graduation ceremonies, dorm facilities, and cultural programs, it has become second nature for our nation to accept minority-imposed racial segregation. Black students are allowed to refuse to share dorm rooms with whites although the reverse is unheard of. Today, Black Lives Matter extremists so ardently believe in the nefarious nature of ‘white privilege’ that—despite over half a century of racially based affirmative action programs—they argue it is necessary to enact legal measures to further discriminate against whites. Few were surprised years ago when employment ads for the historic Broadway show, Hamilton, publicly stated no-white males needed to apply. [White females were welcome to audition, but no white males.] The Black producer had to be reminded he actually couldn’t put such an ad into ‘print.’ Today, BLM calls for "racially positive" hiring practices to permit Blacks to be legally preferred over whites such as the producer of Hamilton wished.* Rather than supporting a color-blind society as Justice Harlan and Dr. King described and a majority of Americans came to believe since the 1960s, BLM activists now call for a "color-conscious" society that guarantees "equity" through institutionalized discrimination against whites.
The list of societal changes since the Sweets trial could easily be added to.
An examination of the trials themselves may further help to illustrate the vast sea of change that has taken place in America since 1925. Both cases involved threatening mobs. In both cases, police were accused of ‘standing down’ and permitting violence. Both cases had racial tensions occurring before the fatal shootings. In each incident, the defendants used a ‘self-defense’ legal argument against a charge of murder. In both, an aroused media kept public sentiments aflame. Here, the similarities end. What's really revealing are the differences between the cases:
While a white mob gathered to expel Blacks from a white neighborhood in Detroit, these were relatively non-destructive assemblies compared to widespread damage inflicted upon private property by the Kenosha Black Lives Matter activists and their allies.
Not one white person in the mob outside the Sweet resident stepped upon the Doctor’s property, but some rocks were thrown at his house, breaking two windows. In Kenosha, mobs deliberately trespassed, shoplifted from, and burned down entire businesses destroying the lives of many innocent people and causing millions of dollars damage.
While stones were thrown against the home of Dr. Sweet causing him to feel the need to shoot into the mob, he and his family suffered no physical harm. Kyle Rittenhouse, however, was chased down the street by a mob that kicked him and struck him repeatedly. He was taunted with verbal death threats, had to physically struggle with others to retain possession of his firearm, and had a gun pointed at his face before shooting one assailant.
Dr. Sweet was charged with the murder of an innocent bystander who was shot in the back while standing on the porch of a neighbor across the street. Kyle Rittenhouse was personally threatened by those he shot. None of his four aggressors were innocent bystanders.
Despite the nation’s ‘intolerance’ in the 1920s and fears of anti-black Detroit mobs in 1925, the all-white male jury that declared Henry Sweet innocent of murder openly posed for a news photograph and their names were public information. The Rittenhouse jury had their faces and identities hidden to protect them from pro-Black Lives Matter activists who were already resorting to threats against them, their families, and their property. Jury intimidation was not a problem in 1925 but was a serious problem in Kenosha. This fact alone causes one to wonder which era harbored more racial intolerance and intimidation against the lives of innocent persons.
The media was mostly favorable to the outcome of the Sweet verdict in 1926. Even Mrs. Breiner’s civil case against the Sweet family failed. (So much for her ‘white privilege.') As we’ve seen above, however, many national journalists, politicians, pundits, and celebrities decried the racism of the Rittenhouse judge and jury. Calls for violence against white privilege, white racism, and white oppression continued unabated in social media platforms that reached millions. Several days after the trial it appears one activist deliberately drove his car into a Wisconsin Christmas parade comprised of small children, killing five persons and injuring scores of others. Incredibly, a Democratic activist and BLM supporter, Mary Lemanski, taunted Kyle Rittenhouse supporters in social media tweets about the incident.
Whereas corporations controlled by whites bestowed hundreds of millions of dollars upon Black Lives Matter leaders and protestors—some of whom deliberately called for and participated in the burning of numerous cities during the time of the Rittenhouse shootings--efforts to fund the defense of Kyle Rittenhouse on sites such as Go-Fund-Me met with censorship and outright bans.
Prominent politicians such as Vice-President Harris, Hollywood celebrities, and corporate matching fund campaigns openly solicited money and posted bail for those persons arrested for attacking police officers, committing acts of arson, or who were charged with committing major felonies during the summer riots of 1920. In the Rittenhouse case, however, individuals were sometimes fired for simply making private donations to his defense fund. One such person was Lt. William Kelly of the Norfolk Police Department, who was fired for making a $25 dollar anonymous donation to Kyle’s defense team.
Following the verdict in the Rittenhouse trial, critics of the decision like Don Lemon made clear their belief that had Rittenhouse been Black, the outcome would have been different. While they are entitled to their opinions, it seems clear that the 1925 Sweet trial and others like the O.J. case, prove them wrong. Despite a society that catered to white males one hundred years ago, an entirely white male jury decided in favor of a self-defense shooting by Black males against what appeared to be an entirely innocent white man. Today when our society no longer celebrates white males, but degrades them and has discriminated against them for 60 years, Rittenhouse continues to be condemned even after a jury found he had the right to defend himself.
Today, it can be argued that the racial norms of society have been reversed from those of 100 years ago. Thankfully, however, the rights of American citizens to defend themselves against a mob have again been vindicated. America’s new class of racists in the likes of LeBron James, Joy Reid, and Don Lemon—rather than condemning our legal system and the Rittenhouse verdict—should see both as triumphs of justice and common sense.
The all white jury that acquitted Henry Sweet.
* Despite attempting to break the law, the cast of Hamilton later temporarily stopped their performance in order to publicly lecture then Vice-President Pence, his wife, and the audience about the ‘racist’ nature of the Trump-Pence administration.
____
Jack Bovee
Fort Myers, FL
The writer has been a social studies educator, founder of Rho Kappa--the National Social Studies Honor Society--and a former Elementary School Principal of the Year in Lee County, Florida. He may be reached at: jsbovee@aol.com.
