John L. Sullivan

[apollack]

If I prove it, will you buy my book?

Anyway, most serious history scholars are well aware of the fact that simply believing slavery was wrong did not mean that those same persons believed in equality of rights. That included President Lincoln. I'll prove it nevertheless.

This is a quote from my Sullivan book, taken from the Times Democrat, July 22, 1889:

"There is nothing extraordinary about this particular manifestation of the color prejudice. There are other exhibitions of the same feeling, in the North as well as in the South, which are even more remarkable….

While such things are true at the North, it is arrant hypocrisy for Northerners to prate about the “insane prejudice” of Southerners against the negro. The truth is that this color prejudice is entertained by most white people – by a great many who concede that it seems unreasonable, and yet who confess that they cannot get over it….

We must remember that it is only about thirty years since Abraham Lincoln, in his famous joint debate with Douglas, in answering on the 18th of September, 1858, the question whether he was “really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people,” replied:

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."



So, like I said, there is a lot to be learned from my Sullivan book. Have I convinced you?

Here is a quote from the Daily Alta California, January 4, 1889, quoting a senator (to be used in my Corbett book):

"Lincoln believed that the only solution of the problem of the negroes’ destiny would be found in their deportation and colonization in Hayti and Liberia, and it is opportunely recalled that General Grant thought of colonizing them in San Domingo. …

But we begin to realize now that the colored people love the whites so much that they are determined to stay with them. The Governments of Liberia, Hayti and San Domingo are all monumental failures. The colored man cannot get along by himself.

That is to say, the colored man, wherever he attempts to govern himself, is a failure. He can’t get along by himself. …

The white man can get along by himself. … A white minority, anywhere on earth, finally conquers a colored majority…

But we need not discuss the matter. It is getting discussion enough by the men who rightly believed that the negro did not deserve slavery, and who now confess that they were so right in that proposition that they made the mistake of omitting to see that he also did not deserve citizenship."

There's a lot to history you might learn from checking out my book.

[Abe Attell]

Do you think we should stop studying George Washington in school because he owned slaves? How about Abraham Lincoln? Lincoln believed that although slavery was wrong, that blacks should not have the same rights as whites. Is a book on him worth while?

I don't want anybody to take this the wrong way, but it seems that "Slavery" is a necessity for any NEW NATION: you must build fast to protect from foreign invasion of your fertile land.

A bunch of regular farmers can't do it alone...you can't have the brains of the operations spending all their time on the farm, they must be able to "govern."

Washington and the others had to know this, since unlike ignorant John L., George read books, preferably history of Empire, like Rome...If you don't know, Rome used the same method of using slavery to build the Empire as quick as possible.

It evens out: without guys like Washington, we may not have a nation.

[Abe Attell]

Thomas Jefferson:

http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_were_Thomas_Jefferson's_views_on_slavery

Opposed but Accepted
Jefferson was morally opposed to slavery. He felt it was evil and wrong. His original draft of the Declaration of Independence condemned it in no uncertain terms. As Governor of Virginia he proposed legislation to abolish it. Despite his moral opposition though, he owned a significant number of slaves. For financial and social reasons, and perhaps due to personal weakness as well, he was never able to free most of his own slaves. Even in his will he could only free one or two due to the fact that the rest were necessary to pay off his debts.


Other FAQ Farmers have offered these opinions
Yes, Jefferson did own hundreds of Human Beings. He also fathered children with at least one slave; these children also were slaves of his. Jefferson was also concerned about America's karma. He wrote about the vengance that God was sure to extract upon his race.

Thomas Jefferson not only owned slaves but fathered children into slavery. My view of the "founding fathers" is not a pleasant one. A country built on the pursuit of happiness from oppression while condoning that very oppression among a race of people is nothing to be proud of. Furthermore, not only was Thomas Jefferson a hypocrite, he was an adulterer. I believe he was married while he was taking those late night trips to the slave quarters.

Thomas Jefferson certainly had many faults, but he was most assuredly not an adulterer. His relationship with the slave Sally Hemmings certainly has been proven without a doubt, and it also a fact that on his death bed he freed only Sally and members of her immediate family. Does that make him a "racist" or worse? No it does not. We err when we try to judge someone who lived in a time so far removed from our own, by using the standards of the present. Jefferson and his contemporaries were products of a differernt age. What was acceptable in their day is clearly not acceptable in ours. Accepted norms evolve through the passage of each generation. I consider Jefferson to be among the most flawed of the founders, but they were all merely human, and Jefferson, warts and all was, nonetheless, a truly great American. To quote a political adversary of Jefferson's, "I never expect to see perfect work from imperfect man." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 85, 1788



There are some great readings on Jefferson here about slavery
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040705/

[kerrminator]

John L. Sullivan

John Sullivan was boxings first superstar.He dominated the heavyweight scene for 10 years, during the time when it emerged from the seedy world of bare-knuckle prizefights to become a mainstream sport under Marquis of Queensberry rules.

John Lawrence Sullivan was born in Boston, Massachusetts, on 15th october 1858. His Irish father was small of stature but very handy with his fists. John L inherited those skills in abundance. He scrapped his way through the best Boston had to offer, then became the state champion when he beat Dan Dwyer, the recognised holder of that title. It wasn't long before this KO specialist from New England, nicknamed the "Boston Strong Boy", was the talk of fight fans everywhere. He raised his profile even more when hemet John Flood in 1881. Flood, who was known as the"Bulls Head Terror", was thought to be the man who could bring Sullivan's inexorable progress to a halt. The two met on a barge anchored in the Hudson river. The contest was conducted under London Prize Ring Rules, which also allowed wrestling holds. Such contests were of unlimited duration, each round continuing until one man went down. A floored fighter had 30 seconds to come to his feet and failure to do so meant defeat. The Sullivan-Flood fight lasted 16 minutes, during which time the"Bulls Head Terror" had been put down on eight occasions. Flood's cornerhad seen enough and threw in the towel.
After taking a few more scalps, Sullivan earned himself a crack at America's recognised champion, Paddy Ryan. Ryan, a New Yorker who hailed from Tipperary, had won the title from Joe Goss in may 1880. The championship lineage of the previous 30 years hadn't always been totally pure. Some of the title claims in that time had been questionable. Sullivan was about to change all that.


On Feb 7th 1882, he took the crown from Ryan, needing just 10 minutes to finish the job. Having put Ryan down a number of times already, Sullivan ended proceedings with a trip-hammer right, his greatest weapon. The title and the $5,000 purse, were his. A new boxing era was born. Sullivan proceeded to milk his newly aquired status for all it was worth. An extrovert and a braggart, he toured the country, throwing down the gauntlet to anyone who fancied his chances of going four rounds with the champion. Some 50 men tried their hand. Only one is said to have claimed the $1,000 prize on offer, and he was a rugged pro who used his experience and every trick in the book simply to survive the allotted time.
Those vanquished by Sullivan during his travelling circus days do not feature in the record books. While his victims doubtless included many no-hopers, Sullivan must have faced the roughest, toughest bar-room brawlers every town had to offer. He cant be accused of being a sleeping champion, not in the early stages of his reign, at least. John was soon the idol of the masses. His exciting, all action fighting style, together with his charismatic personality, endeared him to a population only too keen to embrace a new sporting hero. By 1887, Sullivan's popularity was at its height. Boxing was the number one sport, with Sullivan its undisputed champion and star attraction


Battle of the belts

To coincide with his latest national tour, some of Boston's prominent citizens and sports fans decided to honour their city's favourite son with a trophy:a jewel-encrusted gold belt. It was inscribed with the words:"Presented to the Champion of Champions, John L. Sullivan, by the citizens of the United States, July 4, 1887". This was not the only belt in circulation, however. Richard K. Fox, publisher of the Police Gazzete, had also commisioned a belt to be made. This was awarded to his own heavyweight protege, a man named Jake Kilrain. Kilrain was a veteran Prize Fighter, one of the best men of his era, and Fox had issued a challenge to Sullivan to fight his man. When John turned him down, Fox responded by declaring Kilrain the champion, complete with new "championship" belt. Understandably, there was considerable needle between the two camps. When Sullivan was awarded his belt, he praised its superior craftsmanship and beauty compared with Kilrain's, which he disparagingly described as "a dog collar".
The ill-feeling would rumble on for two more years before Sullivan and Kilrain could settle the issue inside the ring. First, there was an extended tour to Europe, where Sullivan had one man in particular in his sights: Englands Charley Mitchell. Sullivan and Mitchell had met before, at Madison Square Garden in May 1883. England's top fighter had crossed the atlantic, making it known that he had come with the express purpose of knocking Sullivan out. He couldn't back up his words on that occasion, however. Mitchell had been knocked out of the ring in the second round, and floored again in the third, at which point the police intervened to prevent the challenger from taking any more punishment.
The bad blood between the two men was still in evidence five years later, when they met for a second time. The rematch took place near Chantilly, France, on the estate of Baron Rothschild. Their first encounter had been a glove fight ; this time it was a bare knuckle contest.


Underhand Tactics

Mitchell did much better on this occasion, taking Sullivan 39 rounds before the contest was declared a draw. Both men claimed to have had the better of things, with Sullivan probably having the stronger claim. Mitchell had certainly avoided the champions heaviest punches, but his survival also involved underhand tactics. He had repeatedly gone to ground without being hit, frustrating Sullivan's efforts to finish him off.
Back in the USA, Sullivan finally agreed to a showdown with his other big rival, Jake Kilrain. It took place in Missisippi, on a baking hot day in July 1889. It was a bare knuckle-contest fought under the London Prize Ring Rules. It would be the last heavyweight championship fight conducted under such rules, and the two men made it a contest to remember. Two hours and 16 minutes after the pratogonists squared up to each other, Kilrain's corner threw in the towel(or his seconds threw in the sponge as it was called those day). Their man was out on his feet at the end of the 75 rounds that the fight had lasted. The battle of the two belts had been decided in the champions favour, but it had been a bruising attritional battle. It would be three years before Sullivan would put his title on the line again. In that time, the champion lived life to the full, and also set a precedent that many of his sucsessors would follow by taking to the stage. Apart from the boxing that was incorporated into his theatrical role, Sullivan fought only exhibition bouts during this three-year period. One of these matched him against James Corbett, the two men sparring for four rounds in full dress suits in May 1891. The following year, on sept 7th 1892, they met again, this time for real. Despite being a month short of his 34th birthday, unfit and grossley overweight, Sullivan went into the fight as hot favourite. But his 10-year, vice-like hold on the championship was about to be broken by a man who was younger, fitter and who elevated ringcraft to a completely new level.

[apollack]

Sullivan

For those of you who receive this book, please post and keep posting regarding what you think of it. It would mean a lot to me if you would review it and spread the word about it. Thanks.

[j]

jason100x - how are you liking the book(john l sullivan and his america)? one thing i thought was unique about it was the index which had a complete list of his fights as well as a listing of his career earnings. fascinating stuff. hope you are enjoy it.

apollack, is your book available on amazon?

[jason100x]

jason100x - how are you liking the book(john l sullivan and his america)? one thing i thought was unique about it was the index which had a complete list of his fights as well as a listing of his career earnings. fascinating stuff. hope you are enjoy it.

apollack, is your book available on amazon?

I liked John L. Sulliivan and His America. Before reading it I knew next to nothing about Sullivan so I learned much about him. Like A. Pollack says in one of his posts, the book goes into more detail about the era, his life and the circumstances surrounding the fights rather than going into detail about the fights themselves. Not that it doesn't talk about them, but I would have liked more detail about them. In that regard it kind of reminded me of a more analytical Pound For Pound, the biography of Sugar Ray Robinson, a book that I also enjoyed but found myself wishing for better fight descriptions. The appendices in the Sullivan book were excellent, especially the one showing how much he made for each fight and on his various tours. Overall, I highly recommend it to anyone and I thank you for suggesting it to me.
Yes, Amazon does have the A. Pollack Sullivan biography available. The link is this: http://www.amazon.com/John-L-Sulliva...e=UTF8&s=books

I ordered a copy but they say they ship in one to three weeks. Since ordered a week plus ago, I still may have two weeks before it comes and I'm not very patient but when it comes I'll post my views.

[j]

and I'm not very patient but when it comes I'll post my views.

thanx, i was just going to ask you if you would post a review.

glad you like my recommendation. between this book and the one i suggested, you will probably be the authority on sullivan on this board.

also you also could've just PM'ed me and i would've emailed you a chapter or two to read while you waited for it(john l and his america).

what other old, old school boxers interest you? i might have some books that i could recommend and/or send you some scans if you like. i have quite a bit on jack johnson - my favorite early 20th century boxer along with dempsey.

[jason100x]

thanx, i was just going to ask you if you would post a review.

glad you like my recommendation. between this book and the one i suggested, you will probably be the authority on sullivan on this board.

also you also could've just PM'ed me and i would've emailed you a chapter or two to read while you waited for it(john l and his america).

what other old, old school boxers interest you? i might have some books that i could recommend and/or send you some scans if you like. i have quite a bit on jack johnson - my favorite early 20th century boxer along with dempsey.

I appreciate the offer of sending me the sample from John L and His America. The book came so fast, I think I waited about a day.

I read Unforgiveable Blackness on Jack Johnson and thought that was a very complete book. It was thorough enough that I didn't feel as if I needed more. My favorite boxer from that period and probably of all, is Dempsey and I read A Boxer Of Pure Flame and today I just ordered the Randy Roberts bio on him. I would actually be interested in knowing more about Jim Jeffries if you have some scans or recommendations of books to read. Even though he wasn't a boxer himself, the Dempsey bio and the Sullivan bio you recommended me made me interested in reading more about William Muldoon so if you have anything to recommend on him that would be great.

[apollack]

The Career of the First Gloved Heavyweight Champion

I'd say if you want the book to come faster, order it via the McFarland website.

http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.p...=0-7864-2558-X

Jason, I assure you that my book will give you everything that Isenberg's book is missing, and then some.

My appendix includes Sullivan's record, and it blows Isenberg's away. It makes his look like little crib notes.

I know I sound like a braggart, but like Ali once said, it isn't bragging if you can back it up. And I assure you, I do.

Oh and Jay, I really dig that poster photo you have attached to your name. I believe it is from Ichi the Killer, one of the most innovative, intense, and crazy films I've ever seen. That was one bad ass movie. Not for the weak of heart.