Shells rained down on men who had endured disease, the obliteration of their comrades, sleep deprivation, the constant shriek of ammunition, and the literal smell of death. Burrowed into dirt along the Western Front, these Allied men slugged it out in a battle of wills and weaponry until they defeated the Central Powers in 1918. Many of the American troops that helped ensure victory in World War I, as well as the surgeons waiting on hand in ambulances to treat shrapnel-torn faces, were there, in part, because of the efforts of Indiana dentist Otto King. For Dr. King, dentistry went beyond staving off cavities and engineering attractive smiles. He applied his dental skills to a greater good both abroad and at home, and encouraged the nation’s dentists to follow suit. This meant mobilizing dentists to treat war-induced maxillofacial trauma and establishing free dental clinics for poor children who missed school due to untreated oral issues.

After graduating from the Northwestern University Dental School in 1897, Dr. King practiced dentistry in his hometown of Huntington, Indiana. He assumed a national leadership role in his profession in 1913, when he was elected the general secretary of what is today known as the American Dental Association (ADA). The role of general secretary was equivalent to that of a modern executive director. Dr. King helped transform dentistry from a trade to a profession through the establishment of The Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA), published in Huntington and distributed nationally. Dentists across the country—notably those in remote areas—could learn about best practices, research findings, educational and professional opportunities, and new dental theories through articles like “The Functions of Dentistry and Medicine in Race Betterment” (1914) and “Commercialism vs. Professional Ethics” (1915).

Editor King also used the journal to mobilize dentists for World War I service and published findings related to war-related injuries, such as Leo Eloesser’s 1917 “Gunshot Wounds and Lesions Produced by Shell and Shrapnel in the Jaws and Face.” Just days before the U.S. entered World War I by declaring war on Germany in 1917, Dr. King gave an interview printed in newspapers across the country about the Preparedness League of American Dentists, an extension of the ADA. The emergence of trench warfare during the “gravest crisis” in history created an urgent need for dentists on the frontlines and the Preparedness League worked to recruit dentists for Army and Navy service from every state, as well as Puerto Rico, the Philippine Islands, and Canada. Dr. King did his part when Colonel Kean ordered him to choose dentists to serve at base hospital No. 32, located in Indianapolis, in July 1917.

Dr. King explained that the league would respond to this need by securing “in each locality, a nucleus of the trained dental specialists, who will assist in the instructions of the members of the unit along the lines of war dental surgery, as a measure of preparedness against war and to co-operate in treatment of wounds of the jaws and face, in case of actual warfare.” He stated that “Whereas Red Cross base hospitals are being formed, we are, as fast as possible, organizing dental units in connection therewith and co-operation is established between the organizations.”

The New York Times reported that the Preparedness League outfitted dental ambulances sent to the warfront to reach patients in “out-of-the way places.” In addition to treating the wounded, these ambulances isolated men in order to prevent the spread of diseases like mumps and German measles. The Times reported that “at least 20 per cent of the men are incapacitated and kept from active service on account of illness finding its source in diseased conditions of the mouth.” These state-of-the-art ambulances included a fountain cuspidor, electric lathe, sanitation cabinet, steam sterilizer, nitrous oxide, vulcanizer, and a typewriter on which to record treatment findings. A secondary use for these ambulances involved relief work in France, where the Red Cross mobilized dentists to treat the teeth of children.

Because of his work with the Preparedness League, Dr. King was appointed as one of twelve members on the Committee on Dentistry, General Medical Board of the Council of National Defense. He headed the Committee on Publicity, a subcommittee tasked with recruiting dentists for Army service. Dr. King utilized JADA for this purpose, including a blank application to the Dental Reserve Corps and publishing pieces like “You Can Help Win the War!—An Appeal for Prompt Individual Service by Every Member” and “How May You Assist the Medical Department of the United States Army?”

In one article, U.S. Army dentist Dr. John S. Marshall detailed the morbid gamut of dental injuries awaiting military personnel, including:

blows upon the face from the closed fist; kicks of horse or mule; the impact of some heavy missile propelled with considerable force; the extraction of teeth, tho this is rare; a fall from a horse, bicycle, or a gun-carriage; the passage of a wheel over the face; and gunshot injury in line of duty or from accident, or design, with suicidal intent or otherwise.

He lamented the devastation wrought by shell fragments, which “tear away the soft tissues and underlying bone, leaving a hideous and ghastly wound.” Because of these traumas, “the Oral Surgeon has during this World War come into his own.” These surgeons not only performed life-saving procedures, but also helped restore facial features in what the Chicago Tribune described in 1918 as “a new branch of the healing art—that of plastic surgery.” The Decatur, Illinois Daily Review noted that working to reverse oral disfigurement “have given the dentists a new distinction.”

In addition to injuries, success on the battlefield was impeded by defective teeth, as they hindered the ability to eat and subsequently weakened the fighting force. Dr. King thus noted the importance of the U.S. Army Dental Corps, stating “It is truly said that an army fights on its stomach and teeth . . . As monitors of the teeth, the dentists are supervisors of the stomach, hence, the army is helpless without our professional officers.”

But just getting troops onto the battlefield proved to be a challenge. Dr. King utilized his prominence in the profession to convince dentists to treat recruits barred from service due to dental issues—at no cost. He warned that “more than 2,000 applicants for enlistment were in danger of being refused entrance into the fighting force of the nation because of defective teeth.” In April 1917, he volunteered to personally treat rejected recruits and he convinced local dentists to prepare the mouths of two rejected recruits. Under his direction, the ADA hosted a “Help Win the War” convention in 1918, which featured a series of clinics about dental treatment and military recruitment.

The Chicago Tribune reported that by the time of the conference, Preparedness League members had performed more than 500,000 free operations on recruits, enabling the men to pass the military’s physical examination. A letter printed in the JADA encouraged dental colleges, dispensaries, and hospital clinics to work with the Preparedness League to treat the mouths of recruits. The author lamented that the criteria for military acceptance included only “a mouth free from disease producing conditions and four (4) opposing molars, two on either side . . . This requirement is a joke but we can change it no doubt, if desired.”

With the conclusion of the Great War, Dr. King intensified his efforts to bring his “great humanitarian mission” to fruition. This involved educating the public about importance of dental prevention, particularly among children. He noted that most infectious diseases, such as diphtheria and small-pox, entered through the nose and mouth, making the maintenance of a healthy oral environment crucial. He observed that many children missed school due to infections and malnutrition caused by defective teeth, but their parents lacked the resources to treat the maladies. Dr. King hoped to prevent these painful and disruptive dental issues by educating children about hygiene, through demonstrations and nursery rhymes, and by offering free preventative treatment. In an address about oral hygiene, Dr. King proclaimed that “For years we have been trying to dam back or cure diseased bodies, due to neglected Oral Hygiene conditions, but overlooking the source or beginning of life as represented in childhood as the place to teach and establish preventative medicine.”

Dr. King helped establish free clinics on the East Coast and implored the public and lawmakers to invest in their establishment, stating in 1917 that “Disease is a social menace, an enemy of the State.” In a 1920 criticism of American dental care, he noted that “The children of our country deserve as effective physical care as the livestock.” He anticipated backlash for proposing free dental clinics, but argued that “socialized health” should be wielded as a weapon against “capitalized disease.” Dr. King’s dogged belief that dentistry could uplift humanity radiated from the trenches of Gallipoli to classrooms in New York.

Learn more about the extraordinary Dr. Otto King with IHB’s new historical marker.

People from Florida are called Floridians. People from Maine are called Mainers. People from Washington are called Washingtonians. And people from Indiana are called…Hoosiers?

One of the most common questions we’re asked at the Indiana Historical Bureau is “What is a Hoosier,” and that’s often followed by “Where did that word come from?” As it turns out, people have been asking just that question for nearly two centuries.

Hoosier, now spelled ubiquitously “H-O-O-S-I-E-R,” as well as several other phonetical versions, can be traced back to the American South, where it was used as a derogatory term for uneducated, uncouth people. But just when the word began to be used specifically to refer to people from Indiana is hard to know.

According to Indiana University Archives, the earliest known written use of the word can be found in a letter dated February 11, 1831. In the letter, written by G.L. Murdock to General John Tipton, Murdock replied to an advertisement and offered to deliver goods by steamboat to Logansport, Cass County. In closing, he mentioned, “Our boat will be named the Indiana Hoosier.” The earliest known printed instance of “Hoosier” can be found in a letter-to-the-editor of the Vincennes Gazette, just eight days after the Murdock letter was penned. In the letter, the author, who identified themselves as Rackoon, noted the increasing population of Indiana, saying,

The ‘Hoosher’ country is coming out, and the day is not far distant, when some states which have hitherto looked upon us as a kind of outlandish, half-civilized race, will have to follow in our train. Let the ‘Half-horse, half-alligator’… country look to it.

It is pretty obvious by the lack of explanation that the authors of both of those passages expected that their readers would already be familiar with the word “Hoosier,” so it’s safe to assume that the word was in use, at least locally, before 1831. Throughout the early 1830s, usage increased significantly, but was still mostly found only in traveler’s accounts and local documents. That changed with the publishing of former state Representative John Finley’s poem “The Hoosher’s Nest” in 1833. The version of a Hoosier found in the following excerpt lacks the negative connotations associated with the original usage in the southern United States:

The emigrant is soon located-
In Hoosher life initiated:
Erects a cabin in the woods,
Wherein he stows his household goods.

Erelong the cabin disappears,
A spacious mansion next he rears;
His fields seem widening by stealth,
An index of increasing wealth;
and when the hives of Hooshers swarm,
To each is given a noble farm.

Gone is the uneducated, uncouth backcountry man. He is replaced by an industrious farmer who is moving up in the world. It is likely that the moniker was first used as an insult towards people from Indiana, but they appropriated it and made it their own, much as colonial Americans had done with the term “Yankee” in the 1700s.

The publishing of “The Hoosher’s Nest” cemented the use of the word on a national scale, as it was picked up by other papers and published far and wide. It was not long before the first article to examine the origins of this most “singular” term appeared. Just ten months after “The Hooshers’ Nest” was published, the Cincinnati Republican ran a piece simply titled “Hooshier.”

The appellation of Hooshier has been used in many of the Western States, for several years, to designate, in a good natural way, an inhabitant of our sister state of Indiana. Ex- Governor Ray has lately started a newspaper in Indiana, which he names “The Hoshier” [sic]. Many of our ingenious native philologists have attempted, though very unsatisfactorily, to explain this somewhat singular term.

It goes on to list two unsatisfactory explanations of the etymology of the word before getting to the “real” root of the word.

The word Hooshier is indebted for its existence to that once numerous and unique, but now extinct class of mortals called the Ohio Boatmen. — In its original acceptation it was equivalent to “Ripstaver,” “Bulger,” “Ring-tailroarer,” and a hundred others, equally expressive, but which have never attained to such a respectable standing as itself. By some caprice which can never be explained, the appellation Hooshier became confined solely to such boatmen as had their homes upon the Indiana shore, and from them it was gradually applied to all the Indianians, who acknowledge it as good naturedly as the appellation of Yankee — Whatever may have been the original acceptation of Hooshier this we know, that the people to whom it is now applied are amongst the bravest, most intelligent, most enterprising, most magnanimous, and most democratic of the Great West, and should we ever feel disposed to quit the state in which we are now sojourning, our own noble Ohio, it will be to enroll ourselves as adopted citizens in the land of the “HOOSHIER.”

Again, this examination lacks any negative connotation with the word. Instead, it highlights the virtues of being a Hoosier.  The next serious look into the word comes from historian Jacob Piatt Dunn, who wrote and rewrote his article entitled “The Word Hoosier” to near perfection – in fact, the eventual monograph that came from his articles, published in 1907, is still seen as one of the most thorough and accurate studies on the topic. It’s not often that such academic treatises stand the test of time.

Even after putting years of work into his article, Dunn concluded that we do not know exactly from where the word “Hoosier” derived, but dismissed many of the existing explanations as utterly ridiculous. He did, however, put forward three options regarding its origins.

First, he theorized that the word migrated up from the South as a slang term used for uncouth countrymen – this is the theory backed by the most evidence and seems to be the one Dunn favored, as he included a multitude of examples of this usage in the book. Second, he proposed an English root to the word. Similar terms can be found in early English dictionaries, such as “hoose,” “hoors,” and “hoozy,” that could conceivably have been corrupted into “Hoosier.” His third proposal sounds rather improbable on the surface. He conjectured that “Hoosier” came to America from India by way of England. According to Dunn, the Indian word “huzur” is “a respectful form of address to persons of rank or superiority.” He admitted that it seemed like quite a stretch but gave some examples of other words, such as “Khaki,” that made the same etomological journey.

But as soon as he finished reciting these possibilities he was quick to assure readers that he was not claiming these to be definitive answers, merely possibilities, saying, “It is not my purpose to urge that any one of these suggested possibilities of derivation is preferable to the other, or to assert that there may not be other and more rational ones.” The one thing he was sure about was that the word existed before it was used to describe a native Indianan.

Although many people have discussed, debated, and disputed the true origin of the word “Hoosier” in the years since Dunn’s 1907 essay, the only work to rival that of Dunn’s is Jeffrey Graf’s article “The Word ‘Hoosier,’” written for the Herman B Wells Library at Indiana University. He examines Dunn’s work, as well as that of other scholars who followed in Dunn’s footsteps. Graf’s 100+ page article is as thorough as it gets.

Not much has been added to the academic discourse in the last 100 years. It seems like most subsequent scholars begin with the goal of finishing the work Dunn started, covering the same ground he did, then throwing their hands in the air in frustration. One thing they have in common is a list of the various and sundry theories proposed throughout the years and we would be remiss not to cover at least a few of the more colorful origin stories to come about.

Theory 1

Frontier Indiana was a rough place that produced rough people. Rough but strong. Some of those rough, strong people found that the daily work of cutting down trees, farming, building houses with their hands, and chopping fire wood didn’t do quite enough to prove their strength to their fellow man. So they fought. They fought at house-raisings and log-rollings. They fought in the fields and in the woods. Those who were particularly adept at this so-called “wrastlin” were referred to as hushers, for they could quell their opponents into silence. One such husher found himself in New Orleans working as a boatmen when he felt the urge to demonstrate his rather remarkable strength. So, he fought not just one, but four men at once. And he bested them all. In his enthusiasm, he sprang up, shouting “I’m a Hussher!” But with his accent, it came out sounding more like “I’m a Hoosier!” The episode was picked up by some of the New Orleans newspapers and the “Hoosier” pronunciation came to refer to all boatmen from Indiana, and later all people from Indiana.

---

Theory 2

With just 65,000 people living in 23 million acres of Indiana, many people saw Indiana as a land of opportunity in the early years of the state. The opportunity to own land, to make a decent living, and to start over drew people to the state. Families made their way from all parts of the country to settle on the fertile soil of Indiana. And as they traveled the roughhewn roads, those families would sometimes come across a lone cabin in the wilderness. Weather they were looking for shelter, company, or both, often they would approach the cabin with a shout of “Who’s here?” to let the occupants know someone was coming. At this, the door would be opened and the guests welcomed. This scene played out again and again throughout the southern part of the state. Eventually, “Who’s here?” slowly morphed into “Whosere” and later to “Hoosier.” In the course of time, “Hoosier” came to describe all people from Indiana.

Theory 3

This theory comes to us from the Hoosier poet himself, James Whitcomb Riley. His version of the story includes the same stereotype of rough frontiersmen fond of fighting as did the “Hussher” theory. These settlers often congregated in taverns to share news and maybe a drink or two. When they got into their cups a bit, they always fell to fighting, often so violently that participants lost bits of their noses and ears. The morning after these ferocious rows, the barkeep would walk through the bar room and, seeing a stray ear on the floor, push it aside with his foot with a careless “Who’s ear?” This became so commonplace that it slowly morphed into “Whose year” and then to “Hoosier,” much like “Who’s here” supposedly did.

---

It seems like infinite theories exist, each more amusing than the last, all claiming to be the origin of the word Hoosier. All of them have one thing in common – they’re almost certainly apocryphal. It’s unlikely that we’ll ever know with any certainty exactly where the word “Hoosier” originated. However, from the 1986 film “Hoosiers,” to the Indiana University Hoosiers, to the 4,500 businesses with the word “Hoosier” in their names in the state, it is safe to say that there are no Indianans in Indiana–only Hoosiers.

Transcript of Reaching Toward Peace: Robert F. Kennedy on the Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Jump to Show Notes

Written by Lindsey Beckley from research using various sources (see show notes for details)

Produced by Lindsey Beckley and Jill Weiss Simins

Recording of Robert Kennedy: And that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee.

­­­­­­­­­­Lindsey Beckley: Across America, there are schools, parks, and roads all bearing the name of Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. Many small towns and nearly every big city in the nation has at least one Martin Luther King Jr. elementary school or boulevard. And Indianapolis is no exception. On Broadway Street,   north of 16th Street in Indianapolis, you’ll find the 14 acre Martin Luther King Jr. Park. The park features a variety of trees, shelter houses, playgrounds, and even a community swimming pool. It’s also home to a remarkable memorial. Approaching the memorial, you pass between two metal walls. Above you, reaching out from those walls, are the likenesses of two men , one black, one white leaning out over your head, arms outstretched towards each other. As you pass beneath them, you probably recognize one figure as being Martin Luther King Jr. But chances are, unless you know why this memorial was constructed, you wouldn’t recognize the second.

That second figure is that of Robert Kennedy and the memorial is called the Landmark for Peace Memorial. On this episode of Talking Hoosier History, we will explore the events that inspired the creation of this striking piece of public art. And stick around after the main episode for a discussion with Reverend Dr. Frank Thomas. We’ll talk about how these inspiring leaders use moral imagination.

[Talking Hoosier History theme music]

Hello and welcome to Talking Hoosier History, brought to you by the Indiana Historical Bureau. For over a century, we’ve been marking Hoosier history. Now, it’s time to start Talking Hoosier History. I’m Lindsey Beckley and I’ll be your host.

[crowd noises and music]

On March 16, 1968, Robert Kennedy began his presidential campaign when he declared:

Voice actor reading from Robert Kennedy speech: “I am today announcing my candidacy for presidency of the United States. I do not run for the presidency merely to oppose any man, but to propose new policies. I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous course and I have such strong feelings about what must be done, and I feel that I’m obliged to do all I can.”

Beckley: He planned to win the Democratic Party’s nomination through the popular support of voters in primary elections, a strategy that had worked for his brother John F. Kennedy 8 years earlier. To this end, he announced that he intended to enter the Indiana Democratic primary on March 27 and arrived in Indianapolis to do just that the following day. Kennedy’s Indiana primary campaign was set to begin on April 4, 1968.

[Transitional music]

Beckley: Throughout this same time, Martin Luther King Jr. was also in the midst of a campaign, although his was not one for political power. It was one for social change and it was known as the Poor People’s Campaign. Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Committee, or SCLC, had been planning to expand their mission to include economic equality for some time. During a SCLC staff retreat Dr. King said:

Voice actor reading from King: “I think it is necessary for us to realize that we have moved from the era of civil rights to the era of human rights.”

Beckley: To that end, King announced the Poor People’s campaign in November 1967 and outlined its goals: more jobs, unemployment insurance, a fair minimum wage, and improved education. To accomplish this, he planned a series of protests culminating in a takeover and mass occupation of the National Mall in Washington D.C., where protesters would live in a shanty town for the duration of the rally.

[Transitional music: “We Shall Overcome”]

Beckley: Just as Robert Kennedy headed to Indiana to start his primary campaign, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr headed to Memphis, Tennessee to assist with a strike being conducted by the sanitation workers of the city. The workers had been striking for higher wages and better working conditions for over 11 weeks.  While his Poor People campaign was focused on affecting change in Washington, King saw that the objectives of the strike fit well with his own and decided to adopt it as part of the campaign. So, that’s how King and Kennedy came to be involved in two different campaigns in two different states on April 4, 1968. Although they were hundreds of miles apart, the events of that day would forever link the two men in the pages of history.

[Transitional music: “We Shall Overcome”]

Beckley: Both men had busy schedules on Thursday, April 4th. King was sequestered in closed meetings throughout the day, likely with other local and national civil rights leaders. Kennedy gave campaign speeches in South Bend and Muncie before flying to Indianapolis for a rally in a majority black neighborhood. Around 6 o’clock that evening, King was preparing for dinner. Kennedy was in the midst of a speech to the students of Ball State University. King stepped out onto the balcony of the Lorraine Motel and was shot by a sniper. Kennedy stepped onto a plane and received news of the attack on King. King was pronounced dead at around 7:00 pm. Kennedy arrived in Indianapolis and was told that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was dead. He recoiled at the news, almost as though he himself had been struck. He put his hands to his face and lamented, “Oh, God. When is this violence going to stop?”

In the days leading up to April 4th, Indianapolis Mayor Richard Lugar had shown reservations about allowing Kennedy to hold a rally in the majority black neighborhood at all. He thought it dangerous. But Kennedy and his team felt otherwise. Now, with the news of Kings’ assassination, the Chief of Police advised the group not to attend the rally and warned that his force would not protect them if they did. Kennedy was determined to go. As his car entered the neighborhood, their police escort melted into the background.

As Kennedy and his team arrived in front of the assembled crowd of around 2,000 people, the crowd was festive, if a bit restless. Kennedy was over an hour late and they had been standing in the windy street waiting for some time. Kennedy climbed onto a flat-bed truck, his face “full of anguish.”  What followed was an impromptu speech so impactful it’s been credited with “Saving the city of Indianapolis,” a claim we will discuss at some length later. The audio of this speech is one of the most impactful recordings I have ever heard. Kennedy asks off mic if the crowd knew of the assassination, then he delivers the news, and it’s followed by gasps and wailing from the audience. Following is a condensed version of that powerful speech.

Recording of Robert Kennedy in Indianapolis: Ladies and gentlemen, I have some very sad news for all of you, and I think sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world. And that is, that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee.

[Cries from the crowd]

Recording of Robert Kennedy in Indianapolis: Martin Luther Kind dedicated his life to love and to justice between fellow human beings. He died in the cause of that effort. In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it’s perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in. it’s perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in. For those of you who are black – you can be filled with bitterness, with hatred, and a desire for revenge. We can move in that direction as a country, in greater polarization. Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand and to comprehend…and love. What we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love and wisdom and compassion toward one another and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer in our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.

[Crowd cheers]

Recording of Robert Kennedy in Indianapolis: It is not the end violence. It is not the end of lawlessness. And it’s not the end of disorder. But the vast majority of white people, and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our lands. Let us dedicate ourselves to that. And say a prayer for our country, and for our people. Thank you very much.

[Crowd cheers]

[Transitional music]

Beckley: In the wake of Dr. King’s death, grief and anger spread through the black communities of America. In the days and weeks following, the already high racial tensions came to a breaking point. In over 100 cities across the United States, this resulted in civil unrest, and even rioting. There were over 40 deaths and 4,000 injuries. Chicago, Cincinnati, and Louisville all fairly near Indianapolis and with similar demographics, all had various levels of rioting. Indianapolis, however, did not.

[Inspiring music]

As Robert Kennedy finished his speech in Indianapolis, he urged those in attendance to go home and pray, and many did. Meanwhile, the riots were already starting in Washington D.C. and by the time they ended 4 days later, over 1000 buildings had been reduced to ash and 12 people were dead.

The next day, on April 5th, Baptist Reverend Melvin Girton organized a memorial in honor of Dr. King at the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial. Hundreds of people attended. Sam Jones, the leader of the Indianapolis Urban League addressed Indianapolis’s black community, saying

Voice actor reading Newspaper article quoting Same Jones: “For Indianapolis, I appeal for calm and reason during this period. This should be a time for prayer and soul-searching for all of us.”

Beckley: Meanwhile, violence erupted in Chicago, ending with 11 deaths and 500 injuries.

On Sunday, April 7th, special services were held at St. John’s Missionary Baptist church, where Indianapolis’ Mayor Richard Lugar, on the suggestion of African American leaders, announced that all African Americans in the city were excused from work and school  on the day of King’s funeral as part of a day of tribute to Dr. King. Three more commemorative services were held at Trinity Episcopal Church, where Reverend G. Ernest Lynch  continued the calls for peace, saying:

Voice actor reading from Newspaper article quoting Lynch: “Martin Luther King was primarily a Christian, and so the motivation of his life was the power of unarmed truth, nonviolent and unconditional love.”

Beckley: On the same day in Baltimore, the unrest in the city exploded into rioting and by the end of the day, the city called in 6,000 troops from the National Guard in an attempt to take back the city.

This pattern continued – leaders of the Indianapolis African American community called their people together to mourn the loss of their spiritual leader. The people gathered. These black leaders called for continued peace. And Peace continued. All the while, other cities were in chaos.

Some sources credit Robert Kennedy and his April 4th speech as the sole savior of the city during what became known as the Holy Week Uprisings. His show of support and call for peace in the face of violence certainly helped soothe the tensions in the crowd – for instance, directly after his speech, he and Civil Rights leader John Lewis attended a meeting and met with a group of people who Lewis described as “black militants.” Lewis said that the young black men entered the meeting with hostility and bitterness, saying that “establishment people” are all the same: “Our leader is dead tonight, and when we need you we can’t find you.” In response, Kennedy said,

Voice actor reading from Kennedy: “Yes, you lost a friend, I lost a brother, I know how you feel…. You talk about the Establishment. I have to laugh. Big Business is trying to defeat me because they think I am a friend of the Negro…”

Beckley: Before the men departed, they pledged their support to the Kennedy campaign.

You can tell from that exchange that Kennedy’s words did have an impact on the African American population of Indianapolis, but to say that he single handedly saved the city – I mean, I found one recent article literally titled “How RFK saved Indianapolis” – and that ignores the huge part played by black leaders in the community.

In the end, it was the strong network of African American leaders in the city, in conjunction with Kennedy’s speech that “saved Indianapolis.” It took more than one man to save the city. It took a variety of people in a variety of positions, all calling for peace in a time of anger and grief. Looking at the Landmark for Peace memorial, you see this sentiment reflected. You see two men , one black, one white, on either side of a divide, reaching towards each other. Reaching towards peace.

[Inspiring music]

Once again, I’m Lindsey Beckley and this has been the last episode of season one of Talking Hoosier History. But don’t worry – we’ll be back in a few months with season two. Until then, we’ll leave you with this one last segment.

[Transition music: “We Shall Overcome”]

Beckley: In the run up to the 50th anniversary of this tragic piece of history, I sat down with Dr. Frank Thomas, director of the PhD in African American Preaching and Sacred Rhetoric program at the Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis. His new book, How to Preach a Dangerous Sermon, uses this speech, along with others, to talk about the use of language to ignite what he calls “moral imagination” to call people to a better future.

[Transition music]

Beckley: We’ve got Dr. Frank Thomas here today, and we’re going to be talking his new book, “How to Preach a Dangerous Sermon.” Thank you so much for being here with us today, Dr. Thomas.

Frank Thomas: Well, thank you so much for having me. It’s an honor.

Beckley: Your book focuses a lot on moral imagination and I think it’s important probably for the listeners to get an idea of what that is before we go into talking about how people used it, so, uh, could you give us just a brief explanation of moral imagination?

Thomas: Yea, it’s the, the fact that we’re faced with ethical delimas, you know, in much of our lives, in our politics, in our religion. And there are people who are able to find creative alternatives. In essence, it’s the ability to look at ethical delimas and choose options that are in the common good, rather than simply what’s good for one tribe, or one group, rather than the whole.

Beckley: So, in the – in the book, you kind of go chanpter by chapter and look at how different people have utilized the, uh, the moral imagination in different ways. And what fit so well into this particular episode is that you start with Robert Kennedy and  his April 4, 1968 speech, which is a great example of, of moral imagination – imagining a world that is better than the one we live in. Could we talk a little bit about some of the particular ways in which he utilized it?

Thomas: Well, I think his entire campaign was about moral imagination. He said that what he wanted to do was to solve the race problem in America, and resolve poverty.

Beckley: Ambitious goals.

Thomas: Yes. But I haven’t heard a single politicial address that since he died. So he was able to see the possibility that we would be a ble to work on these solutions and that they were connected, you know, poverty and race, and that we could solve it. Now, in the speech that he gave on the night of the death of Martin Luther King, he used those themes, and I call it the four qualities of moral imagination. Number one, he showed up. He showed up on 17th and Broadway in an African American community to do a campaign speech, when in fact, King had been killed that very night, and everybody said that, “Don’t go, don’t go, don’t go. There’s going to be violence.” But he went. When he got there, he had a level of empathy, you know, when you show up and you actually dialogue with people, it creates empathy. The third thing that I say is a part of moral imagination is the wisdom of the ages. He drops some heavy, heavy wisdom. Greek tragedy, a quote from escolous. And then, fourthly, his rhetoric – his speech – lifted up, um, it was uplifting and it touched the chords of wonder, mystery, and hope. I call those the four characteristics of the moral imagination. And in the book I do a very detailed explanation of the speech right here in Indianapolis, Indiana, and I have not seen – very few people generate this level of moral imagination.

Beckley: It definitely, when you listen to it, it’s probably on of the more powerful speeches I’ve heard, especially given that it was rather impromptu. He had a speech prepared and then, all the sudden, that was kind of, you know, ripped away, and he kind of came up with that – I think, on the, on the plane here. It’s impressive to me that he came up with such a powerful and, um, emotive speech, kind of, off the cuff, more than, more than anything.

Thomas: well, I think that, um, he gave people what was in his heart and what was in his imagination. He had been thinking about these things, and he had actually lived – so one of the points in the speech that he says is that he tell the crowd, speaking directly to African Americans in the crowd, that “my brother was killed by a white man.” And he creates a level of empathy and so he had been thinking about these things, and the Greek tragedy and escolous helped him to come to terms with his brother’s death. So, what the crowd is experiencing and he also – the death of Martin Luther King, my sense, or what I say in the book is, he just gave them the hope that he himself had received. So that’s why, to me, it’s so gripping. It is, uh it’s anchored in his soul.

Beckley: It’s not just platitudes and, and him trying to quell an audience – It’s, it’s him really connecting with them and giving them what he’s learned through the death of his brother.

Thomas: Exactly, feeling what he felt, it’s not to get votes, it’s not to be reelected, you know, as a matter of fact, in the first part of the speech, he tells them, “Could you take – could you take them campaign…”

Beckley: The banners.

Thomas:  Yea, the banners. “Could you take them down?” And I interpret that as “this is not a political speech.” This is about the direction of our country. This is about what kind of people we want to be. This is not the end of violence and lawlessness, he says, but the majority of people in America want to live in peace, harmony, justice for all. And the audience claps, I mean, it’s an amazing speech. He announces that King has been killed and veious parts of the audience scream because they haven’t heard it. And by the time he finishes, there are two places in the speech where the audience claps, and both times, it’s about speeking to, what I say, the moral imagination. That we can create a society or a nation where white and black can live in harmony with justice for all, with justice for everybody. I call that moral imagination, and I don’t see many people, though we talk the language of it, the implementation of it has to do with showing up.

Beckley: and I think that kind of goes to, uh, the point about using moral imagination for social and political change – it doesn’t only have to be a spur of the moment, talking out of tragedy or, you know, a preacher at the pulpit, but it can be our political leaders giving us a picture of a better world and telling us how they’re going to accomplish it.

 

Thomas: Exactly. And also, inspiring us. So, if our leaders, we say in the book, I quote an author, who says that imagination rules the world, and we become who our leaders imagine us to be. And so, if our leaders don’t have moral imagination, if our leaders can’t envision equality, see, the argument I make is this: if you can’t see people as equals, in your mindset, you must see hierarchy – one group has to be over another group, or, or…then you set up a moral hierarchy. Well, this group is over that group. Then, after you establish the moral hierarchy, then you create laws to enforce the moral hierarchy. And then, you find religious leaders to bless the laws – and it’s a whole system.

Beckley: it’s kind of backwards from what it should be in a just and equal society.

Thomas: Exactly. Exactly. So, this whole concept of moral imagination is very critical and we see it exhibited around us every day: there is such a lack of moral imagination, even if we use the language, we do not have the, the concrete steps or the showing up. So one of the things that I say is that a lot of us will pontificate about what’s needed in neighborhoods that we’ve never been in. You’ve never shown up. You never talked to the people. How you gonna come up with solutions for a community, and you don’t go to the community, you don’t talk to any of the people in the community, you don’t put any people of the community on your leadership team- on your cabinet – on your board of trustees. But you are spouting off what we need to do for the community. It’s a lack of moral imagination. So the people experience it as paternalism.

Beckley: So, when you look at what you want people to take away from this book – obviously, the book is written towards preachers, and people of the clergy, but I found it very enlightening and there are a lot of things that everyday people, and leaders, and political leaders can take away from it as well. Could you sum up what you want people to take away from this book?

Thomas: Well, thank you so much. I-it is not just meant for the clergy, though I am a clergy person, and so I kind of write, and I think that the religious and spiritual community has a tremendous amount to say about moral imagination that we’re not saying. But what I want people to take away is really four things – the four qualities of moral imagination. You have to show up. You must show up. You cannot pontificate about people that you’ve never shown up to their community, you’ve never sat down and had food with them, you’ve never shared with them. So you have a bunch of uninformed information when you have not actually talked to a community – a community different than your community. Second, uh, when you get there and listen more than speak, when you go to learn more than you go to teach, or you go to learn and teach, then you develoep empathy, and empathy creates bridges for new decisions about peace and justice. When you start to work on new directions for peace and justicve, you’re going to have to anchor that somewhere. In a traditioin. In spiritual traditions – call it the wisdom of the ages – in political arenas, the constitution, the Bill of Rights – you have to anchor it somewhere. You know, so, you’re going to need the wisdom of the ages, and the fourth thing I want people to take away from it is that our talking, our speech, our, um, our rhetoric, our sermons, have to lift and inspire people and have to put them in touch with wonder, mystery, and hope.

Beckley: If people are interested in finding the book, uh, where, where can they find it.

Thomas: Uh, it’s on Amazon, and you can kindle it, you can get the physical copy.

Beckley: I’ve got it on my phone here.

Thomas: Well, I’m glad, see, I have it in a physical copy but I don’t have it on the phone yet. But I would hope that people would take it and maybe make it a discussion in some groups, so people could discuss it and, um, I did a presentation recently for a group here in Indianapolis, and it was a wonderful time we had, just, everybody doesn’t have to agree, but it’s the discussion that’s the critical thing.

Beckley: It’s kind of the start of something new there.

Thomas: Right, right, right.

Beckley: Well, thank you so much for coming in and talking with us today. We really really appreciate it.

Thomas: well, thank you so much. It’s my honor to be here. Thank you for taking the book, reading the book, and taking it so very seriously and thoroughly. Thank you.

Beckley: As always, thanks to Jill Weiss-Simins, producer and sound engineer extraordinaire, and Justin Clark, the voice of Newspapers here on the podcast. Remember, find us on Facebook and follow us on twitter at @TalkHoosierHist and to subscribe, rate, and review us wherever you get your podcasts! Thanks for listening!

Show Notes for Reaching Toward Peace: Robert F. Kennedy on the Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Books

Boomhower, Ray. Robert F. Kennedy and the 1968 Indiana Primary, Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society Press, 2008.

Schlessinger, Arthur. Robert Kennedy and His Times, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978.

Newspapers

                “City Pays Tribute To Dr. Martin Luther King.” The Indianapolis News, April 5, 1968.

“City To Hold Memorials For Dr. King.” The Indianapolis News, April 6, 1968.

“King Moves to Confrontation.” The Leaf-Chronicle, April 4, 1968.

“Leaders Of Races Urge Calm After Tragedy.” The Indianapolis News, April 5, 1968.

“Negroes Excused For King Funeral.” The Indianapolis News, April 8, 1968.

Websites

                The King Center Archive: http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive

Martin Luther King, Jr. encyclopedia: http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_poor_peoples_campaign/

Poor People’s Campaign: https://poorpeoplescampaign.org/index.php/poor-peoples-campaign-1968/

Other

The Indiana Historical Bureau. “Robert F. Kennedy on Death of Martin L. King” Historical marker file.

Special Thanks

                Dr. Frank Thomas, director of the PhD in African American Preaching and Sacred Rhetoric program at the Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis, joined us on this episode for a discussion of his book “Preaching a Dangerous Sermon.”

Jill is the sound engineer for Talking Hoosier History. She does everything from set up the recording equipment to selecting the music featured in each episode as well as actually mixing.

Justin Clark, project assistant with the Hoosier State Chronicles newspaper digitization project, voiced all newspaper clips in this episode.

Two or three black men brought segregation of Indianapolis’s YMCA into sharp focus in 1888, when they attempted to join the organization. Although the YMCA lacked an official policy mandating segregation, they denied the black mens’ applications. Two years later, a group of African American men formed a Young Men’s Prayer Band in Indianapolis. By 1902, this band merged into a “colored Y.M.C.A.”

The Y opened at the tail end of a major influx of African Americans to the city following the Civil War and Reconstruction. In the forty years between 1860 and 1900, the African American population of Indianapolis grew 3,000 percent. Many white residents did not welcome these newcomers. Oftentimes, African Americans were relegated to segregated areas of the city due to housing discrimination and exclusion from facilities. Indiana Avenue was at the center of the largest African American community in the city, with 30,000 black residents living within a ten mile radius of the Avenue by the 1950s.

The establishment of this YMCA provided facilities for those men who had been excluded from the central organization. In an Indiana Magazine of History article, Dr. Stanley Warren points out that:

the necessity of finding a way to survive within a limiting system driven by segregationist tendencies has been the base from which many great African-American traditions and organizations have begun.

In the capital city, the organization then called “The Indianapolis Colored YMCA” served as an example of these great African-American traditions. Emerging out of the discriminatory practices of Indianapolis, this branch of the “Y” grew into one of the largest and most influential black YMCAs in the country.

Before that could happen though, they needed a building able to accommodate their rapidly growing membership. By 1911, just nine years after its formation, the YMCA outgrew its building located at California and North Streets in the city. To remedy this, they proposed the construction of a new building. The building cost an estimated $100,000, a figure that seemed unobtainable to many in the community, where even the working professionals barely got by due to the limited job opportunities available to them.

Fortunately, just as the YMCA members began to plan their fundraising strategy, they gained a rather unlikely ally in a white, Jewish, Chicago businessman. Julius Rosenwald, part-owner of Sears, Roebuck, and Company, announced that he would give $25,000 to any community able to rise $75,000 towards the construction of a Colored Young Men’s Christian Association. With this support, members of the Indianapolis Colored YMCA joined forces with the white members of the Central YMCA for an incredible fundraising push. Two teams formed, one for the white members and one for the black members, and they set out on their mission. In just ten days, they surpassed their $75,000 goal. African American entrepreneur Madam C.J. Walker was one of the largest contributors to the YMCA’s Building Campaign Fund.

On July 28, 1912, with a crowd of over 5,000 people in attendance YMCA committee men broke ground on the site of the new building. Three months later another celebration with thousands of spectators was held for the laying of the cornerstone. Workers completed construction on the building, located at the corner of Michigan Street and Senate Avenue in downtown Indianapolis, in July 1913.

YMCA members held a week of festivities and ceremonies in celebration of the opening of the new Senate Avenue Y, as it was called. Celebrations-attended by both black and white residents-included a ladies night, fraternal night, and athletic night. The highlight of the week, though, was Tuesday July 8 – the official dedication, which featured an address by Booker T. Washington, civil rights activist and founder of Tuskegee institute.In his address, Washington commended the citizens of the city, black and white, for banding together to make the Senate Avenue Y a reality. Then, he said:

I am proud of being a member of the Negro race and never
more so than tonight. I spurn the men who sympathize with me because I am a member of the Negro race. We have work to do and difficulties to overcome . . . Let the white people know about the good deeds in our race. In too many cases white people hear only of crime. They do not hear about the hard-working, industrious, sober colored men, and Indianapolis has many of the latter class.

In many cases, African American churches were the heart of the black community. The Indianapolis Colored YMCA, itself a Christian organization, became another center of the African American community in Indianapolis. Majority black neighborhoods such as this did not have access to the same social, recreational, and charitable organizations as the white communities. Because of these segregationist policies, black communities had long provided these facilities for themselves, often led by their churches. This is where the Senate Avenue Y stepped in, building on and expanding the work of African American churches.  The Senate Avenue Y was located in the heart of the Indiana Avenue African American community and offered adult education classes, held bible studies, provided meeting space for a variety of organizations, and even established an amateur basketball team.

According to historians, these Senate Avenue programs:

fostered self-respect and self-reliance and tried to provide young men with proper role models and male companionship . . . [they] served as sanctuaries which preserved African American Masculinity and prepared black men and boys for their leadership role in the struggle for equality that lay ahead.

In order to reach more and more young men and boys, the Y held annual membership drives. These campaigns borrowed military organizational structures, dividing members into divisions of “enlisted men.” These men worked hard to recruit as many new members as possible. Those groups that enlisted the most new members were inducted into the Society of High Producers and The Royal Order of the Spizzerinktum, meaning “the will to succeed.” These tactics worked fabulously; membership jumped from just fifty-two in 1903 to over 5,000 by 1930.

These wildly successful membership drives turned the Senate Avenue Y into one of the largest African American YMCA branches in the country. But being large does not necessarily make an organization important or influential. To understand the influence of the Y, we need to go right back to the very beginning of the branch, to the establishment of Monster Meetings.

The roots of the Senate Avenue YMCA Monster Meetings can be traced to the very early years of the Indianapolis Colored YMCA, and executive secretary Thomas Taylor. He instituted public forums where men, and later women, could gather on Sunday afternoons between November and March to listen to lectures on a wide variety of topics. Originally, Taylor wanted to call the forums “Big Meetings” but the proposal was rejected by the Central YMCA board because their annual meeting was already being called the Big Meeting. So, Taylor one-upped them and labeled his forum series the “Monster Meetings.” Taylor could not have known how fitting that name would become.

In the Taylor years, the meetings featured local religious leaders speaking almost exclusively on religious matters, but in 1916 a new executive secretary took the meetings to a new level. That executive secretary was Faburn Defrantz. (In 1947, he successfully spearheaded the effort to convince IU to allow African American basketball player Bill Garrett to play for the school’s varsity team. A “gentleman’s agreement” had barred African Americans from playing in the Big Ten).

During DeFrantz’s tenure, Monster Meetings continued to feature local ministers delivering religious messages. But they soon expanded to include some of the most well-known African American leaders in the nation, speaking on a variety of hot-button issues. In his seminal article “The Monster Meetings at the Negro YMCA in Indianapolis,” Dr. Stanley Warren provided a list that sampled some of the hundreds of speakers and topics featured at Monster Meetings during the DeFrantz years. These included authors, NAACP leaders like Walter White, professors, university presidents, politicians like Governor Paul V. McNutt, newspapermen, famous athletes such as Olympic gold medalist track star Jesse Owens, religious leaders, and former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Unfortunately, I have not located a collection or archive containing the speeches given at these Monster Meetings. Luckily, some snippets of some of the lectures are preserved in the pages of newspapers like the Indianapolis Recorder.

The lectures bespoke major events and concerns of the period. In 1930, months after the 1929 stock market crash, Freeman B. Ransom, attorney for the Madam C. J. Walker Company, discussed “Unemployment and How to Solve It.” In 1931, during the Prohibition Era, Reverend Charles H. Winders and Boyd Gurley debated the question “Prohibition: Shall Indiana Stay Dry?” Dr. George Washington Carver, Director of agricultural research and professor of chemistry at Tuskegee University, asked in 1932 “Great Creator, What Is a Peanut, Why Did You Make It?”

In 1940, as World War II raged in Europe, Dr. Max Yergan spoke on “Democracy: A Goal to Defend.” After U.S. entry into World War II, Dr. Lorenzo Greene spoke on “The Negro in National Defense,” Phillip Randolph lectured about “The Negro in War and Peace,” and William Hastie discussed “The Fight Against Discrimination in the Armed Forces.”

In 1947, one year after the Froebel School Board in Gary, Indiana voted for desegregation after hundreds of white students staged a walk out in protest of integration, Joseph Chapman spoke on “Democracy in Gary Schools.” In the early Cold War era, Former Crispus Attucks teacher and the first African American woman to study at the University of Oxford spoke about “Education and International Good Will” in 1952. Former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt spoke to a desegregated audience at the Murat Temple about “International Human Rights” in 1953.

And finally, leading up to and during the Civil Rights Movement, speeches such as “Integrated Society or a Segregated Society,” “The Civil Rights Crisis and American Democracy,” and “The Civil Rights Resolution in America” demonstrated that the black citizens of Indianapolis’s discussed and debated the same issues as those around the nation. The following details some of the most prolific speakers at the Monster Meetings:

Dr. Mordecai Johnson was a fixture of the Monster Meeting schedule, opening the meeting season for over forty consecutive years. He got involved with the YMCA in 1916, when he served as a student secretary and became a life-long supporter of the association. In 1926, Dr. Johnson became the first African American president of Howard University, one of the nation’s historically black universities. He served in that capacity until 1960. During his decades speaking at Monster Meetings, he covered a wide range of topics, including:

• “Anti-Semitism and the Negro Ministry”
• “Civilization’s Civil War”
• “Implications of the Atomic Bomb”
• “Ghandi and the Liberation of India”
• “Segregation is Suicide”

Described as a man who “made people listen even when they did not believe,” Johnson was a powerful speaker and he lent his skill to important topics. As Cold War tensions mounted, he spoke of the dangers American segregation posed to the nation. He said:

“Through our nation’s moral weakness caused by segregation, we are committing scientific and technical suicide. We are five years behind militarily due to this moral weakness. Oh my brothers, let us pray it is not too late – only Almighty God knows whether it is not too late already…”

He went on to address the recent affirmation of Brown Vs. Board of Education, which declared segregated schools unconstitutional.

“It is my judgement that the death knell of segregation has been sounded. I see no disposition on the part of the Supreme Court to yield to the opponents of integration. The Court is informed by a sense of world duty which is inexorable.”

Another name that appears more than once in the list of prominent figures featured at Monster Meetings is that of A. Philip Randolph. In 1925, Randolph organized the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, the first labor union comprised principally of African American workers. A major civil rights activist, he played a large part in pressuring President Franklin Roosevelt to issue an Executive Order that banned discrimination in World War II defense industries. He also pressured President Harry Truman to issue an Executive Order that ended segregation in the armed forces. (The 1945 Freeman Field uprising in Seymour, Indiana, where Tuskegee Airmen protested illegally-segregated officers’ clubs by forcibly entering the white officers’ club, also played a large part in Truman’s Executive Order). Randolph was not satisfied with those successes, though. In 1955, he stood in the Senate Avenue YMCA and declared:

“Negroes are yet second class citizens. Civil revolution was never completed, free public schools were never established, Negroes cannot buy property where they wish, nor can they enter certain businesses. They cannot join all the various unions. The Negroes cannot vote in some parts of this county; therefore they are not yet free.”

Later, in 1963, Randolph organized the March on Washington, where Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have A Dream” speech, which highlighted the injustice of many of the same racist, segregationist policies Randolph underscored in his Monster Meeting lecture.

In 1958, Martin Luther King Jr. himself, made an appearance on the YMCA Monster Meeting roster with a speech entitled “Remaining Awake through a Revolution.” Due to intense interest in King’s lecture, organizers moved the event to Cadle Tabernacle, which could accommodate a larger audience. In one of his first public appearances since he suffered a brutal attack at a book signing that year, the Baptist minister maintained his message of nonviolence, urging the use of love in the face of violence. He proclaimed:

“A new age of justice is challenging us to love our oppressors . . . We must not assume this new freedom with attitudes of bitterness and recrimination, for, if we do, the new age will be nothing but a duplicate of the old one . . . A new world is being born, and the old world will die. We must be prepared for the new world to come. Segregation is nothing but slavery covered up with certain niceties and complexities. If our democracy is to live, segregation must die . . . Use love. Love is a sure winner. Remember that as Christians we are working with god. If we do it the way God wants us to do it, we will be able to sing with pride, ‘My Country ‘tis of thee’ for Freedom must ring from every mountainside.”

The Senate Avenue YMCA Monster Meetings played a central role in not only educating members about topics of local, national, and international importance, but also in galvanizing the community into action. According to Dr. Warren, “As the popularity and importance of these mass education meetings grew, both the public and YMCA members exhibited a higher level of community activism.” For those who regularly attended Monster Meetings, the YMCA became a foundation for the changes that they worked towards in the coming decades. The meetings were a place where, in the words of Dr. Mordecai Johnson, “The redcap and the lawyer, the laborer and the doctor, seek together to find answers to social and political questions.”

*Interested in the Civil Rights Movement in Indiana? Check out this post about the 1972 National Political Black Convention, which drew over 10,000 black Americans to Gary. Influential leaders, such as Black Panther co-founder Bobby Seale, Revered Jesse Jackson, and Coretta Scott King, lent their support in creating a cohesive political strategy for black Americans.

­­­­Transcript of The Revolutions of George Rogers Clark

Jump to Show Notes

Written by Lindsey Beckley from research by Peter DeCarlo

Produced by Lindsey Beckley and Jill Weiss Simins

Recording of man speaking: “An American general named George Rogers Clark has taken Kaskaskia and Cahokia, and I would expect by now that he also controls Vincennes…”

Recording of Second man: “George Rogers Clark? Who is he? How large is this fort?”

First man Speaking: A Virginian, I believe…

[Transition music]

Lindsey Beckley: So, sometimes these episodes come really naturally to me. We decide what the topic is going to be, I read as much as I can on it, and I write and record the episode. Of course, there are revisions and discussions along the way, but generally, I just kind of write. That’s not how this one has been. I knew for a while that a George Rogers Clark episode was on my horizon, and, I’m not going to lie, I was kind of dreading it. Not because I particularly disliked the topic, I didn’t really have any strong feelings about it at all. No, I dreaded it because I knew I was going to be out of my element. Eighteenth century military history is far out of my area of expertise.  My area of expertise is, obviously, Indiana history. And here I was, tasked with doing an episode about George Rogers Clark, a Revolutionary War hero whose life, from his first commission in 1774 to his military funeral 44 years later, consisted of a string of military campaigns. And while Indiana is the only state to celebrate George Rogers Clark day every year, most of his story takes place outside of the Hoosier state. To say I was out of my element is an understatement.

So, I read several summaries of his life. Then a few articles. Then a book. And then a thesis. And against all odds, I genuinely enjoyed all of it. But I just couldn’t figure out a good way to tell the story. I tried again and again to start the writing process. I even wrote a whole script and then scrapped it the same day. I thought about George Rogers Clark constantly, and I talked about him nearly as much. My poor husband and friends kindly listened as I rambled about the exploits of a man 200 years dead. My coworkers listened to pitch after pitch of the episode. And through all this, I realized that I kept coming back to the same question: why is this important? And the answer to that question always came in the form of another question: what if? What if things had gone differently? So, on this episode of Talking Hoosier History, we’ll be asking just that.

[Talking Hoosier History theme music]

Beckley: Hello, and welcome to Talking Hoosier History, brought to you by the Indiana Historical Bureau. For over a century, we’ve been marking Hoosier history. Now, it’s time to start Talking Hoosier History. I’m Lindsey Beckley and I’ll be your host.

[Sound effects]

Beckley: Before we get to my main man, George Rogers Clark, let’s talk about something called Historical Contingency.

[Sound effects]

Voice of a man on the television: The American ideals of Freedom and equality became beacons of hope.

[Sound effects]

This is a concept often used by historians to explore historic happenings. Basically, the world we live in today was not inevitable. It’s the result of a series of events, each of which could have had multiple outcomes.

[Music]

Beckley: For example, some people would argue that during the Civil War, the succession of the Southern states was on the election of Abraham Lincoln. What if someone else had become president? Maybe the Civil War wouldn’t even have happened. And was World War II contingent on Hitler’s rise to power? I mean, what if he had been accepted to art school? Maybe there wouldn’t have been a World War II. Of course, both of those things could have happened regardless. The thing to keep in mind here is that history isn’t linear – it’s a web with one small event leading to another one and that event leading to two more. I’ll be talking about a few historical contingencies. And you may not agree with my conclusions. And that’s alright. That’s what makes historical theorizing fun – there is no one right answer (although there are some wrong ones.)

Voice of a man on the television: Hamilton is sitting in Vincennes dreaming about spring time, thinking that nobody can cross these flooded plains to get to him. I say we treat those British to an early spring.

Voice of second man on television: On a rainy day in February 27….(fades out slowly)

Beckley fading in: … 1779, George Rogers Clark was 27 years old the leader of 175 men on a mission. He led his troops through the neck deep waters flooding the Wabash River valley in present day southern Indiana. They had left the town of Kaskaskia over 2 weeks before with only the most necessary supplies – the clothes on their backs, food, guns, and ammunition. Their sole mission was to retake Fort Sackville in Vincennes from the British.

This wasn’t the men’s first time trekking to Vincennes to take the fort from the British – they had taken the fort just 6 months ago but were unable to hold it after spreading their forces too thin. No, it wasn’t their first time taking the fort. But it would be their last.

[Menacing music]

Beckley: When Clark heard that the British had come down from Detroit and walked back into the fort with little fight, he had a choice to make – wait until the spring campaigning season to march on the fort, which would the British gathering reinforcements in the meantime, or march immediately and risk the unpredictable Midwestern weather in the middle of February.  He decided on the latter option and before setting off, wrote to his superior:

Voice actor reading from Clark: I know the case is desperate, but, sire, we must either quit the country or attack Mr. Hamilton. No time is to be lost… Who knows what fortune will do for us? Great things have been effected by a few men well conducted.

Beckley: Those few men might have been wet and tired. And they definitely hadn’t eaten a decent meal in days. But they had one thing on their side – the element of surprise – and they would indeed affect great things.

Eighteen days and 180 miles later, they arrived in Vincennes on February 23 and laid siege to the fort that night. Clark ordered every banner and flag they had to be unfurled in an attempt to make their numbers look larger than they were. They fired so relentlessly on the fort that the British forces inside hardly dared poke their heads over the battlements. Just 2 days later, on February 25, 1777, the British forces surrendered. The fort was in American hands once again and would stay that way through the end of the war.

And here, we come to our first “what if?” What if George Rogers Clark hadn’t made this march? What if he hadn’t taken fort Sackville?

[Inquisitive music]

Beckley: First and foremost, if he had not made this march and taken the fort, we probably wouldn’t be talking about him today. While he did have other military accomplishments, the Vincennes campaign was by far his most famous achievement. When his story is taught in Indiana History classrooms, this is the story that is told. The George Rogers Clark National Historical Park, one of Indiana’s 3 National Parks, is located in Vincennes near the site of the old fort and it was established solely to commemorate this action.

But it’s more than that. If George Rogers Clark had not made his march – if the fort had stayed in British hands – the boundary lines agreed upon after the Revolutionary War may have looked much different. The British wanted to use the Ohio River to serve as the northern American boundary. But because fort Vincennes had been held by the Americans for nearly 5 years, the United States had a legitimate claim to the land. Partially because of this, the boundary line was moved to the next natural boundary to the north – the Great Lakes. So, if he hadn’t marched, or if the march had failed, if he hadn’t inspired those tired, hungry men to march on the fort, Indiana and the rest of the Northwest Territories may have become part of Canada, not the United States. I never really realized this importance until it was phrased as a “what if” so I decided to look at another chapter of George Rogers Clark’s life in the same way.

[Transitional music]

Beckley: For this story, we jump from 1778 and the end of the American Revolution to 1794, and to a totally different revolution.

[Transitional music]

Beckley: George Rogers Clark was just days away from enacting an elaborate plan that was over a year in the making. This plan involved a representative of the French government stationed in Philadelphia, Frenchmen living in Spanish Louisiana, and Americans from Kentucky and the Northwest Territory, including what would become Indiana.

Simply put, the plan was for Clark and around 1,500 Americans, to gather around the Falls of the Ohio river, near present day Louisville. Once gathered, the men would expatriate themselves, renouncing their allegiance to the U.S. They would then declare French citizenship and head south, from the Ohio River to the Mississippi, attacking and capturing any Spanish settlement they encountered on their way. After taking a settlement, they would commandeer any weapons and ammunition they found, recruit as many new men as they could, and set off towards the next settlement.

In this way, both their manpower and their firepower would grow as they moved towards their main goal, Spanish held Louisiana. Clark expected no less than 5,000 men to be at his back when he reached the capital, New Orleans. Once he reached the city, the French residents living there would join forces with him and overthrow the Spanish in a revolution. At this point, they would proceed all the way east to Sarasota and overthrow the Spanish there. If things were still looking good, they would then march back west to Santa Fe, conquering as they went. Their end goal was the formation of a new republic, separate from both the United States and France, but allied with both.

[Transitional music]

Beckley: Of course, if all of this had actually happened, we probably would hear more about it. So, obviously, it failed. Or rather, it never really got going in the first place. At the same time that George Rogers Clark was laying his plans and gathering his forces, the French government was overthrown and the minister in Philadelphia replaced. This change of administration meant that the money Clark needed for this so-called expedition would never make it to his camp on the Ohio.

Now, If you’re anything like me, you’ve never heard that part of George Rogers Clark’s story. And if you’re anything like me, you might be thinking, “Wow, George Rogers Clark was a traitor?” And by modern terms, he may have been. I mean, he allied with a foreign nation and renounced his US citizenship in order to lead an army comprised mostly of Americans against a nation which the US Government was not at war with. However, Clark and his western brethren wouldn’t have seen it in the same light.

Most people in the early republic believed that every man had the right to expatriate themselves at any time. And most westerners believed that, as the only other republic in the world, they were obligated to help the budding republic of France in any way they could. While this was definitely something Clark was thinking about when concocting his plan, there were three other main motives behind his decision to pursue such an extreme course of action.

First, he and many other westerners were outraged that the Spanish did not allow US citizen’s to freely navigate the Mississippi. Most Americans were flat out not allowed to ship goods down the Mississippi river. Those that were allowed to faced hefty fees. And those that chose to do it without Spanish consent faced the possible confiscation of their goods and punishment by Spanish government. This was a huge deal because the farmers of the west needed a way to get their products to the east, and in a time before cars and trains, river navigation was the name of the game and if you couldn’t ship your goods, you couldn’t make a living.

The second thing spurring Clark on to action was the American government. After the American Revolution, Clark felt that the government was falling far short of his revolutionary ideals. He thought the Federalists, who held most of the power in government at the time, were leading the country back to monarchy or creating an oligarchy, which is rule by a powerful few. He also felt wronged by the government. He had financed much of his American Revolutionary activities himself and was in massive amounts of debt because of that. After years of petitioning for repayment, it was clear that he was not going to get the money. His disagreements with the American government were so strong that he no longer felt an allegiance to them. Just before he started on the plans for the Revolution on the Mississippi, he had written:

Voice actor reading from Clark: My Country has proved notoriously ungrateful, for my services, and so forgetful of those successful and almost unexampled enterprises which gave it the whole of its territory on this side of the great mountains, as in this my prime of life, to have neglected me.

Beckley: To him, the government had turned its back on him as much as he had on it. His third and final motivation for action, and probably the purest one, was a desire to help the French living under Spanish rule in Louisiana. After all, he himself had lived under unwanted British rule before the American Revolution. He looked to the South and saw basically the same situation. Here were a people, calling out for freedom from the oppressive yoke of foreign rule. All they needed was a hero, willing to risk it all to save them. And who better to do so than the Washington of the West, George Rogers Clark?

All of this brings us to our second “What if?” What if George Rogers Clark had gotten the funding for his expedition? What if he had set out on the Ohio with 1,500 men at his back and revolution in his heart?

Well, all evidence says that if he was well funded, he probably would have succeeded. I mean, he certainly thought so. Clark wrote to the French representative in Philadelphia saying:

Voice actor reading from Clark: There is no knowing where our career will stop.  This kind of warfare is my element.  I have served a long apprenticeship to it.  I engage in it from the purest motives and have no doubt of success …you will ere long hear of a flame kindled on the Mississippi that will not be easily extinguished.

Beckley: But let’s not just take his word for it, though. Let’s look at the facts of the matter.

Clark expected to have at least 5,000 men at his back when he reached Spanish Louisiana, and the reports that were coming in from various places in the west seemed to back that up. On the other hand, the Spanish Regiment of Louisiana consisted of approximately 1,500 troops, and that was spread throughout the region. New Orleans, the capital, only had about 300 troops for its defense. So, even conservatively, Clark would have had a 10 to 1 advantage in any attack on Spanish held settlements. The only thing the Spanish had to their advantage was a fleet of boats that was dominant enough to control the Mississippi, but Clark had begun building a fleet of his own before funding fell through, so that threat as well very well may have been nullified. Add to all of this the rising discontent of the Frenchmen who were under Spanish rule and it seems fairly clear that Clark had a good shot at leading a successful revolution. Which brings me to my last “What if?”

What if he had succeeded? Simply enough, if George Rogers Clark had succeeded…there would have been, there might still be, an independent nation stretching from Florida in the east, to New Mexico in the west, and stretching all the way down into Mexico. And if that nation had been established but no longer existed, we would have yet another war to learn about in our history classes, a war which pitted republic against republic. George Rogers Clark vs. George Washington. It’s impossible to know all the various ways this revolution on the Mississippi could have changed the course of history, just as it was impossible for George Rogers Clark to know all the various ways the American Revolution would change the course of history as he led the march on Vincennes and became the Father of the Old Northwest.

[Talking Hoosier History theme music]

Beckley: Once again, I’m Lindsey Beckley and this has been Talking Hoosier History. A special thank you to Peter DeCarlo, a Historian with the Minnesota Historical Society. I used his thesis extensively in preparing for this episode. As always, thanks to Jill Weiss Simins, my sound engineer extraordinaire, for bringing her incredible skills to the podcast. And for voiceing George Rogers Clark, we want to thank Justin Clark, no relation. Keep up with us on Facebook at Talking Hoosier History or on Twitter at @TalkHoosierHist. And please, subscribe, rate, and review us wherever you get your podcasts…it helps more than you can know. Thanks for listening!

Show Notes for The Revolutions of George Rogers Clark

Episode Eleven Show Notes

Books

Boomhower, Ray. Robert F. Kennedy and the 1968 Indiana Primary, Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society Press, 2008.

Schlessinger, Arthur. Robert Kennedy and His Times, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978.

Other

                The Indiana Historical Bureau. “Robert F. Kennedy on Death of Martin L. King” Historical marker file.

Newspapers

                “City Pays Tribute To Dr. Martin Luther King.” The Indianapolis News, April 5, 1968.

“City To Hold Memorials For Dr. King.” The Indianapolis News, April 6, 1968.

“King Moves to Confrontation.” The Leaf-Chronicle, April 4, 1968.

“Leaders Of Races Urge Calm After Tragedy.” The Indianapolis News, April 5, 1968.

“Negroes Excused For King Funeral.” The Indianapolis News, April 8, 1968.

Special Thanks

                Dr. Frank Thomas, director of the PhD in African American Preaching and Sacred Rhetoric program at the Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis, joined us on this episode for a discussion of his book “Preaching a Dangerous Sermon.”

Jill is the sound engineer for Talking Hoosier History. She does everything from set up the recording equipment to selecting the music featured in each episode as well as actually mixing.

Justin Clark, project assistant with the Hoosier State Chronicles newspaper digitization project, voiced all newspaper clips in this episode.

Music Credits

Theme Song

The Talking Hoosier History Theme Song is “Rock and Gravel” by Indianapolis band Syd Valentine’s Patent Leather Kids. The trio recorded this song in Richmond, Indiana, in 1929. Used courtesy PublicDomain4U, accessed publicdomain4u.com.

Featured Sample

Several samples were taken from the 1970 documentary “A Few Men Well Conducted,” created by the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry Center. The film is housed in the National Archives at College Park, and was accessed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgMpUFY9EoA.

Other Audio

Bensound, “Epic,” Audio Library, No Copyright Music, accessed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae8FyeVc7qk

Josh Kirsch, “It’s Coming,” Audio Library, No Copyright Music, accessed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi0cGs4wXLY

Ross Bugden, “Parallel,” Audio Library, No Copyright Music, accessed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ1oZ9tmoEo

Kevin MacLeod, “Sneaky Snitch,” Audio Library, No Copyright Music, accessed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-rXQALDv-4

Uniq, “Art of Silence,” No Copyright, Royalty Free, accessed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V-pYCGx0C4.