On Pershing Square's Namesake

You are of course familiar with Pershing Square, but you may not know the story of its namesake, General John J. Pershing.   Should you follow social media, you might be exposed to the typical narrative, which runs something like this:

 

From the Facebook "Lost Angeles" group page

 

In short, it is common currency these days to call General Pershing (and by association, Pershing Square) racist.  I will allow neither he nor our park to be smeared by such corrupt nonsense so I am going to take on this topic here and now.

                                                                     I.

 

First though, allow me to address another assertion within the above Facebook post, that “Ironically, Pershing never visited Los Angeles.”  This is a surprisingly common claim made by various internet Pershingphobes; one seemingly authoritative site asserts that Pershing “has no historical significance to the City of Los Angeles,” while a "rename Pershing Square" petition to our City Council states of Pershing Square “its namesake, General John Pershing, has no ties to Los Angeles whatsoever.” 

Which of course is absolute rubbish.  Pershing had deep ties to Los Angeles.  During WWI he frequented LA, where he looked after the headquarters of the Coast Artillery, delivered addresses to the Red Cross, and often visited his good pal George S. Patton Jr. (yes, *that* Patton) in the Patton home at 1220 Patton Court in San Marino. Pershing was engaged to George’s sister Anne Wilson "Nita" Patton.  Nita was the granddaughter of Benjamin D. Wilson—second mayor of Los Angeles—and Pershing was pals with the Workman family.

 

Then, in 1920 and with the end of the Great War, Pershing's visit in connection with Central Park's renaming was a huge affair.  600 people attended the Chamber of Commerce lunch at the Alexandria Hotel; 50,000 people saw Pershing speak at Exposition Park (the proposed reception, hosted by the American Legion, was scheduled, of course, for Pershing Square; it was moved to Exposition Park when officials realized the sheer number attending—50,000 people being about 1/10th of the population of the entire city).  

 

The man himself rolling down Broadway, one block east of newly-named Pershing Square.  The Homestead Museum

 

Los Angeles Express, January 8, 1920

Nearly as impressive was his visit come 1923:

 

Long Beach Press-Telegram, July 25, 1923

  

There are other remnants of Pershing’s visits to Los Angeles.  On his 1923 stop he planted a California redwood at the War Memorial Building on Fair Oaks in Pasadena, which stands mighty to this day: 

 

Courtesy Courtland Jindra Collection

 

 

 Speaking of trees, another arboreal Pershingism linking the man and Los Angeles:

 

September 13, 1960,  nephews James and Frank Pershing, and grandson John Coughlan, plant a ceremonial peach tree in honor of their famous kin.  Judging by the location of the Temple Baptist signage behind them in the distance, the tree was likely planted at the southwest corner of the park, near Sixth and Olive. Right image, LAPL

 

 

 

 

The plaque still exists at Pershing Square, though relegated to an uninspiring part of the statue ghetto.  (The peach tree, flown in from Pershing's hometown, was destroyed during the 1994 remodel, of course.)  Note that a Pershing Missile was also on display; the Pershing was designed and developed by the Martin Company, as founded in Santa Ana

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                     II.

 

But getting back to the meat of the matter: the aforementioned Facebook post, pictured at top, asserts Pershing “was considered by many to be a white supremacist.”  Considered by whom, exactly?  Apparently people on Facebook! They were quick to point out that, for example, Pershing authored the notorious 1918 pamphlet Secret Information Concerning Black American Troops, which warned French civilian authorities not to mix with our "inferior" African-American soldiers.  They linked to this article from the New York State Military Museum and Veterans Center. They also linked to this scholarly article called "The Corrosive Racial Divide." What a museum has to say on the matter, and an academic paper, must certainly be proof of the claim that Pershing penned the odious racist tract! And yet that claim is utter poppycock. 

 

First, allow me to briefly answer the question, if not Pershing, who did write the pamphlet? It was authored by Colonel of Artillery Jean L. A. Linard of the French Army.  Linard was Chief of the French Mission for the American Expeditionary Forces.  We are only aware of its existence because a copy fell into the hands of W. E. B. Du Bois, who published it in an issue of his magazine The Crisis in 1919.  It is very clearly marked a French army communique and signed Linard:

 

”A French Directive,” The Crisis, XVIII (May, 1919), p. 16-18.  AKA French Military Mission Stationed with the American Army. August 7, 1918—Secret information concerning the Black American Troops.

Those being the facts on the matter, how was this thing—known in France as the “Circulaire Linard”—misattributed to Pershing?  In terms of the two links proffered by the Facebook posters:  the New York State Military Museum and Veterans Center was using an article written by one David Omahen, whom you’ll see in his footnote, credits his information as from page 163 of Gail Lumet Buckley’s American Patriots.  With all due respect to Ms. Buckley, she is a journalist by trade, and not a historian.  (And a self-taught journalist at that; her college degree was in French Studies.)  Buckley simply wrongly stated Pershing wrote the thing—and then provided no source for her claim.

 

Regarding Professor Willoughby's academic paper, Willoughby repeats the “Pershing Directive” attribution, citing the foreword of The Invisible Soldier (Mary Motley, ed., Wayne State University, 1975). Said foreword was authored by Howard Donovan Queen, who, like Buckley, is neither a historian nor does he provide a source. This seems to be the origin of the Pershing myth, and likely the wellspring of later attributions (Buckley, et al.) of the pamphlet to Pershing. Telling that Mr. Willoughby was also not a historian (rather, an Associate Professor of Economics when he wrote the paper) like those others who made the claim. 

                                                                    III.

References to Pershing abound on the web, from ostensibly respectable, reputable sources, which state authoritatively that the General—rather than being known for his towering achievements in World War I—is, rather, “known for genocidal campaigns against communities dear to Los Angeles (Filipino, Native American, Muslim, Korean and Mexican).” Let's look at some claims about Pershing:

 

“Pershing led extermination campaigns against the Apache and Sioux.”  It's 1886 and Pershing's first assignment after graduating West Point, twenty-five years old and a newly-made Second Lieutenant, finds him placed in the 6th Cavalry at Fort Bayard, NM. The 6th was linked to the Apache campaign, though Pershing was a noncombatant, placed on garrison and field duties.  He was thereafter posted to Sioux City, Iowa in December 1890, where he participated in the Sioux campaign until September 1891 (until he was assigned to become Professor of Military Science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, a position he held until 1895, when he took on instruction of the 10th Cavalry, the African-American Unit of Buffalo Soldiers).   So while his unit may have been assigned to the Indian Campaign, he didn’t lead anything.  Arguably, the most famous injustice against First Nations people was Wounded Knee—which was 7th Cavalry, and Pershing wasn’t there; he was with the 6th, and his job specifically consisted of rather un-genocidal marshaling of troops and establishing perimeters.  In fact, there’s no evidence Pershing ever killed anyone during the Indian Wars; the only thing he’s known for is having been one of the very few soldiers who attempted to learn the Apache dialect and Lakota sign languages.  There is actually zero evidence Pershing ever so much as said a mean word to a Native American.  In fact, conversely, check out Pershing’s respect and admiration for First Nations people here. 

“In 1905 he went to Tokyo to help Imperial Japan viciously rule Korea as a slave colony” and/or Pershing was “supporting Imperial Japan’s conquest in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.”  First of all, it is an understatement to say Japan did not require Pershing’s assistance in accomplishing their goals in either of those affairs.  It is true, in 1905 President Roosevelt petitioned Congress to give Captain Pershing—and many others—a diplomatic post as a military attaché in Tokyo to observe the Russo-Japanese War.  Pershing and his new wife sailed for Tokyo in February 1905, arriving in March.  They stayed six months, departing September 1905.  When Pershingphobes wax wroth about how Pershing helped “rule Korea as a slave colony” when he was a Russo-Japanese war observer, and departed months before the Eulsa Treaty, said claim holds no water.  And when they assert he was “supporting Imperial Japan’s conquest” it should be pointed out there were also US Army officers assigned to the Russian Imperial Army as observers, doing the exact same thing as Pershing (along with observers from scads of other countries).

“Pershing was in charge of the Mexican Punitive Expedition!”  Yes he was, what’s your point?  At 4:15 in the morning of March 9, 1916, Mexican soldiers crossed the United States border into Columbus, New Mexico, and while shouting "Viva Villa! Viva Mexico!" began killing citizens, looting stores, stealing horses, and burning homes with people inside, eventually murdering eight civilians and eleven soldiers before running away.  And, what?  We were supposed to say thank you?  (Eighteen-year-old Bessie James—and unborn child— were gunned down in cold blood but that’s ok, Villa looks so cool on a t-shirt! [At least Bessie was spared violation, since Villa used gang-rape as a war tactic.]) The Columbus raid also occurred soon after eighteen workers from the American Smelting Company had been yanked off a train in Chihuahua, stripped, and executed by Villa.  So, Pershing went to Mexico to capture Villa, didn’t even do that, and he came home.  I should mention as well, on returning to the United States Pershing helped settle 2,500 refugees from Mexico, including some 500+ Chinese nationals for whom Pershing worked to gain nationality.

“Pershing commanded the final ‘battle’ of the Moro Rebellion in 1913, where he directed his troops to massacre 500 men, women and children who had taken refuge in an old volcano crater.”  The Moro Rebellion is the most referred-to of the Pershing “genocide” stories; irrefutable proof of “Pershing’s genocide against Filipino and Muslim peoples.”  Ok, let’s look at that genocide.  First of all, the governors in the decade preceding Pershing’s 1909 arrival were really tough.  Then Pershing shows up and becomes pals with Amai-Manabilang, Sultan of Madaya.  He donates government land to build mosques.  He reformed local laws to conform with Moro customs.  The economy expanded, and the Moros began opening bank accounts for the first time.  Nevertheless, the intransigent rebel leader Datu Amil took the entirety of his people—approximately 8,000 Moros—and dug in at the top of Mount Bagsak and told Pershing “come on and fight.”  Pershing kept his troops—who were vastly Filipino, for what it’s worth—in their garrisons and negotiated with the Moros, thereby convincing 95% of them to abandon their fortification and go home.  I won’t tell you what genocide is, but I can tell you what it isn’t—spending a lot of time trying to get people not killed.  After some seven thousand+ noncombatants departed, there was then a bloody four-day fight, in which Datu Amil and the remaining Moros, some 500 of them, were killed.  Was that genocide?  Consider, there were 300,000 Moros in the Philippines in 1913, and there are over five million Moros there now, which indicates that the United States is really bad at genocide. 

As can be seen, it is easy to debunk the increasingly noisy narrative about Pershing's activities before the Great War. That notwithstanding, whatever Pershing’s activities before World War I, it is important to remember that Central Park was named for Pershing specifically for his triumphs in Europe.  He was Commander in Chief of the American Expeditionary Forces, the two million men whom he led to victory against the Central Powers.  The park was renamed one week after Armistice Day.  A further link between the park and the Great War is the Doughboy Statue, designed by Humberto Pedretti, honoring the 25,000 Los Angeles residents who fought overseas, especially the roughly 450 who did not return.  Thousands attended the statue’s dedication on July 4, 1924, at its original majestic location at the Fifth and Olive entrance; it was relocated to the center of the park in 1963, before it was relegated to the dog poop area as part of the 1994 redesign.

 

 

                                                                            IV.

 

The spurious "white supremacy" claim thus deflated, let me tell you a little bit about Pershing the man.   As a child, his hometown of Laclede, MO was invaded by Confederates hunting for his father, who defiantly flew the Union flag above his general store. Before entering West Point, Pershing taught African-American students at Prairie Mound School in Missouri, from 1878-1881. In 1895, Pershing was promoted to first lieutenant and became one of the first white officers to command African-American soldiers in the 10th Cavalry, the famed "Buffalo Soldiers." Pershing asked for the commission; he chose to serve in a Black Infantry Regiment early in his career, the opposite of a "fast track" to acceptance and promotion in the professional army. The students of all-white Cadet Company A took to calling "N-(word) Jack Pershing" derisively, as Pershing spoke so highly of the Buffalo Soldier's bravery (the nickname, softened to "Blackjack Pershing," followed him the rest of his life). He fought alongside the Buffalo Soldiers, famously, including the charge up San Juan Hill (Roosevelt gets mentioned more often in the history books, presumably because Pershing's troops were Black). One reason Pershing remains renowned as a great general is because though stern, he always kept his men well-supplied and their morale high. He loved his men and was beloved by them.

 

Pershing was not, to be sure, perfect—neither are you, neither am I, and certainly no-one was 100+ years ago—but he was, inarguably, more enlightened about race than basically anyone in his day.

 

In short, we are honored to have a park named for such a great man, the only man made General of the Armies in his lifetime, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his memoirs, and who helped liberate Europe from tyranny. It's actually unfortunate there's no memorial for the man himself in our park, as exists in Washington, D.C., but then, Pershing was a humble man, and would content himself with our noble bronze Doughboy. It would be suitable and fitting, as well, that the Doughboy look out over the same park that existed when it was named for Pershing—John Parkinson's classic six-path axial plan from 1910. Wouldn't you agree?