Preface: Posts numbers 82
and 83, published back-to-back today, deal with aspects of the 1943 Davis City
Council Anti-Japanese Resolution.
This post, number 82,
consists of my account. I asked Rich Rifkin to comment on it prior to
publication. He did and his observations are published in post number 83, which
follows this post. Post 83 also includes my response to his observations.
_________________________________
This post is in two parts.
Part One tells the story of the Davis City Council’s
“Anti-Japanese” Resolution of 1943.
Part Two reports conflicting characterizations of Ben
Madon’s role in that matter.
 |
| 1 & 2, |
Part One. The City
Council’s 1943 Anti-Japanese Resolution
Monday evening, June
7, 1943, Mayor Calvin Covell presented the Davis City Council a prepared,
three-part resolution that:
-- expressed approval of government action “evacuating”
“Japanese nationals and citizens” from the “Pacific Coast States”;
 |
| 3. |
-- supported prohibiting “said evacuees” from “returning to
the State of California during the continuation of hostilities”; and that
-- urged that their return “should be prevented” “after
cessation of hostilities.” (#s 1, 2, 3.)
During Council discussion, member Ben Madson remarked that
the resolution violated the Constitution because it included United States
citizens in the ban (# l. DE 6-11). Other members agreed and no one seconded
it.
But this is only the opening moment. According to the Friday, June 18th Enterprise, “considerable criticism and comment has been voiced
over the failure to take a stand” (# 5).
Presumably heartened by this public support, Mayor Covell
revised the resolution by removing reference to Japanese citizens, thus
confining it to “nationals,” that is, non-citizens.
Judging by the June 25th Enterprise
report (# 6), at the Council’s next meeting, on Monday, June 21, the fate of this revised “anti Japanese
Resolution” was clearly the main event of the evening. It was adopted unanimously. Ben Madson was absent,
reportedly “out of the city on business” for the University (# 6).
 |
| 4. |
The text of the exact resolution passed is shown in # 3. I
think we can infer that the text is the same as the first version except for
the deletion the two words “and citizens” following the words “Japanese
Nationals” in lines two, thirteen, and eighteen.
This is to say, the scope
of application of the resolution was narrowed, but its animus and its endorsement
of government “evacuation” were not weakened.
Part Two. Ben Madson:
Pragmatic Realist Versus Inclusionist Champion
When I first brought this episode to light in Davis, Radical Changes (2004, p. 118), I
treated Madson’s pointing out that one cannot ban citizens as a simply practical
and realistic observation. Indeed, one can interpret what he is reported to
have said as a suggestion for revision that would make a stronger measure. One
gave up indefensible banning of citizens in exchange for more defensible
banning of non-citizens. And one still got to endorse the government
“evacuation” and to express hostility to Japanese people, which the resolution
does.
 |
| 5. |
I was therefore surprised to read Rich Rifkin’s construal of
Madson’s remark as an Atticus Finch style championing of racial justice and
inclusion (reproduced here in # 7). Among other features, Madson is said to
have provided “leadership” in moving Davis “away from segregation and toward
inclusion.”*
The significant difference between a practical realist and
an inclusionist champion characterization of Madison made me wonder if Rich was
reporting information about him from sources other than the six documents on
the incident I reproduce here.
I therefore asked him what sources he used. He said he did
not recall having used sources other than these six. But, he said he did not
keep a record of his sources and he was therefore uncertain what he had used.
In my view, Rich is ascribing a far stronger civil rights role
to Madson than the data support. Madson may have played an inclusionist role,
but the data we see here do not provide evidence of that.
 |
| 6. |
Furthermore, we know quite a lot about Mr. Madson aside from
this episode and the data I have seen do
not support a characterization of him as
a Davis-style Atticus Finch.
Instead, in 1939 the small number of men who had been
running city government since its start in 1917 selected him to fill a vacancy
on the Council. He was clearly chosen to carry forth that group’s view of the
world, including the view embodied in the “Jap Ban” adopted on June 21, 1943.
Enterprise editor
Maghetti unabashedly described this insider old boy process on the front page
of the February 17, 1939 issue (# 8),
where he also assures us that:
 |
| 7. |
He is known to be a
safe, conservative man who can be relied upon to give thoughtful consideration
to the problems that might come before him.
The Madson that Maghetti describes in this early 1939
sentence is, I think, exactly the same Madson who called attention to
constitutionality the evening of June 7, 1943. Rather than striking a blow for
inclusiveness, as Rich seems to wish, he helped the old boys build a more
viable racist resolution--a resolution the Enterprise
accurately (to them) called the “Jap Ban.”
In addition, after this appointment to a Council seat in
1939, he stood for Council election four times, won every election, finished
first three times, and served a term as Mayor. He was pretty much the successor
to the champion old boy himself, Calvin Covell, who, as we have seen, started
and promoted the “Jap Ban” episode in the first place.
__________________
*Rich’s characterization was subsequently reproduced on the
DavisWiki, thus giving it wider circulation and possible acceptance by unwary
readers. See: http://daviswiki.org/Ben_A_Madson
 |
| 8. |
