President Joe Biden’s decision to posthumously pardon Marcus Garvey has been met with widespread acclaim in the United States and across the global black diaspora. Garvey is revered as an iconic black nationalist and Pan-Africanist thinker, celebrated for his vision of racial uplift and economic self-sufficiency. However, his legacy is far more complex than the hagiographic portrayals suggest. Rather than echoing the usual fawning sentiments, this article will provide an overview of Garvey’s conviction and ideological framework.
Garvey’s 1923 conviction for mail fraud remains one of the most controversial episodes in American history. As the founder of the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), he was accused of defrauding investors in his ambitious Black Star Line (BSL) shipping venture. However, his trial occurred in an extremely hostile environment. Due to his vocal criticisms of the white political establishment, J. Edgar Hoover had been determined to indict Garvey for fomenting discord as early as 1919. When initial attempts proved abortive Hoover pursued other means to secure a conviction, ultimately arguing Garvey’s management of the Black Star Line could possibly constitute fraud.
To build a case, Hoover deployed agents to infiltrate the UNIA. FBI surveillance of Garvey played a key role in justifying his presidential pardon, but the legal basis for such a pardon is more nuanced. The trial judge, Julian Mack, was a known ally and contributor to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), an organization that frequently clashed with Garvey. Members of the NAACP supported efforts to prosecute him, and just one day before the trial, the organization’s secretary, James Weldon Johnson, wrote to Mack, raising concerns about impartiality.
Citing the precedent set in Berger v. United States, which permits judicial recusal based on extrajudicial factors, Garvey submitted a petition for Mack’s recusal, but it was denied. Faced with a stacked deck, Garvey dismissed his attorney after being advised to accept a plea bargain. This decision only worsened his situation, as Mack failed to ensure Garvey fully understood the consequences of waiving his right to legal representation.
Further compounding the miscarriage of justice was the perjury of Schuyler Cargill, a key witness for the prosecution. Cargill claimed to have prepared mailings and made deliveries for the BSL between 1919 and 1921, yet he was unable to identify his supervisor or coworkers. His testimony was crucial, as Garvey’s conviction rested on the allegation that a letter was sent to Benny Dance encouraging him to buy shares in the BSL. However, Cargill later admitted that prosecutors had instructed him to lie about his employment. Also of relevance is Cargill’s declaration that the prosecutor showed him a copy of a circular that the court intended to present to him, which inevitably biased the proceedings. Despite these improprieties, Mack failed to flag Cargill’s testimony as improper, and the prosecution’s case remained intact.
The trial’s dubious handling extended to Benny Dance, another prosecution witness. While he received mail from the UNIA, he admitted that he did not always read the contents and could not confirm whether any letter from Garvey urged him to invest. Strangely, the envelope presented in court was empty. Nevertheless, in mail fraud cases, the mere existence of an envelope can be sufficient for conviction, even if its contents remain unknown. It is not impossible for the perpetrator to erroneously post an empty mail, so the existence of an envelope is stronger evidence.
Despite these unfavorable circumstances, Garvey appealed his conviction. While the original case was marred by prosecutorial misconduct and judicial bias, the failure of Garvey’s appeal was due to the incompetence of his appellate attorneys. Legal scholar Justin Hansford argues that Garvey’s defense team pursued an ineffective strategy. Instead of emphasizing the lack of intent to defraud, they argued that there was no proof Garvey had used US mail to facilitate fraud. Hansford contends that this was a flawed approach, as they should have known that there was no need to identify the contents of the envelope to establish that Garvey proposed a scheme to defraud. Moreover, Garvey’s own trial testimony did not contradict the prosecution’s assertion that he had solicited investments via mail.
By advancing weak arguments, Garvey’s attorneys effectively endorsed the prosecution’s case. Hansford even stated that it would have been nonsensical for the court to overturn his conviction based on the arguments they proposed. Undeniably, Garvey’s original case was imperfect, hence he applied for an appeal to rescind the conviction which was unsuccessful due to the incompetence of his attorneys. Furthermore, one of the judges presiding over the appeal was Justice Learned Hand, who criticized the activism of Justice Mack, so the charge of judicial misconduct is inapplicable in this case. Therefore, Biden’s pardon was unnecessary since Garvey appealed and failed in his second attempt to exonerate his name. Further, Garvey’s defenders often overlook his own awareness that the Black Star Line was poorly managed and undermined by corrupt staffers. While FBI infiltration and sabotage played a role, the BSL resembled a Ponzi scheme destined for collapse.
Disgruntled employees even claimed that he purchased overpriced ships and later used the vessels for propagandistic purposes to the detriment of profit. Due to the precarious financial situation of Garvey’s enterprises, he resorted to diverting funds budgeted for financing the shipping line to sponsor the Negro World and other businesses. Strapped for cash, Garvey failed to pay employees on time and summarily dismissed accountants who exposed his financial practices.
The opinion expressed by the appellate court echoes the sentiments of many who thought that Garvey preyed on naive people:
The substance of the indictment is that, while there center around Garvey other associations or corporations for their object the uplift and enhancement of the negro race, the entire scheme of uplift was used to persuade Negroes for the most part to buy shares of stock in the Black Star Line at $5 per share, when the defendants well knew, notwithstanding florid representations...that said shares could never be worth $5 cash.
Beyond his legal troubles, Garvey’s ideological framework warrants scrutiny. His philosophy emphasized black self-reliance, entrepreneurship, and the establishment of an independent African homeland. However, his views also contained troubling elements. As A. James Gregor notes in Black Nationalism and Neofascism, Garvey’s rhetoric and organizational methods bore striking similarities to European fascist movements. Garvey even described himself as a fascist and claimed that Mussolini borrowed ideas from him. Like European fascists, he viewed racial and tribal conflicts as inevitable and saw militarism as essential. He also believed that racial groups should always be prepared for battle and expecting to win such battles without industrializing was futile.
Additionally, as a tribal thinker, Garvey opposed the multi-racial state. Garvey promoted the concept of racial homelands. Unlike liberals, he felt that Africa was for Africans, Europe was for Europeans, and America was built by white people for their descendants. Garvey’s vision for an independent black state was unapologetically nationalist and anti-integrationist which made him an opponent of the NAACP’s integrationist agenda.
Another similarity between Garveyism and fascism is the primacy of the nation-state as an avenue for economic and social advancement. Both Garveyism and early fascism posited that individuals achieved personal fulfillment through the state. Likewise, these philosophies countered Marxism by envisioning a managed form of capitalism that served the interests of the nation-state. A deep preference for strong states ruled by elites who wield immense power is another area where these philosophies find common ground. Garvey’s ideal state is closer to Plato’s Republic or Singapore than to America. Additionally, to inculcate national pride, Garveyism and fascism rely on historical myths. Hence, it is unsurprising that Garvey often informed his followers that Africans were a creative race whose ideas were stolen by whites.
Garvey’s eccentricity heightens when the parallels between Garveyism and Hitlerism are explored. Fascism is an identitarian, though not exclusively racist movement like Hitlerism. Hitler and Garvey implored their followers to espouse racial truths. Garvey preached that all issues should be assessed using a racial framework. He was so committed to race that he encouraged blacks to embellish facts for the benefit of the race, even lying was permitted. Paradoxically, Garvey admired the Jews but nevertheless argued that they were tribal people who could not be trusted. Despite antisemitic sentiments, Garvey criticized how they were treated by Hitler.
Notwithstanding his distrust of Jews, Garvey theorized that anti-Jewish hatred was premised on envy. Indeed, he was a complicated character though it must be noted that Garvey never recanted his affinity for the generic ideas of Mussolini and Hitler, he only lambasted them when it seemed that their projects were antithetical to blacks. Garvey himself was an imperialist with plans to colonize the “primitive tribes” of Africa, he only disliked the thought of Hitler and Mussolini colonizing blacks.
Particularly controversial were Garvey’s interactions with the Ku Klux Klan. While ostensibly his dialogues with the Klan were pragmatic—rooted in a shared belief in racial separatism—they alienated many black leaders. Garvey and Klan members were natural allies because they preferred racial homelands. Klan members appreciated that Garvey was a racial separatist who wanted blacks to reside in their own state. Furthermore, contrary to popular narratives, Garvey was not a civil rights activist in the mold of Martin Luther King, Jr. or W.E.B. Du Bois. He did not advocate for racial integration or equality under a shared national identity. Quite appropriately, Garvey argued that blacks should create alternatives to white institutions, instead of depending on their benevolence. When Jim Crow laws irritated other blacks, Garvey remarked that Americans’ transportation infrastructure was built by whites for their consumption. Garvey was a conservative philosopher in the Western tradition with racist worldviews and thinking otherwise indicates delusion.
Garvey’s legacy is also marred by violence within his movement. Thomas Lennon’s research indicates that UNIA members frequently resorted to attacking critics. In 1922, Cincinnati UNIA leader William Ware and three associates assaulted black educator Samuel Saxon for opposing Garvey. In 1923, Garvey’s African Legion member Charles Linous was imprisoned for making death threats during the trial. UNIA members were also accused of killing Garvey’s rivals, including Reverend James Eason, who had intended to testify against him and Laura Coffey.
Garveyism is laced with negativities, however his work contains positive elements. Garvey’s emphasis on economic empowerment, professional development, and anti-corrupt leadership remains deeply relevant. While his racialist views appear problematic, his moral vision and entrepreneurial spirit inspire admiration. Despite being a black nationalist, Garvey was never afraid to tell blacks that other groups would continue to outperform them unless they improved themselves. Neither did he refrain from chastising them for expecting to get rich overnight, when entrepreneurial success requires years of hard work.
While his flirtations with fascism and racial separatism merit scrutiny, his pioneering advocacy for black self-reliance and economic independence continues to resonate. Garvey’s legacy offers a roadmap for empowerment, leadership, and self-determination when stripped of its contentious elements.