African American Preachers and Politics: The Careys of Chicago

Epilogue

[ 183 ] epilogue Both Archibald J. Carey Sr. and Archibald J. Carey Jr. were heirs to a tradition of activism and officeholding among black ministers dating from Reconstruction. Headiness from the prestige and influence that came from these accomplishments may have blinded both father and son to the dangers that these involvements posed. Moreover, holding public office sometimes made it difficult to disentangle personal ambition from the public good of those whom they represented. Their desire to benefit blacks was unambiguously actualized through their presence in the public square. African Americans were better off because of the Careys, but both men at times were caught in the damaging cross fire intrinsic to their high-level political involvements. The precepts of John Wesley’s “practical divinity” pushed Methodist ministers such as the Careys into civic affairs. When Wesleyan preachers, both black and white, fought slavery in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and battled racial segregation and discrimination in the twentieth century, they stood in the public square as advocates for the “new creation.” Neither Carey drew explicitly from this lexicon of Wesleyan theology; rather, they invoked the name of Richard Allen, the founder of their denomination, whose lived religion and Methodist consciousness envisioned a just and equitable American society. The Careys understood Allen’s involvements as a theology of black liberation that was singularly focused on freedom from slavery and segregation and whose roots lay in a merged Wesleyan/black liberationist ethos.1 Despite controversy, the Careys found it easy to embrace a belief in public square involvements. More difficult, however, was the task of negotiating the compromises embedded in getting to and staying in public office and avoiding becoming apologists for allies in both party and government. Despite these dif- ficulties, both Careys broke with the Republican Party when it failed to support African American aspirations. The senior Carey allied himself with Democrats who were willing to back black equality; the younger Carey spoke favorably of Progressive Henry A. Wallace in the 1948 presidential election and surrendered his long- [ 184 ] epilogue standing Republican affiliation after President Lyndon B. Johnson demonstrated his commitment to African American equality by engineering the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.2 The Careys made no attempt to build a “righteous kingdom” in American society. Rather, they tried to align government with the goals of black equality. They worked to nudge public officials on the municipal, state, and federal levels to enforce just and equitable treatment of African Americans in accordance with both scriptural mandates and constitutional principles. Though the Careys waded kneedeep in partisan politics, neither became a “patriot preacher” or a “court prophet.”3 They used party membership to address the broad objectives of African American advancement. Although party leaders tried to exploit the Careys’ church influence by seeking their followers’ votes, father and son always remained clear that political organizations should serve the goals of black liberation. The Careys were strikingly disinterested in changing or redefining the republican ideas that underlay American government except in those areas that affected African Americans’ welfare. They saw government not as a means to realize a Christian commonwealth but as an ally to correct egregious wrongs against blacks. Addressing the urgent issues confronting African Americans required the Careys to mobilize their congregants to support Social Gospel initiatives and to vote to change government policy. At times, parishioners’ votes enabled the Careys to obtain benefits for their congregations and communities. At other times, this quest for personal and community benefits moved both Careys to tolerate political parties or leaders who disrespected African Americans or denigrated the importance of civil rights. The elder Carey looked the other way when Chicago mayor William Hale Thompson waged only a weak fight against public and private racial discrimination; his son had questionable interactions with J. Edgar Hoover at the same time that the FBI director was trying to destroy Martin Luther King Jr. These alliances suggest that both father and son were willing to jeopardize their moral legitimacy to gain favor from powerful whites. Nevertheless, the two men left a legacy of ministerial activism that empowered African Americans and demonstrated that their votes could advance and affirm their civil rights and fully integrate them into the American body politic. Their practice of public theology offered a standard by which their contemporaries could judge the efficacy of clergy involvement in the public square. ...