--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "wernerapnj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Sandpiper,
Let me try to set the record straight on the misstated history below.
First, the only area I meant that W agreed with me on was that the
West Side was integrated. He and I attended an event at the Pony a
few years back supposedly involving Asbury history. Wolff was there
signing books.
At that event he told me he agreed the West Side (which was actually
called "West Park" back then) was integrated.
If he wishes to amend history and his statement just because he is
upset with me over something else that's his business.
Let me respond to the rest.
> ===JR says - "Bradly founded AP with the East-West split. The East
> Side was his Christian resort and the west were folks who worked
>there."
>
> That is just plain false - The west side was not under Bradley's
> control, it was not even part of Asbury Park originally. The SW
> evolved in parallel with, and outside the control of both Ocean
>Grove
> and Asbury Park. A migrant workers camp initially for people
>seeking
> work in the developing area. 'West of the tracks' did not become
part
> of the City until 1906 and Bradley opposed it believing it would be
> too much of a financial burden to fund the improvements needed.
Prior to 1906 the major landowner in West Park was James Bradley.
The record is clear he could have extended the sewar system there
because he owned so much land.
However, he needed a permenant working class for his resort, and did
not want to better conditions there which might attract people who
were not lowly workers.
> ===JR says - "Bradly passed a law that said black people were not
> allowed on the Boardwalk. He said he wanted to pass a law that said
> poor whites from the West Side couldn't go either, but, as he put
>it,
> "they have no distinguishing marks" so he couldn't enforce it."
>
> No such law was passed, Bradley installed signs on the beachfront
>(his
> property) asking that employees of the hotels refrain from taking
>up
> all the seats and accommodations. Hotel guests and hotel owners
>were
> complaining and Bradley's motive was to protect the tourism
>industry
> the City depended on.
In practice Bradley was the government. The record is clear on
that. He controlled the Board of Trade which in turn controlled the
City Government. The people and the papers refered to him as "King
James."
If he hung a sign at the boardwalk, it was law. It was enforced.
Remember that people did not have Court Decisions on Constitutional
Protections back then. If Bradley said "No Blacks on the Boardwalk"
then it was "law."
Bradley often covered his bases by forcing the City to pass
resolution respecting his rules. There may have been a resolution
adopted by the City. I'll see if I can find one.
>He helped 'negro' families financially and
> donated money to the local 'negro' churches. The reference to
> 'identification' refers to how would one know hotel workers from
>guests.
Here is Bradley's exact quote:
In 1893 at a meeting Bradley asked, "In your city homes you do not
allow your servants to mingle with you guests, do you? The same is
true here. If there was a distingusihing mark in white servants I
would restrain them from occupying pavillions, but there is none."
That makes pretty clear that not only was Bradley keeping Blacks
from the beach, but poor whites too.
According to an article in the Shore Press on July 27, 1882, West
Park was populated by not just Blacks but "Italians, Turks, Germans
and several variety of the genus tramp."
In support of those restrictions, the Asbury Park Daily Journal on
July 17 1885 said Asbury Park was "a white people's resort and it
derives its entire support from white people." They were making the
point that Black people antagonlize white vacationers.
If W says it was not about race and ethnicity, then explain
the "band controversey."
The City had ethnic restrictions, promoted by Bradley, on musicians
playing in Asbury Park. He did not want "Italian maestroes and
Germanic tuba players."
Mayor TenBroeck tried to overturn the ban with a veto. His veto was
overturned by a 6-1 vote, with Bradley leading the majority.
Here is Bradley's quote that night: "It makes a difference how a man
appears. The mayor talks about foreigners. I don't want a band on
my beach that has musicians who in appearance are distinguished from
others."
So W is completely wrong. This wasn't just about hotel workers.
Bradley wanted a resort for a certain race of people of a certain
social standing. He did not want his vacationers to suffer the
indignity of sharing and ocean with Blacks and ethnic whites who had
off that day, and he made rules and City regulations to enforce it.
I stand by the original assertion. He created the very idea of
Asbury Park's "east/west split" and that West Park be a subculture,
even when AP annexed it later.
> ===JS says - "Couple the above with the fact that Bradley tried to
> keep the boardwalk privately owned and the City had to wrestle it
>from
> him in a lawsuit to make it public, and that's why I cringe when I
> hear people make the false claim that Asbury Park was founded with
>a
> dream of public access to the beach and boards. Nice warm feeling,
> but historically inaccurate."
>
> What's inaccurate is JR's revisionist history. Bradley operated and
> opened the beachfront to the public at his own expense. He refused
>to
> sell to a private developer because he wanted the property to be a
> public asset, understanding that the control of the beachfront was
>key
> to the City's well-being. The city sued regarding his ownership of
> riparian rights purchased from the State. He was an advocate of
>having
> a public beachfront and stipulated that requirement upon sale to
>the
> City (a public entity).
>
> What makes me cringe is coming to conclusions without the relevant
> information and perpetuating fallacies.
W and I have battled over this on this board in the past.
First off, the material I posted above completely belies W's
statement that "Bradley operated and
opened the beachfront to the public at his own expense."
He wanted it opened to just a select breed of vacationers.
To say Bradley didn't want to sell to "private developers" is
silly. He was the private developer.
The lawuit was the City saying the area should be public, and
Bradley defended the suit saying it should stay private (his).
W tries to make Bradley look good by saying he sold it to the City
for the public to use.
It was sold as part of the settlement of the lawsuit. They forced
Bradley's hand. It was not sold to the City out of altruism.
To conclude, people who try to make folks think the West Side of
Asbury Park was hell tick me off because they get it wrong.
I get equally appalled at people who pretend Bradley was anything
but a bigot, and wrongly assert that Asbury Park was founded with
the idea of a public beach in mind for everyone.
What Bradley had in mind was a restricted WASP vacation resort for
Christians with no liquor and restrictions on personal behavior.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
