Trayvon Martin’s Death Extends Sanford’s Sordid Legacy

The founder wanted to ship blacks to the Congo. Baseball’s Jackie Robinson was run off. Now a slain 17-year-old is the Florida town’s latest racial calamity.

Kathleen Flynn/Tampa Bay Times/ZUMA PressMemorial to Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


In some sense, it’s history you could recount from many places in America: It could be Miami, where Trayvon Martin came up, and where rioters scorched the streets in the 1980s over black motorists killed by police. It could be Prince Edward County, Virginia, near where George Zimmerman grew up, and where the county board of supervisors once abolished public education rather than comply with integration. Or it could be southern Wisconsin, where not long ago a noose and racial threats turned up on a college campus, and where earlier this month another gun owner killed a black man allegedly in self-defense.

But when it comes to a history of fear, racism, and violence, Sanford, Florida, has a particularly fraught past, one that traces right up to the night a month ago when an unarmed black kid was shot dead on one of its streets, and his killer went free.

In 2010, the son of a Sanford cop assaulted a homeless black man, and officers on the scene let him go free.

Long before the live oaks and Spanish moss gave way to interstate highways and box stores, Sanford began as a citrus town in the 1870s, conceived by a New England tycoon. Henry Shelton Sanford, who had ingratiated himself to Abraham Lincoln and served as Lincoln’s ambassador to Belgium for eight years, had the town built by Swedish laborers. Though the citrus empire he dreamed of didn’t exactly flourish, Sanford proved instrumental to promoting trade with the Belgian-controlled territory of Congo—which included his vision of promoting Congo as a place to ship America’s freed blacks. The African locale, he said, represented an outlet “for the enterprise and ambition of our colored people in more congenial fields than politics.” A Congo peopled with African Americans could be “the ground to draw the gathering electricity from that black cloud spreading over the Southern states.”

The back-to-Congo movement never took off, but Sanford’s Florida hamlet did. In 1911, it absorbed the town of Goldsborough, an autonomous black community. The merger was hostile, according to local historian Francis Oliver. “[Sanford] never paid restitution to the people who lost their jobs and asked for money because they…no longer [had] jobs,” she said. “The mayor didn’t have a job, City Council people didn’t have a job, the postmistress didn’t have a job, the jailers didn’t have a job, the marshal didn’t have a job.”

That sense of alienation hung in the air for decades. Then Jackie Robinson entered the picture. Before he broke Major League Baseball’s race barrier in 1947, Robinson played for a Dodgers farm team in Sanford—but only briefly. His presence in spring training that year so incensed white residents that they accosted the mayor and demanded Robinson’s ouster. When the integrated team was physically prevented from taking the field, the Dodgers’ owner moved Robinson out of town for his own good. “The Robinsons were run out of Sanford, Florida, with threats of violence,” Robinson’s daughter would later say.

Soon after, the Dodgers also left town, but the bitter feelings remained. Change came excruciatingly slow to Sanford. This was a community that held on to an archaic law ordering police “to shoot all pigeons on sight” until 1989, according to a St. Petersburg Times news capsule. “Over the years Sanford dug in its feet against change,” a local newspaper editor told the New York Times in 1990. “It resisted integration, filling in the public pools rather than integrating them.”

“The trust that may have existed is gone,” said Sanford’s African American city manager.

It may come as no surprise, then, that law and order in Sanford in recent years has been plagued by allegations of racial injustice, and a series of public missteps involving its police department. In 2006 two private security guards—one the son of a Sanford police officer, the other a volunteer for the department—killed a black teen with a gunshot in his back. Even though they admitted to never identifying themselves, the guards were released without charges. Then, in 2010, Justin Collison, the son of a Sanford PD lieutenant, sucker-punched a homeless black man outside a bar, and officers on the scene released Collison without charges. He eventually surrendered after video of the incident materialized online; the police chief at the time was ultimately forced into retirement. “Bottom line, we didn’t do our job that night,” a police department representative told local news station WFTV of the incident.

As it would turn out, the Sanford patrol sergeant in charge on the night of Collison’s assault, Anthony Raimondo, would also be the first supervisor on the scene of Trayvon Martin’s shooting death.

“There is no trust, there is no confidence,” between African Americans and Sanford authorities, said local NAACP leader Turner Clayton. “It’s at an all-time low.” Even embattled city manager Norton Bonaparte—who oversees Sanford’s police department and is African American—acknowledges this truth. “The trust that may have existed is gone,” he said, “so we have to start from ground zero.”

Or perhaps it was never really there: Reverend Harry Rucker, pastor of Sanford’s First Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church, told crowds in the 1990s that integration was a mistake, and that anger was the best way to confront racism. “The worst thing that happened to us when they changed our schools [through desegregation], there went our leaders, there went our teachers,” he said then. “We never asked for integration. We asked for equality.” Rucker is still at First Shiloh today; he has been one of the organizers of the town’s rallies for Trayvon Martin.

In those rallies, and in demonstrations around the country in recent days, Americans have been saying “We are Trayvon Martin.” In some ways, Sanford’s history is all of ours, as well—to be acknowledged, and hopefully to be left behind once and for all.

[For videos, documents, and all the latest updates on the Trayvon Martin case, read our comprehensive explainer.]

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate