Los Angeles' Azusa Street revival remade democracy once. Its lessons apply today
In the spring of 1906, William J. Seymour, the son of formerly enslaved parents, launched a revival on Azusa Street in downtown Los Angeles. That converted livery stable became the birthplace of modern Pentecostalism and one of the most racially integrated religious gatherings in American history. Seymour preached a message on divine healing and sanctification to a crowd of Black, white, Asian and Latino worshippers that defied the logic of segregation. As parishioners fell to their knees in prayer, speaking in tongues, something profound happened: They practiced a kind of democracy that few had ever seen.
The story of Azusa is just one episode in a much larger, and often overlooked, chapter in American history. Most Americans assume the Constitution will protect our rights and secure our freedoms. But for some, the system has never lived up to its promise. During the early 20th century, thousands of African Americans fled the racial segregation and violence of the Jim Crow South and migrated northward and westward, bringing with them a moral vision shaped by the Black freedom struggle and a belief that although American democracy had failed them, it could be made real. As we face a renewed crisis of democracy today, the new communities they built — which modeled belonging and critiqued exclusion — offer a lesson.
This democratic vision was not born in California — it was forged in the crucible of slavery, the broken promises of Reconstruction, and the racialized violence of Jim Crow. And yet, in the face of brutality, many did not fret or cower — they moved.
Many understood the Great Migration as a sacred journey, with the biblical story of Exodus as a central narrative. Black Southerners saw themselves as a people delivered from bondage and tasked with building a promised land. They did not wait for America to live up to its ideals. Instead, they reimagined democracy through a lens of faith.
Nowhere was this more evident than in Los Angeles, where the physical and spiritual landscape offered room to build anew. When Seymour arrived from Texas in 1906, he found a city in flux, with Black migrants, Mexican laborers, white spiritual seekers, Chinese railroad workers, and German and Polish Jews all navigating new lives.
The young preacher's message of spiritual revelation met this moment with radical clarity. Instead of traditional sermons and formal liturgy, Seymour's Pentecostalism emphasized direct and experiential encounters with the Holy Spirit as described in the Book of Acts . Under his leadership, Azusa Street became a space where rigid hierarchies collapsed, at least for a while. Women could preach. Black pastors baptized white immigrants. Worshippers spoke in Spanish and Yiddish. The Los Angeles Times mocked it as chaos. But Seymour saw it as a divine intervention. What made Azusa powerful was the insistence that spiritual authority did not follow the logics of race, gender or class. Dignity and power could be shared, not hoarded.
Seymour was not alone; other Black religious leaders in early 20th century Los Angeles embraced a similar vision. The Rev. Prince C. Allen, known for his spectacular revivals and interracial gatherings, spoke of a church that would 'gobble all the others,' suggesting that Pentecostalism's spiritual fire could consume racism at its roots.
The Rev. J. Gordon McPherson, called the 'Black Billy Sunday,' preached to multiracial crowds across Southern California. 'This is the way it will be on the judgment day,' he declared in the pages of the Los Angeles Times. 'The white millionaire of Pasadena is likely to find himself standing at the bar of God by the side of his colored houseman, and they will be on exactly the same footing. If we do a little of the mixing now, it won't be so surprising.' In tent meetings, street revivals, and mass baptisms at Echo Park Lake, these leaders turned public space into spiritual commons. They were not politicians. But they were democratic visionaries. Black churches became training grounds for civic life, offering food, shelter and job opportunities. More than that, in a city that treated Black migrants as invisible, these congregations made people feel seen.
In the decades that followed, Black churches built upon this work, outpacing other civic institutions by offering women leadership roles, redistributing labor and housing resources and helping Black Angelenos launch businesses at a time when lenders denied them access to capital.
Members of L.A.'s People's Independent Church of Christ, founded by Black migrants in 1915, explicitly referred to their ideology as 'democratic religion.' The church's second pastor, the Rev. Clayton D. Russell, helped create the Negro Victory Committee in 1941 to protest racial discrimination in Los Angeles' defense industry.
Russell understood that the struggle for Black freedom was — and would always be — bound up with the struggles of other communities of color. The church sent a delegation to the 1943 Mexican American Conference to declare Black Angelenos' solidarity with the wrongly convicted Mexican American teenagers in the now-infamous 1942 Sleepy Lagoon murder case.
'We cannot have Victory abroad without the fullest support from the people at home,' Russell wrote at the time, in the Black newspaper the California Eagle. 'We must stop the persecution of minorities to have a united people.'
It's easy to romanticize migration as a one-time journey. But for African Americans in the early 20th century, migration was an ongoing practice of rebuilding. It required courage but also imagination. To move to Los Angeles was to believe that something different was possible.
Although they were not immigrants in the traditional sense, many African Americans who left the South for the U.S. West in this period called themselves 'emigrants.' That word mattered. It signaled a shift in self-understanding. No longer tethered to the brutal legacy of slavery, they were redefining their relationship to the nation. Charlotta Bass, who arrived in Los Angeles in 1910 and later became editor and owner of the California Eagle, described stepping into the city as entering a 'new country.' That was the scale of their hope.
Azusa Street did not last forever; eventually, the revival fractured along racial lines. But its legacy endures, as we confront a democracy in distress. We live in a moment when immigrants are demonized, voting rights are being eroded and public trust is fragile. But the lesson of early Black migration is that democracy has always been made and remade by ordinary people, practiced in churches, kitchen conversations, street corners and classrooms. It lives wherever people gather to resist the hierarchies that divide us. If we want to save American democracy, we should heed the lessons of the people who had faith, and courage, to begin again.
Cori Tucker-Price is an assistant professor of religion at UC Santa Barbara and author of a forthcoming history on race and religion in L.A. This article was produced in partnership with Zócalo Public Square.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

2 hours ago
Japan and China commemorate World War II anniversary
BENXI, China -- Eighty years after the end of World War II, Japan and China are marking the anniversary with major events, but on different dates and in different ways. Japan remembers the victims in a solemn ceremony on Aug. 15, the day then-Emperor Hirohito announced in a crackly radio message that the government had surrendered, while China showcases its military strength with a parade on Sept. 3, the day after the formal surrender on an American battleship in Tokyo Bay. Japan occupied much of China before and during WWII in a devastating and brutal invasion that, by some estimates, killed 20 million people. The wartime experience still bedevils relations between the two countries today. A museum in the Chinese city of Benxi highlights the struggles of anti-Japanese resistance fighters who holed up in log cabins through fierce winters in the country's northeast, then known as Manchuria, before retreating into Russia. They returned only after the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and launched an offensive into Manchuria on Aug. 9, 1945 — the same day the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki — adding to the pressure on Japan to surrender. Nowadays, it is China's military that raises alarm as it seeks to enforce the government's territorial claims in the Pacific. When Japan talks of building up its defense to counter the threat, its militaristic past gives China a convenient retort. 'We urge Japan to deeply reflect on its historical culpability, earnestly draw lessons from history and stop using hype over regional tensions and China-related issues to conceal its true intent of military expansion," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said last month. Hirohito's prerecorded surrender broadcast on Aug. 15, 1945, was incomprehensible to many Japanese. He used arcane language and the sound quality was poor. What was important, historians say, was that the message came from the emperor himself. Hirohito was considered a living god, and the war was fought in his name. Most Japanese had never heard his voice before. 'The speech is a reminder of what it took to end the wrong war,' Nihon University professor Takahisa Furukawa told The Associated Press in 2015. The current emperor, Hirohito's grandson Naruhito, and the prime minister are set to make remarks at the annual ceremony in Tokyo on Aug. 15, broadcast live by public broadcaster NHK. At last year's event, Naruhito expressed deep remorse over Japan's actions during the war. But on the same day, three Japanese cabinet ministers visited Tokyo's Yasukuni shrine, drawing criticism from China and South Korea, which see the shrine as a symbol of militarism. Japan surrendered on Sept. 2, 1945, in a ceremony on board the American battleship USS Missouri. The foreign minister, in a top hat and tails, and the army chief signed on behalf of Hirohito. The signatories on the other side were U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur and representatives from China and other nations that had fought Japan. China designated the next day, Sept. 3, as Victory Day. Eleven years ago, the Communist Party stepped up how China marks the anniversary. All of China's top leaders, including President Xi Jinping, attended a commemorative event on Sept. 3. The renewed focus came at a time of rising tension with Japan over conflicting interpretations of wartime history and a still-ongoing territorial dispute in the East China Sea. The next year, China staged a military parade on the 70th anniversary of the end of the war. A decade later, preparations are underway for another grand parade with missiles, tanks and fighter jets overhead. Russian President Vladimir Putin is among those expected to attend.


CNBC
3 hours ago
- CNBC
How Putin could try to outmaneuver Trump when they meet
Russian President Vladimir Putin's standing in the West may be pretty low, but he's a skilled and seasoned statesman who shouldn't be underestimated, analysts say — and he's likely to be looking to outmaneuver his less experienced U.S. counterpart when the leaders meet in Alaska on Friday. Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump are meeting to try to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine, but close followers of Moscow's leadership are skeptical that any lasting resolution will be reached at the summit. "Let's be clear, Putin does not take Trump seriously," Tina Fordham, founder of Fordham Global Foresight, told CNBC ahead of the talks. "He has ramped up attacks, including on civilians in urban centers over the summer, and that has upset Trump and frustrated him, and frankly, it's humiliating," Fordham said, adding that meeting Trump would be "a low-cost photo op for Putin, who has a real track record of manipulating Trump administration officials." Ukraine and its European allies (who have not been invited to the talks) also argue that Putin is not serious about ending the conflict of more than three years. Kyiv's leadership also claimed this week that intelligence suggests Russia is preparing to mount new offensives , rather than preparing for a ceasefire or peace. CNBC contacted the Kremlin for a response to the claims and is awaiting a response. Military analysts cited several reasons that Russia might not want to end the war before it needs to, such as its forces' relatively advantageous position on the battlefield despite high attrition rates; entrenched position in Russian-occupied regions in the south and east of Ukraine; and ability to throw more manpower into the fight. Maximum concessions It's therefore likely that Putin will try to extract the as many concessions and benefits for Russia as he can from the United States when he sets foot on American soil for the first time in almost a decade. "The Russian side will likely seek to broaden the agenda beyond Ukraine, emphasizing the potential for strategic geopolitical and economic cooperation — including lucrative energy deals and potential arms control or strategic weapons treaties," Andrius Tursa, Central and Eastern Europe advisor at risk consultancy Teneo, said in emailed comments this week. "The Kremlin likely hopes that the transactional nature of Trump's approach to foreign policy will help advance Putin's objectives in Ukraine, such as territorial concessions, restrictions on Ukraine's sovereignty and military capabilities, and replacement of its political leadership," he added. The Kremlin's awareness of Trump's transactional nature when it comes to deal-making is likely to underscore how Putin approaches him during talks, and Putin is a skilled negotiator, according to Christopher Granville, managing director at TS Lombard. "Putin is always skillful in using 'give and take,'" he told CNBC's " Squawk Box Europe " on Monday. "True, Putin's got a big win [by being invited to Alaska] and securing negotiations on a deal before a ceasefire," he said, "but he's given Trump something." "He's given the impression that Trump's hardline has worked, that Putin has offered concessions on territorial swaps ... and that's already a sign of this skillful 'give and take' — or illusion of 'give and take'' —which President Putin has deployed so successfully on many occasions in the past," he said. Trump showed weakness A potential source of weakness for Trump as he heads into the meeting is that Putin will recognize that the U.S. president has, despite repeated threats, resisted heaping more punitive sanctions on Moscow even though it refused a ceasefire with Ukraine that was supported by both Washington and Kyiv. In fact, Trump has so far preferred to punish Russia's friends and trading partners such as its oil buyer India — rather than Russia itself — with higher tariffs and the threat of "secondary sanctions." "Putin is smart enough to recognize that Trump is turning up the heat, but it's very significant that Trump decided to turn up the heat on his friend [Prime Minister] Narendra Modi in India, and not on Putin himself," Fordham told CNBC. "It tells us that President Trump is very reluctant to actually put the pressure directly on Putin, so much so that he's willing to jeopardize this relationship with India, which is a hugely important ally within the wider context of U.S.-China relations," she added. Trump has also been accused of showing his cards to Russia by suggesting that Washington could entertain the notion of Ukraine "swapping" some territory with its neighbor, a suggestion that has provoked consternation in Europe, which has urged Trump not to concede too much to Putin. Kaja Kallas, the EU's foreign policy chief, told CNBC on Tuesday that Putin was stringing Trump along and was just " pretending to negotiate ." CNBC has asked the Kremlin to respond to the claim. Russia's economy helps But although Putin appears to be entering the talks from a position of strength rather than weakness — a position not many global leaders find themselves in when meeting Trump — the Russian president could arguably be looking for an off-ramp as Russia's economy and citizens labor under the weight of international sanctions, labor shortages and rampant inflation, which even Putin described as "alarming." ″[Putin] starts from a relatively strong position on the battlefield. They're advancing," Richard Portes, head of the economics faculty at the London Business School, told CNBC Monday. "On the other hand, from the economic point of view, he starts from a weak position. The Russian economy is not in very good shape. They're running a significant fiscal deficit, partly because oil revenues are down very substantially, oil and gas [are down] because of the oil price. And ... this is a weak economy," Portes told CNBC's " Europe Early Edition. " Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and former U.S. trade representative, told CNBC that Putin could agree to a ceasefire, but only if Trump offers serious concessions on Russia's oil exports, which have come under sanctions and restrictions, including an oil price cap. "I think if Putin comes in and says, 'Alright, I'm willing to accept a ceasefire, but you got to relieve the pressure on my oil sales,' well, that's a deal that that could be talked about, right? That's the president using leverage to get Putin to come to the table, to do something he was not willing to do before, which is to accept an unconditional ceasefire, and that would put an end to the fighting." "If the president is able to come back from Alaska with a ceasefire, that will be a significant achievement, if it they start getting into trading territory at Ukraine's expense, then it's not going to be a very good or sustainable agreement," Froman said.

4 hours ago
Federal judge refuses to block Alabama law banning DEI initiatives in public schools
A federal judge on Wednesday declined a request to block an Alabama law that bans diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in public schools and the teaching of what Republican lawmakers dubbed 'divisive concepts' related to race and gender. U.S. District Judge David Proctor wrote that University of Alabama students and professors who filed a lawsuit challenging the law as unconstitutional did not meet the legal burden required for a preliminary injunction, which he called 'an extraordinary and drastic remedy.' The civil lawsuit challenging the statute will go forward, but the law will remain in place while it does. The Alabama measure, which took effect Oct. 1, is part of a wave of proposals from Republican lawmakers across the country taking aim at DEI programs on college campuses. The Alabama law prohibits public schools from funding or sponsoring any DEI program. It also prohibits schools from requiring students to assent to eight 'divisive concepts' including that fault, blame or bias should be assigned to a race or sex or that any person should acknowledge a sense of guilt, complicity or a need to apologize because of their race, sex or national origin. Six professors and students at the University of Alabama filed a lawsuit arguing that the law violates the First Amendment by placing viewpoint-based restrictions on what educators teach. The lawsuit also said the law unconstitutionally targets Black students because it limits programs that benefit them. Professors said they had altered what they taught in their classes in the wake of the law and the university's guidance about it. A professor said he reduced coverage of the Black Power movement, the Black Lives Matter movement and the white nationalist movement in the wake of the law. Another said five students had made complaints suggesting that the interdisciplinary honors program she administered had potential conflicts with the new legislation. The university also shuttered designated spaces for the Black Student Union and a resource center for LGBTQ+ students in the wake of the law. Proctor wrote that a professor's academic freedom does not override a university's decisions about the content of classroom instruction. 'Importantly, SB 129 does not banish all teaching or discussion of these concepts from campus or, for that matter, even from the classroom," Proctor wrote. 'To the contrary, it expressly permits classroom instruction that includes 'discussion' of the listed concepts so long as the 'instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement' of the concepts.' He added that the law appears to give notice about what is a violation. For example, he said a professor could not 'indoctrinate' students to believe that racial health disparities were the fault of one race of people but could still discuss the role of racism in health disparities. 'If, alternatively, the theory she teaches about is that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129,' Proctor wrote. Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan First Amendment group, criticized the decision as dangerous and at odds with decades of Supreme Court precedent on academic freedom. 'Academic freedom protects the search for knowledge and truth from political pressure. That's the whole point," Creeley wrote in a statement. 'Faculty are hired to share and hone their expertise in a given field of study, not to read from a government script.'