Some journalists seem to feel that they have a higher calling than simply reporting the news. They believe they have been chosen to make society better and society can be made better if the public would only adopt the enlightened opinions favored by journalists. So news events are reported in the manner that will best promote the media’s concept of what is fair and just. This kind of reporting is not new but journalists used to be a little more judicious when expressing their opinions. They rarely offer balanced reporting today and do not even attempt to deny their lack of objectivity. It would be difficult to pick the most outrageous example of this manipulative journalism but the media’s counterfeit depiction of a pubescent and chaste Trayvon Martin could rank close to the top.

Surely members of the liberal media realized that Trayvon Martin’s past history would eventually emerge. The public now knows that media’s Pollyanna portrayal of Trayvon Martin was fiction designed to mold public opinion. Facts have emerged about his drug use, his three school suspensions, – one for having stolen jewelry and burglary tools; his truancy and his text messages about the acquisition of guns. We have seen photographs of him at his correct age rather than the “young boy” photos that the media foisted upon us. And we know that Trayvon’s incorrigible behavior caused his birth mother to kick him out, telling him to move instead into the house of his father’s latest girlfriend.

We also are informed that the demonstrations for Trayvon are not spontaneous grassroots events. They are being organized by Dream Defenders, which has connections to the SEIU union, ACORN, Occupy, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Dream Defenders plans, funds, and prints the signs for these demonstrations. In an interview, one of its directors stated: “We are actually trying to change the capitalist system we have today, because it’s not working for any of us.” But even though Dream Defenders has carefully orchestrated false demonstrations, they are not attracting the following they expected. We have also learned that the Justice Department used our tax dollars to fund anti-Zimmerman protests. We wait, hopefully not in vain, for Congress to redress this action.

Today’s one sided media reporting brings to mind the reporting of 1960s civil rights activities. There was no let up in news coverage of troubled spots like Birmingham, Little Rock and Selma . In these hot spots a pivotal event was usually identified and the media has religiously revisited it on its anniversary date for the last 50 years. These compulsory annual media ceremonies have created an enduring civil rights mythology, which until fairly recently, has remained unquestioned.

On the other hand, the 1960s media was restrained in its reporting on cities that desegregated peacefully or with minimal disturbances. These cities – Charlotte, Knoxville, Orlando, Atlanta, Huntsville and others too numerous to list, vastly outnumbered cities that experienced protests or demonstrations accompanied with violence. But amicable desegregation was not newsworthy and certainly couldn’t justify the enacting of racial preferences. However, the most significant aspect of the civil rights movement is that hundreds of years of a segregated society were altered within a few decades, and most cities achieved this without serious disruption. Our nation responded to racial problems by radically changing our society but we must not let today’s racial complaints undermine the rule of law.

The segment "Jaywalking" is a popular feature of the Jay Leno show. Mr. Leno asks people on the street incredibly easy questions, many about American history. Although their lack of knowledge is astonishing; for instance, one adult respondent named Benjamin Franklin as our first president, you can’t help but laugh. However, it’s not so funny when you realize that quite a few of these people have formal educations; while others are even teachers and professors. So it seems that outside of the knowledge required to perform their given jobs, many are woefully uninformed. Are these "people on the street" that Leno interviews an anomaly? Or do they represent a microcosm of a larger portion of our society?

My opinion is that they are indeed representative of a sizable segment of the American public; a segment appallingly uninformed regarding American history. In addition to being uninformed, I maintain that many are also misinformed as a result of having been schooled by the new generation of educators, educators influenced by cultural changes since the 1960s. Sadly, impressions made by teachers and college professors linger for some time after students leave college and continue to affect their perceptions of political issues as well as voting preferences.

The mindset of many of today’s professors is revealed by a recent "best and worst" poll. These polls are more than a little subjective, whether they rank movies, cities, countries, or other subjects. This particular poll was based on responses from college professors and it ranked American presidents from the best to the worst. Of course, presidential polls have been around for years but rankings change as political ideologies change and this poll is no exception.

The Siena Research Institute recently asked 238 professors to rank our presidents according to predetermined categories. The Siena poll was released on July 1st and many, including myself, found the selections a little baffling. We were especially baffled by their ranking of Barack Obama as our fifteenth best president, even though he had been in office less than 18 months. Apparently his inclusion is what prompted one observer to use the term "premature" in describing the poll.

("Premature" also describes the Nobel Committee’s choice of Obama for its peace prize after he had been president for only twelve days. Prior to the selection of Obama, only two American presidents had been awarded the prize — Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter. Although their peace-making efforts were not overly successful, and certainly not long lasting, these men did work toward their goals for more than 12 days, providing the Nobel Committee with at least something to base its judgment on.)

Of course, Obama’s inclusion is not the only problem with the Siena presidential poll. Because the selections are heavily influenced by modern-day liberal values, some former presidents didn’t fare as well as they might have. But should presidents in prior generations be judged by political opinions currently in fashion? Shouldn’t more weight be given to the circumstances and attitudes existing during their time in office, especially those who served over a century ago?

I think you can sense the influence contemporary attitudes had on poll results by looking at our nation’s fifteen best presidents as selected by these "scholars":

• Franklin Roosevelt
• Theodore Roosevelt
• Abraham Lincoln
• George Washington
• Thomas Jefferson
• James Madison
• James Monroe
• Woodrow Wilson
• Harry Truman
• Dwight Eisenhower
• John Kennedy
• James Polk
• Bill Clinton
• Andrew Jackson
• Barack Obama

Naturally the poll has been criticized, prompting those on the left to come to its defense. One annoyed blogger stated: "The right-wing media has, of course, already begun deriding the list because it was decided upon by a group of liberal, elitist professors — in other words, scholars who have actually done some research on the subject of presidents." Other scholars, those without liberal credentials, have also done some research on the subject of presidents. And their research would result in quite a different ranking.

As for the reasons the professors made the selections they did, I could find only one brief comment from Dr. Douglas Lonnstrom, Founding Director of the Siena Research Institute. As justification for the selection of Franklin Roosevelt as America’s best president, Professor Lonnstrom claims: "He got America out of a depression and a war."

I am surprised that any serious scholar would claim that Roosevelt ended the depression. Many economists would argue that Roosevelt’s policies actually made economic conditions worse and that the depression would have ended sooner without his meddling. One school of economists maintains that it took the manufacturing build-up for World War Two to end the depression. Another school makes the persuasive argument that the economy didn’t rebound until Roosevelt’s death allowed the cutback of some of the government’s massive interferences with market forces. A gradual recovery then began as entrepreneurs and investors regained confidence in the market place.

Of course, Roosevelt was our Commander in Chief during most of World War Two and when he died on April 12, 1945, an Allied victory was close at hand. (The official date given for the end of the war is September 2nd.) Roosevelt probably did what he thought best for the war effort. But Professor Lonnstrom seems to imply that Roosevelt accomplished things that some of our other presidents might not have been able to accomplish under the same circumstances. This is a questionable assumption.

Although this Siena poll did include Washington, Jefferson and Madison among the top fifteen best presidents, I suspect that their rankings will sink lower in future polls. As our nation continues its move toward the left of the political spectrum, concepts of the Founding Fathers, which are already being neglected, will be even further ignored. Indeed there is a strong feeling among progressives that the process of legally amending the constitution is too cumbersome and time-consuming. Instead they advocate what they call a "living constitution" — a flexible constitution that allows for hassle-free expedited interpretations that bolster whatever political agenda is currently in vogue.

If rankings were based solely on whose administration did the most long-term good or the most long-term harm to our country, I would place Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln near the bottom. But if we move to the bottom of the Siena list and see the five worst presidents as picked by the professors, we will find the usual suspects:

39. George W. Bush

40. Franklin Pierce

41. Warren Harding

42. James Buchanan

43. Andrew Johnson

(The list includes only 43 rankings instead of 44 because Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms.)

It is fashionable nowadays to disparage Andrew Johnson, primarily because of his opposition to the Reconstruction of defeated Southern states after the Civil War. Today’s up-to-date versions of Reconstruction portray it in a positive light that "corrects" the previously held negative versions of that dubious social experiment. As a result of public indoctrination since the 1960s, many Americans no longer question the federal government’s right to alter the internal affairs not only of states but schools, privately owned companies, indeed, any organization. But in Johnson’s time the idea of a federal government that could rework the structure and functioning of an individual state had not yet come to fruition.

Like his deceased predecessor Lincoln, Johnson also took a lenient approach to the readmission of seceded Southern states back into the Union. All he required was that they repeal secession ordinances, take a loyalty oath and abolish slavery. But the Radical Republicans in Congress wanted not only to reconstruct the South but to punish it. Johnson courageously held firm against their pressure. The Radical Republicans became so frustrated that they tried to remove him from office. Luckily they failed.

I suspect that one of the reasons for professors ranking Franklin Pierce’s presidency so low is that he signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This Act allowed newly formed states in the Western territories seeking admission to the Union to decide for themselves whether or not they would allow slavery. Anti-slavery forces wanted the federal government to impose an outright ban on slavery in the territories. But at that time, our country was still a voluntary union of states who could determine their own fate. Franklin Pierce was a firm believer in states’ rights, as were many of his contemporary New Englanders.

The currently sanctioned version of this historic episode claims that the South wanted to expand slavery into the territories, while the North wanted to prohibit it. Consequently this Act created a serious conflict in Kansas that resulted in violent clashes between the two factions, and a vast number of lives were lost. This local conflict escalated into a national conflict that became one of the leading causes of the Civil War.

A more impassive appraisal of events will reveal that Southerners who migrated to the Western territories were, like their Northern counterparts, simply seeking a better livelihood, and choosing to escape the diminishing opportunities in the East. In the so-called Kansas bloodbath, less than 60 lives were lost. Persons who died were killed primarily by border ruffians, including the infamous fanatic John Brown. Those who migrated from North and South to Kansas actually cooperated with one another, coordinated their efforts and in a few years they were able to seek admission to the Union as a free state rather than a slave state.

By signing the Kansas-Nebraska bill, Franklin Pierce made the kind of political and pragmatic decision that many presidents have had to make. Our generation should not find fault with his decision.

I cannot end this commentary without a sympathetic mention of that most maligned of presidents, Warren Harding. His administration is usually described as scandal-ridden but it wasn’t nearly as scandalous as other administrations, especially that of Ulysses S. Grant whom the professors ranked much higher than Harding. I suspect that Harding ranks low in the Siena poll because it favors presidents who imposed radical changes on our society. But coerced governmental changes have always been plagued with problems, especially unintended consequences that are often detrimental. Although Warren Harding did accomplish many things during his administration, he was wise enough to know when laissez-faire was needed: when government should stand aside and let Adam Smith’s "invisible hand" do its work.

Mr. Harding is also criticized for keeping the United States out of the League of Nations. But looking back on the League and its successor, the United Nations, after all these years, Harding’s decision seems well justified

Although I obviously disagree with this presidential poll, I’m not overly concerned about it. It’ll soon be replaced by yet another poll that will revise its rankings. But I am concerned about what the poll’s participating professors might be teaching their students. The presidents with high rankings are obviously the ones the professors admire, those presidents who are noted for expanding the role of the federal government. We can rightly assume that the professors are presenting their students with a version of American history that disparages limited government and promotes an all-powerful central government.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

Gail Jarvis Archives

Since its premier in 1953, Waiting for Godot has become a cult favorite with intellectual elites. The New York Times drama critic gave the New York premier a rave review. Some critics voted it "The most influential play of the 20th century." Other critics as well as many audiences were less than kind in their reaction to the play. I prefer the depiction by British actor Robert Morley: "This is the end of the theater as we have known it."

Beckett’s play and similar works of art are characterized as "Theater of the Absurd." This is an apt description because Waiting for Godot is a play wherein nothing happens in either of its two acts. One reviewer was prompted to describe the work as "a play where nothing happens twice." We are reminded of minimalist composer John Cage’s famous piano composition where the piano is not played and the concert hall remains silent. The soloist closes the keyboard lid to indicate that the first movement has begun. The keyboard lid is briefly opened and closed two more times to indicate the beginnings of the second and third movements. At the completion of the silent composition, the soloist opens the keyboard lid, stands and bows to the audience.

In Beckett’s play, two despondent tramps await the arrival of Godot — a person they have never met but believe has special powers. As they wait they grumble about the futility of their lives and even contemplate suicide. But, because they are unable to take any kind of decisive action, they simply wait for Godot to change their dismal situation. The first act closes when a young child appears to announce that Godot will not come today. The second act is almost identical to the first and the play concludes when the young child again appears to announce that Godot is not coming.

Nathaniel Branden, former associate of the late Ayn Rand, once observed: "The soul of the man whose favorite play is Cyrano de Bergerac is radically different from the soul of the man whose favorite play is Waiting for Godot." An insightful comment. Cyrano is the one of the foremost individualists in literature, self-reliant and unwilling to compromise his ideals. Although desperate to have his play performed, Cyrano will not consent to even minor revisions to the lines he has written. On the other hand, Beckett’s tramps have neither confidence nor resolve. They are powerless victims of circumstance who slavishly wait for the Messiah-like Godot to change their predicament.

Looking at today’s society, you will find few Cyranos but a surplus of Beckett’s tramps. For the past few decades, American leaders, with an assist from the liberal media, have encouraged public dependency on government agencies. Indeed, one major theme of the Obama presidential campaign was that individual effort alone is inadequate for survival in today’s repressive society. Mr. Obama vowed to "change" societal conditions, even bringing about, as one journalist succinctly put it: "the leveling of social inequalities."

Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric was filled with grandiose commitments, the fulfillment of which required abilities the candidate obviously does not possess. But Obama-lackeys in the mainstream media accepted his Olympian promises without question. A peculiar stance for members of the Fourth Estate. Not only were they seduced by Obama’s overblown promises, they also characterized him as having top-notch skills. But, as everyone now knows, the candidate Obama that they praised so glowingly is not the President Obama that now occupies the White House. The Obama in the White House is neither a superstar nor a miracle worker. His first months in office have been characterized by almost daily gaffes, stumbles, and blunders. He is unable to speak without a teleprompter — often he even misreads the teleprompter; his meetings with foreign leaders have essentially fallen flat, and his oafish conduct during his travels has been met with derision. Consequently, the president’s sycophants in the media are still, like Beckett’s tramps, Waiting for Obama.

Sadly, the Obama the MSM is waiting for does not exist. That Obama, a media creation, was pure theater — in this case, Theater of the Absurd. In an attempt to conceal the discrepancy between the two Obamas, the MSM struggles to convince a dubious public that, although it appears that nothing worthwhile is happening in Washington, there are actually great events in the offing. In fact, Obama’s media supporters have described his first 100 days with such silvery superlatives as "stupendous" and "a bravura performance." Such hyperbole might satisfy those who consider words as important as deeds. But the rest of us can find little to cheer about in this administration’s first 100 days.

It is fortuitous that the revival of Beckett’s cryptic play coincides with the beginning of the Obama administration. There is an affinity between the two. The Obama administration is more theater than government. And Obama’s media supporters are like the play’s approving critics; they see what they want to see and write their reviews based on that perception. What concerns us is, that regardless of what the critics will say, an unpopular Broadway play cannot survive without paying audiences. But an unpopular presidential administration gets to perform for four years for a public audience held hostage.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

Gail Jarvis Archives

Although the public may be in the dark about the specifics of the stimulus plan, they are not fooled by House Bill 200: Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2009. Homeowners can easily grasp the unfairness of the government’s arbitrary reduction of the mortgage payment and interest rate for a neighbor living in a home comparable in value to their own. What kind of government would make them continue to pay $1,300 a month with a 5% interest rate while allowing their neighbor to pay only $500 with 3% interest? What kind of precedent does this policy set?

But liberals do not usually worry about the precedent they are setting or the side effects of their proposals. They are only concerned about the short-term benefits of their actions and how well they play with certain voting groups. The mortgage bailouts are indeed popular with certain groups of Americans and they fulfill campaign promises.

During the recent presidential election, when questions were raised concerning what government should or shouldn’t do about mortgage foreclosures, Barack Obama stated that, if elected, he would take steps "to reduce what borrowers owe on their mortgages." Joe Biden echoed Obama’s comments in the vice-presidential debate: "what we should be doing now — and Barack Obama and I support it — we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you’re paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe."

Based on the past behavior of Washington, we can assume that once it acquires the power to reduce mortgage payments and interest rates for certain chosen families having financial problems, it will soon expand its use of this power to other situations. Indeed, the Obama administration is already under pressure from the powerful National Fair Housing Alliance, a consortium of over 200 civil rights agencies, to "change the demographics of neighborhoods."

The position of the National Fair Housing Alliance was stated recently by Lisa Rice, its vice president. After discussing our nation’s failure to achieve Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of a pure egalitarian society, Ms. Rice stated: "As long as we live in racially and ethnically separated communities, we’re never going reach the dream." The Alliance wants the federal government to eliminate "separated communities."

But there has been no outpouring of complaints from minorities demanding that government alter the composition of communities that might not be diverse enough to satisfy elites. There is nothing unfair about the current housing laws that have been in place since 1968. It doesn’t matter if you are white, black, Latino, Korean or Cambodian. If you have the financial wherewithal, you can purchase a home in any neighborhood in the USA. I haven’t read of any homeowners objecting to families of other racial and ethnic groups moving into their neighborhoods as long as the new families could comply with existing financial requirements. (To my knowledge, only convicted sex offenders can be legally excluded from certain neighborhoods. However, if this group organizes and claims victim status, it should be able to force a removal of that restriction.)

If the Obama administration tries to force a change in the demographics of neighborhoods it will use a technique that has been successful in the past. It will claim that owning a home in the neighborhood of your choice is a "right," no different from other rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Consequently, the government will be justified in giving financial assistance to those who cannot afford such a home. The left describes this as a way to "de-concentrate poverty." But the right disparages it as "entitlement Nirvana."

It takes years of working and saving before the average family is able to buy a home. The dream of one day owning a home has always been a strong incentive to frugality. What will happen if Washington bureaucrats begin using government subsidies (i.e. taxpayer funds) to place families in homes they cannot afford simply to change the demographics of neighborhoods? One thing is certain. The American tradition of working hard and saving will be even further diminished.

Already there are sporadic protests against mortgage bailouts by the government. If the Obama administration uses taxpayer funds, either overtly or covertly, to change the demographics of neighborhoods, it might finally provoke widespread acts of civil disobedience by the usually "silent majority." It’s about time this group started making some noise.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

Gail Jarvis Archives

DIGG THIS

In a recent LRC article, Joe Sobran anticipates next yearu2018s Lincoln bicentennial celebration with apprehension. Like many of us, Sobran knows that the eulogizing of Honest Abe will draw heavily on the Lincoln mythology so any flaws that Lincoln might have exhibited will not see the light of day. Public school students will be treated to the standard Lincoln repertoire and politicians will make glowing tributes to the man in which they will imply some sort of mystical connection between themselves and Honest Abe. We can resign ourselves to a year-long, overblown, worshipful adoration of Abraham Lincoln.

Sobran poses this question: "But if Lincoln was so great, we must ask why nobody seems to have realized it while he was still alive?" The answer is that today’s Lincoln story is based on a selective interpretation of events. History is not an exact science like mathematics so interpretations of history often tell us more about the ideology of the historian than the period they write about. And one of the common criticisms of history is that it is compromised by contemporary political and societal trends.

Also, versions of history vary and mutate from one time period to another. This is especially true of historical versions of that locus of the era of Lincoln; the Civil War.

There are indeed countless historical renderings of this famous war. Unlike most historical events, there has never been anything approaching a consensus on the cause of the War. Historians can’t even agree on what to call it. In addition to the familiar name "Civil War," (an incorrect designation), the War has been variously described as the War of Rebellion; War of Secession, War to Save the Union, Mr. Lincoln’s War, Second American Revolution, War for Southern Independence, War of Northern Aggression, War Between the States (my preference), and so forth.

Some of these versions are similar enough to be lumped together into a "school"" of historical causes of the War Between the States. Let’s take a brief look at the four basic schools that historians have identified.

In the years immediately following the War, the "nationalist" school of historians clung to the arguments that had been put forth by the Republican party. President Lincoln claimed that the War was fought to preserve the Union. There was also opposition to allowing slavery to spread into the new western territories. It was felt that, with slave labor, settlers there could produce and sell products more cheaply than farmers in the North. Newly arrived immigrants in the North feared losing their jobs to cheaper slave labor. There was also a small but vocal group of abolitionists voicing moral opposition to slavery. But they had little impact on the populace or the government. "Nationalist" historians accepted the ""saving the Union" argument and the claim that the Union could not have survived if some states had been allowed to secede.

However, during the more industrialized 20th century, a new school of historians emerged and posited a second version of the causes of the War. These historians maintained that saving the Union and slavery were not as important a cause as the basic economic conflict between North and South. One region’s economy was becoming industrialized, while the other was still dependent upon agriculture. Charles Beard argued that Southerners resented the unfair tax burden placed on their region for protective tariffs and subsidies that favored Northern industry. Unable to effect any significant changes to the one-sided governmental policies, this gap, as well as the animosity between the two regions, widened into an irreconcilable conflict.

Similar to the "economic conflict" interpretation was the version developed by a school of historians whose views were profoundly influenced by the tragedy of World War One, with its immense loss of lives. These historians rejected both the "saving the Union and ending slavery" argument as well as the "economic conflict" theory. To them, the War resulted from the inflexibility and ineffectiveness of leaders on both sides, which prevented existing political institutions from functioning. Historian James G. Randall labeled the leaders in the period leading up to the war as "The Blundering Generation." Historians like Randall concluded that the War was a tragic mistake, that should have been and could have been avoided.

The decades preceding and following World War Two included a Marxian push for egalitarianism that wrought a significant change in the thinking of historians. They decided that history should be written in a way that promotes "social justice." So a fourth version of the causes of the war developed; a "neo-national" point of view. According to this interpretation, the War is portrayed as a collision of conflicting social values; a culture of stagnating, repressive traditions (the South) versus a progressive and virtuous culture (the North).

This clash of disparate social values, especially views on how to deal with slavery, culminated in the War. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. maintained that the institution of slavery was so inhuman that the violence of war was necessary to end it. This school of historians claims that the War eliminated slavery in the South, dethroned an aristocracy; uplifted the less privileged and opened the door for the creation of a classless society for all races and groups.

This is the version that is currently in vogue; favored by many contemporary historians, PBS, the History Channel and other media "experts." This version will be frequently cited during next year’s Lincoln Bicentennial celebration.

But, as a result of this version, we now have history textbooks for students that justifies the War as an appropriate method for the North to impose its moral beliefs upon the South. And such a viewpoint lends credence to our government’s use of our armed forces to impose its concept of "democracy" upon other nations. As many scholars are now questioning our government’s military involvement in the affairs of foreign countries, they may also feel prompted to fashion a new historical interpretation of the War Between the States, one that doesn’t portray war as necessary or beneficial.

While establishment historians appreciate how this current version benefited the Civil Rights movement, they know that we are now beset with a new set of problems. Histories of America that dwell on slavery are no longer necessary to mollify those who worry about excessive Civil Rights legislation. In fact, scholars are beginning to admit that some Civil Rights initiatives have been so zealously implemented that they have caused detrimental side effects to society at large. Many states are trying to eliminate ill-advised race-based endeavors and the Supreme Court has begun to overturn some of them. Consequently, historians may feel that a revised perspective of the War Between the States may now be permissible.

But there will be reluctance to abandon the current version because, as contemporary historian Edward L. Ayres explains: "It is not merely that all the evidence is in and accounted for, that historians have finally found the one true interpretation. It may be, rather, that we like the current story too much to challenge it very deeply and that we foreclose questions by repeating familiar formulas. No one could ask for a richer subject, a better plot line of conflict and resolution, struggle and triumph, good and evil."

But a history of the War Between the States shouldn’t read like a medieval morality play.

It should try to be more objective and present a more balanced view; hopefully one that does not put the onus of slavery solely upon the South, but takes the North’s complicity in the institution into account.

The majority of the old well-to-do families in the North, especially in New England, acquired their wealth directly or indirectly from the slave trade. Northern textile mills were dependent on Southern grown cotton. Northern shipping lines transported Southern grown cotton to other countries. Northern banks and investors financed Southern planters. Northern insurance companies insured their slaves. In fact, it was estimated that by 1850, Southern planters owed Northern commercial organizations about $300 million dollars — an enormous sum for that time. Southern planters resented the enormous commissions and interest they were forced to pay Northern middlemen, bankers, agents, and shippers.

Historians who truly wish to create a new version of the War will have to deflate some deep-seated and highly popular folklore. Much of the Lincoln mythology will have to be excised. And a new version of the War Between the States should make it clear that, like all wars, it was not fought for moral reasons but for revenue, power, and politics. Certainly, a new version should indicate that the differences between North and South could have been resolved without war. As one scholar recently stated:

"With the passing of time, all wars seem pointless. The America Civil War certainly looks that way at this time in history."

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

Gail Jarvis Archives

DIGG THIS

In a recent LRC article, Joe Sobran anticipates next yearu2018s Lincoln bicentennial celebration with apprehension. Like many of us, Sobran knows that the eulogizing of Honest Abe will draw heavily on the Lincoln mythology so any flaws that Lincoln might have exhibited will not see the light of day. Public school students will be treated to the standard Lincoln repertoire and politicians will make glowing tributes to Honest Abe in which they will imply some sort of mystical connection between themselves and Lincoln. We can resign ourselves to a year-long ,overblown, worshipful adoration of Abraham Lincoln.

Sobran poses this question: "But if Lincoln was so great, we must ask why nobody seems to have realized it while he was still alive?" Sobran’s question reminds us that history is not an exact science like mathematics. Interpretations of history often tell us more about the ideology of the historian than the period they write about. And one of the common criticisms of history is that it is compromised by contemporary political and societal trends. Versions of history vary and mutate from one time period to another. This is especially true of historical versions of that locus of the era of Lincoln; the Civil War..

There are indeed countless historical renderings of this famous war. Unlike most historical events, there has never been anything approaching a consensus on the cause of the War. Historians can’t even agree on what to call it. In addition to the familiar name "Civil War", (an incorrect designation), the War has been variously described as the War of Rebellion; War of Secession, War to Save the Union, Mr. Lincoln’s War, Second American Revolution, War for Southern Independence, War of Northern Aggression, War Between the States (my preference), and so forth.

Some of these versions are similar enough to be lumped together into a "school" of historical causes of the War Between the States. Let’s take a brief look at the four basic schools that historians have identified.

In the years immediately following the War, the "nationalist" school of historians clung to the arguments that had been put forth by the Republican party. President Lincoln claimed that the War was fought to preserve the Union. There was also opposition to allowing slavery to spread into the new western territories. It was felt that, with slave labor, settlers there could produce and sell products more cheaply than farmers in the North. Newly arrived immigrants in the North feared losing their jobs to cheaper slave labor. There was also a small but vocal group of abolitionist voicing moral opposition to slavery. But they had little impact on the populace or the government. "Nationalist" historians accepted the "saving the Union" argument and the claim that the Union could not have survived if some states had been allowed to secede. Consequently, they felt that saving the Union justified the sacrifices of the War.

However, during the more industrialized 20th century, a new school of historians emerged and posited a second version of the causes of the War. These historians maintained that saving the Union and slavery were not as important a cause as the basic economic conflict between North and South. One region’s economy was becoming industrialized, while the other was still dependent upon agriculture. Charles Beard argued that Southerners resented the unfair tax burden placed on their region for protective tariffs and subsidies that favored Northern industry. Unable to effect any significant changes to the one-sided governmental policies, this gap, as well as the animosity between the two regions, widened into an irreconcilable conflict.

Similar to the "economic conflict" interpretation was the version developed by a school of historians whose views were profoundly influenced by the tragedy of World War One, with its immense loss of lives. These historians rejected both the "saving the Union and ending slavery" argument as well as the "economic conflict" theory. To them, the War resulted from the inflexibility and ineffectiveness of leaders on both sides, which prevented existing political institutions from functioning. Historian James G. Randall labeled the leaders in the period leading up to the war as "The Blundering Generation." Historians like Randall concluded that the War was a tragic mistake, that should have been and could have been avoided.

The decades preceding and following World War Two, that championed a Marxian thrust for egalitarianism, wrought a significant change in the thinking of historians. What has been called a "neo-national" point of view developed, and produced a fourth evaluation of the cause of the War. According to this interpretation, the War is portrayed as a collision of conflicting social values; a culture of stagnating, repressive traditions (the South) versus a progressive and virtuous culture (the North). This clash of disparate social values, especially views on how to deal with slavery, culminated in the War. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. maintained that the institution of slavery was so inhuman that the violence of war was necessary to end it. This school of historians claims that the War eliminated slavery in the South, dethroned an aristocracy; uplifted the less privileged and opened the door for the creation of a classless society for all races and groups. This version assumes a moral tone because its supporters decided that history should be written in a way that promotes "social justice." These "history as therapy" scholars view the War as both inevitable and beneficial.

This is the version that is currently in vogue; favored by many contemporary historians, PBS, the History Channel and other media "experts." As a result, we now have history textbooks for students that justifies War as appropriate method for the North to impose its moral beliefs upon the South. But such a viewpoint lends credence to our government’s use of our armed forces to impose its concept of "democracy" upon other nations. As many scholars are now questioning our government’s military involvement in the affairs of foreign countries, they may also feel prompted to fashion a new historical interpretation of the War Between the States, one that doesn’t portray war as beneficial.

While establishment historians appreciate how this current version benefited the Civil Rights movement, they know that we are now beset with a new set of problems. Histories of America that dwell on slavery are no longer necessary to mollify those who worry about excessive Civil Rights legislation. In fact, scholars are beginning to admit that some Civil Rights initiatives have been so zealously implemented that they have caused detrimental side effects to society at large. Many states are trying to eliminate ill-advised race-based endeavors and the Supreme Court has begun to overturn some of them. Consequently, historians may feel free to re-evaluate today’s version of the War. A revised perspective may now be permissible.

But there will be reluctance to abandon the current version, because as one current historian explains: " It is not merely that all the evidence is in and accounted for, that historians have finally found the one true interpretation. It may be, rather, that we like the current story too much to challenge it very deeply and that we foreclose questions by repeating familiar formulas. No one could ask for a richer subject, a better plot line of conflict and resolution, struggle and triumph, good and evil." To me, this is the main problem with the current version. It reads like a medieval morality play.

How will a new version of the War read? We don’t know but we hope it will present a more balanced view, one that does not put the onus of slavery solely upon the South, but takes the North’s complicity in the institution into account . The majority of the old well-to-families in the North, especially in New England, acquired their wealth directly or indirectly from the slave trade. Northern textile mills were dependent on Southern grown cotton. Northern shipping lines transported Southern grown cotton to other countries. Northern banks and investors financed Southern planters. Northern insurance companies insured their slaves. In fact, it was estimated that by 1850, Southern planters owed Northern commercial organizations about $300 million dollars, – an enormous sum for that time. Southern planters resented the enormous commissions and interest they were forced to pay Northern middlemen, bankers, agents, and shippers.

A more balanced view of the period surrounding the War should also include an account of the endemic utilization and abuse of child labor in Northern mills and factories. In the early 1800s, the labor force in Northern cotton mills consisted primarily of children; 47 per cent in Massachusetts, 55 per cent in Rhode Island, and 55 per cent in Connecticut. Children, some under ten years of age, were worked from "dark to dark." – Thirteen or more hours per day. Those who couldn’t keep up the pace were whipped. – Many establishments featured special "whipping rooms" where punishment was inflicted. Inhumane conditions in Northern mills physically and emotionally stunted those children that did not die from exhaustion and exposure.

Historians who truly wish to create a new version of the War will have to deflate some deep-seated and highly popular folklore. Much of the Lincoln mythology will have to be excised. And another high priest of the era, fanatical abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, may have to be unfrocked. Garrison was so enraged over the South’s use of slaves that he publicly burned a copy of the Constitution because it did not forbid slavery. But Garrison showed no concern whatsoever for the appalling treatment of young children in factories in his own state of Massachusetts. Garrison’s moral blindness was also in evidence when he tried to rationalize the disgraceful conditions of blacks in the North by saying: "The toleration of slavery in the South is the chief cause of the unfortunate situation of free colored persons in the North."

A new version of the War Between the States should make it clear that, like all wars, it was not fought for moral reasons but for revenue, power, and politics. Certainly, a new version should indicate that the differences between North and South could have been resolved without war. As one scholar recently stated: "With the passing of time, all wars seem pointless. The America Civil War certainly looks that way at this time in history."

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

Gail Jarvis Archives

DIGG THIS

Dr. Ron Paul’s contention that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) should be eliminated has raised eyebrows. The networks’ talking heads along with many average citizens simply cannot conceive of how children can be educated without the assistance of the U.S. Department of Education. The idea that we could survive without ED is dismissed as ludicrous.

Many of the same objections made against Dr. Paul’s criticisms of ED have been made against homeschooling. The National Education Association (NEA) has vociferously criticized home schooling. Indeed, one member of NEA angrily referred to home schooling as "child abuse." But most parents who choose to home school do so based on what they have learned about public schools; primarily from their own children. Their conclusion is that public schools indoctrinate rather than educate.

Indoctrination and behavior modification in public schools are the result of the policies of the Department of Education and the influence of the National Education Association. Many in academia approve of these policies and vigorously defend public education. They maintain that indoctrination is not taking place in public schools. Instead, they claim that today’s educators are simply viewing history and other subjects from a new and enlightened perspective.

Is it "indoctrination" or an "enlightened perspective" that is attempting to shape the opinions of today’s youth? Your answer may depend on your political persuasion. But you can decide for yourself by reviewing the results of a recent study conducted on high school students: 2000 juniors and seniors from all 50 states. The study was reported in the February 5th edition of USA Today and the results of the study are scheduled to appear in the March issue of The Journal of American History.

Students were instructed to list the most famous Americans in history — from the time of Columbus up to the current year. The only restriction placed on them was that presidents and first ladies could not be named. From the time of Columbus (1492) to the year 2008 covers a wide range of persons to choose from. During those centuries, there were countless exceptional Americans.

Below is the published summary of the students’ lists of the "top 10" most famous Americans in history, ranked in order on their importance, with the percentage of students who chose each person:

1. Martin Luther King, Jr.: 67%
2. Rosa Parks: 60%
3. Harriet Taubman: 44%
4. Susan B. Anthony: 34%
5. Benjamin Franklin: 29%
6. Amelia Earhart: 25%
7. Oprah Winfrey: 22%
8. Marilyn Monroe: 19%
9. Thomas Edison: 18%
10. Albert Einstein: 16%

I was a bowled over when I first saw this list but I shouldn’t have been surprised. It is another illustration of the ongoing revisionist accounts of history. It is significant to note how pop-culture influenced this list. Based on the students’ choices, it appears that public schools not only indoctrinate students but also dumb-down the learning material presented in classes.

But many of us, along with Dr. Paul and homeschoolers, profoundly object to this manipulation of our youth. This is another illustration that when the central government has a monopoly on public education, fair and balanced presentations of history suffer. What results are listless programmed minds of malleable young students conditioned to accommodate the state’s goals.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

DIGG THIS

Ron Paul’s growing popularity is extremely annoying to those on the left. And sometimes their annoyance gets out-of-control, as evidenced by the reaction from Brad Warthen, editorial page editor of The State, Columbia, South Carolina. What set Warthen off was this comment about Ron Paul and libertarianism in the Washington Post: "More than at any other time over the past two decades, Americans are hungering for the politics and freewheeling fun of libertarianism."

It was primarily the reference to "freewheeling fun of libertarianism" that prompted this outburst from Warthen: "I look at it (libertarianism) and see a gray, dull, monotonous, seething, dispiriting resentment. Gripe, bitch, moan, especially about taxes — that’s libertarianism to me. If I were looking to be an ideologically rigid, antisocial grouch who constantly told the rest of the world to go (expletive) itself, I’d be a libertarian."

Compare Warthen’s tirade against Ron Paul and libertarianism with his glowing tribute to Barack Obama, a Democrat of the liberal persuasion. Warthen is discussing Obama’s effect on his followers, especially young people. "But there’s something about Obama that makes the youthfulness of his supporters seem more apt, something that reminds me of my own youth. He reaches across time, across cynicism, across the sordidness of Politics as Practiced, offering to pull them in to the place where they can make a difference."

Before the advent of the Internet, the public had nowhere to go to find rebuttals to such subjective statements. Newspaper journalists had more power then. Even now, Warthen, as editorial page editor, can decide which columnists are allowed to air their opinions in his paper. And letters to the editor containing opinions he does not approve of will never be printed. As print media is gradually replaced with electronic media, editorial page editors will lose some of their disproportionate clout.

If Brad Warthen’s praise of Obama sounds a little naïve, remember that Warthen, like many of today’s journalists, was born somewhere the mid-1950′s to the late-1960′s. During the heyday of ABC, CBS and NBC, these journalists were kids in PJs eating cereal in front of the TV. This is how they learned about America and where they formulated their narrow views about the first half of the 20th century. Network television reporting informed them what was right and what was wrong and defined what the government’s role in appeasing the demands of fringe groups and "improving society" should be. Those seminal years spawned their political idée fixe; their youthful political obsessions that remain unchanged to this day.

Although Warthen and his ilk have not changed over the years, other than exchange their love beads for power suits, America has changed radically. It has new problems now that require new solutions. And I don’t think it is an exaggeration to state that time may be running out. So a good many people are placing their faith in Ron Paul, believing he may have the answers.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

DIGG THIS

A story I have been following concerns the NCAA’s ban on post-season collegiate basketball competitions in South Carolina. A basketball restriction was implemented in response to demands from the Black Coaches Association who maintained that South Carolina should be denied the revenue generated from post-season athletic events until it removes the replica of the Confederate Flag displayed on statehouse grounds. (I discuss the background of the NCAA’s financial punishment of South Carolina in a previous article, "NCAA PC.")

Last week, the NCAA’s Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee rejected a request to expand its ban to include other events, such as baseball, that were excluded from the original ban because they are not pre-determined but decided on merit. I am not sure why the NCAA denied this request but it might be related to concern over potential lawsuits. Southern heritage groups were exploring legal actions against the NCAA because the ban may violate interstate commerce laws and possibly constitutional equal protection rights. Also, it may be an illegal secondary boycott because colleges have no control over where the flag flies.

Even though the NCAA refused to ban other athletic events, it did not remove its initial ban. So I would like to see vigorous lawsuits challenging the legitimacy of the initial ban, assuming of course, that the courts would not allow political correctness to dominate their rulings to the extent that it dominates the news mediau2018s views.

The demand for the expansion of the NCAA ban came from the NAACP, the Black Coaches Association and the National Urban League. To set the stage for further comments on this strange phenomenon, I offer a brief quote from the National Urban League’s mission statement for young professionals: The "…mission is to engage young professionals in the NUL’s movement towards the achievement of social and economic equality. Members of the NUL are defining, developing, implementing, and leading the next generation civil rights agenda." That is the key phrase: "the next generation civil rights agenda." As we have learned from past experience, the "next generation" will create a new set of goals and new demands.

A few decades ago the revision of laws and customs that stood in the way of equality of opportunity for minorities was the goal of the civil rights movement. Most people supported these changes because it was the right thing to do. But these changes were only the first goal of the movement, or, to use the NUL terminology: the first generation civil rights agenda. The goals of the movement have now expanded far beyond equal opportunity.

As the NCAA’s Confederate flag ban indicates, one of the movement’s current "goals" is the public elimination of anything that someone might perceive as "insensitive" even if the connotation is symbolic. However, because individual perception determines what constitutes an insensitive symbol, this could prove to be a Herculean task. And, certainly, it will be a task fraught with controversy because removing symbols will involve depriving one group in order to placate another.

In all the reports by white mainstream journalists of the NCAA’s ban that I have read there is no mention of compromise. Journalists admit that although the Confederate Flag might be perceived as being insensitive to a member of a minority group, it might also be considered part of a Southerner’s heritage. Even after this admission, the only solution the media offers is the removal of the flag — I haven’t read a single article suggesting that minority complainants should reconsider their demands. Such one-sided reports reveal more about the mindset of the white journalists than the issue itself.

On the other hand, opinions on the Confederate flag by black journalists and blacks in the blogosphere are not so narrow-minded. In fact, many fault minority groups for what they consider unwarranted attacks on the flag. A couple of examples:

From Thomas Sowell: "If the current campaign to get the Confederate flag off the state capitol in South Carolina were just an isolated controversy, it might not mean much. But it is part of a much bigger trend of constantly scavenging for grievances. Only children insist that everything must be done their way."

Mychal Massie: "Waging a boycott over a state’s right and the rights of its citizens to fly a flag that many blacks themselves died to support is to show forth the arrogance of ignorance that presupposes to know what is best for others — regardless of what the individuals deem best for themselves."

Elizabeth Wright (from her website Issues & Views): "Preventing the display of the Confederate flag and other southern memorabilia has nothing to do with lessening "anguish" among blacks, but has everything to do with asserting power. For those blacks who feel that the tables are now turned in the South, the power to flex political muscle is irresistible."

In South Carolina, there is no unanimity among blacks regarding the NAACP’s Confederate flag boycott. On the recent Martin Luther King Day celebration in Columbia, a local NAACP speaker used the occasion to demand the removal of the flag. But another MLK Day participant, Kevin Gray, head of the Harriet Taubman Freedom House, took exception to the speakeru2018s comments noting: "There are other issues that need to be raised on this day." Mr. Gray mentioned needs of working blacks, Katrina damage and South Carolina blacks deployed to the Middle East. Real issues versus symbolic ones define the split among South Carolina’s black citizens.

Evidence that opposition to the flag is not overwhelming among blacks in South Carolina can also be demonstrated by a look at the meeting of the state’s NAACP chapter that took place shortly after the South Carolina flag boycott began. Attendees were almost evenly split on whether to support the boycott, and there were strong objections voiced against it. In fact, a candidate for the presidency of the state organization who wanted to end the boycott came within 16 votes of unseating the incumbent who supported the boycott. I believe that this same disparity of support for the flag boycott is reflected in the state’s black community.

No one knows exactly how many black citizens are bothered enough by the Confederate flag to want it banned. It could be 70%, or 50%, or less than 25%. But mainstream journalists have no qualms about conveying the impression that the flag is a divisive issue not only to the majority of blacks but to the nation as a whole. And many journalists simply ape the party line hoping that they will be perceived as courageous for doing so.

One example of this journalistic pretentiousness is a January 19th editorial from The Daily News, published in Dowagiac, Michigan. The editorial insisted that the NCAA expand its South Carolina ban to include all other collegiate tournaments and contained these comments: " It is time for the National Collegiate Athletic Association to step up to the plate and balance the playing field. We support the Indianapolis-based Black Coaches Association in their drive to have the NCAA take another look at the issue. They (the NCAA) need take a firm stance and deliver a message that will be heard loud and clear. Athletics is supposed to be about fair play." And the editorial continues in this self-righteous vein.

I cannot imagine a newspaper from a small town in South Carolina demanding that an out-of-state organization impose a financial boycott to coerce the State of Michigan to change its policies to conform with what the South Carolina editor thinks is best for Michigan.

What would happen if a substantial portion of the mainstream media began "thinking outside of the box"; if they would start considering all segments of society rather than just certain interest groups? In this particular case, it might lead them to request the NCAA to discontinue its boycott of South Carolina. We know that except for the usual media outlets and a few politicians, the NCAA boycott has generated little national support, and the fact that the South Carolina legislature previously relocated the flag from the Capitol dome to make it less conspicuous doesn’t help the NCAA’s case. With a little nudge from an intelligent media, the NCAA might decide that trying to improve the unacceptable graduation rates of college athletes is more important than trying to remove a small flag from the grounds surrounding the South Carolina capitol.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

DIGG THIS

The 200th anniversary of the birth of Robert E. Lee occurs on January 19th, and this year the number and variety of Lee celebrations may set a new record. In Britain, the American Civil War Round Table will hold a series of lectures honoring General Lee during the month of January. In America, commemorative events are planned throughout the year.

Lee celebrations have proliferated in recent years despite demands for the removal of Lee memorabilia by local chapters of the NAACP and other militant groups. The self-serving rhetoric of these groups has provoked others to commit acts of vandalism resulting in the smashing of Lee statuary and the firebombing of murals containing depictions of the General.

Lee admirers are sorely disappointed by the capitulations of elected officials to demands by these belligerent activists. Rather than making an effort to defend Lee memorabilia or allowing the public to decide its fate, many elected officials have simply caved in to removal demands, often covertly eliminating Lee tributes to avoid public recriminations — such was the case when then Texas Governor, George W. Bush conspired with his crony, Texas Supreme Court Justice, Albert Gonzales, to have a Robert E. Lee plaque furtively removed from the Texas Supreme Court building on a weekend when the Court was not in session.

Regrettably, Bush’s deceitful act is typical of many of our politicians. They are ruled by political expediency, and will not do anything that has not been scrutinized by spin doctors who evaluate how interest groups might react; how media will respond, or what the potential impact on political careers might be. So what we get is a committee-sanctioned maneuver designed to conceal the politician’s true actions or to allow him to give the appearance of having taken a stand without actually doing so.

Our leaders were not always so weak-willed in prior generations. And, I maintain, they had a better grasp of history than today’s crop of obsequious political hacks. As an illustration, I offer a letter from President Eisenhower written in response to a critic. The complainant’s letter, dated August 1, 1960, takes issue with President Eisenhower’s expressed admiration for Robert E. Lee and reads as follows:

Dear Mr. President:

"At the Republican Convention I heard you mention that you have the pictures of four (4) great Americans in your office, and that included in these is a picture of Robert E. Lee.

I do not understand how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me.

The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did was to devote his best efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of being hailed as one of our heroes.

Will you please tell me just why you hold him in such high esteem?"

Sincerely yours,

Leon W. Scott, DDS
New Rochelle, NY

To his credit, President Eisenhower did not embarrass his correspondent by correcting his extraordinary misreading of American history but simply explained why he held Robert E. Lee in such high regard.

August 9, 1960

Dear Dr. Scott:

Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War Between the States the issue of Secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his belief in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.

Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower

When we compare Eisenhower’s actions with the behavior of our current politicians, we can only feel a sense of loss. Today’s elected officials have been so intimidated by the politically correct pestilence that has infected our nation that they would never casually express an opinion on any subject for fear that it might offend someone, somewhere. But President Eisenhower belonged to another generation, and his respectful response to his obtuse critic is what we would have expected from a man who had Robert E. Lee as a role-model. Certainly, it would be hard to find a better role-model than Robert E. Lee, a noble Christian gentleman who continues to inspire Americans almost 140 years after his death.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

DIGG THIS

If you are searching for out-of-the-ordinary Christmas gifts, I will recommend a half-dozen. Of course, you should understand that I am an old-fashioned person and that affects my choices. The following films, all black and white, were made during the 1930s and 1940s, prior to the period when Hollywood began subjecting us to movies addressing social issues.

You may not be familiar with some of these films and you are not likely to find them on listings of the 100 best movies. In fact, I will admit that they could be called escapist fare, perhaps a little too contrived in some cases. But for those times when you simply want to relax and be entertained, and also “remember how things used to be," these films should satisfy you.

I have only picked films that can still be purchased in case you decide you want to acquire one. And there is no reason why you can’t give one to yourself for Christmas. After all, it is the season for giving. And these films would be great fun to watch during the holidays.

So below, in no particular order, are my recommendations.

Mask of Dimitrios (1944)

A classic film noir. This story of espionage and intrigue set in Europe in the 1930s, is one of the first films featuring the Austin actor, Zachary Scott, who gives an outstanding performance as Dimitrios Makropolis, a charming but ruthless international spy who would turn against anyone for financial gain. (The screen play is based on the Eric Ambler novel A Coffin for Dimitrios.) A Dutch mystery writer, Cornelius Leyden (Peter Lorre, in an atypical performance) becomes intrigued with stories about the exploits of Dimitrios whom he believes to be dead. As Leyden travels throughout Europe to learn more about the life of Dimitrios, he is followed by a Mr. Peters (Sydney Greenstreet). Finally, Peters approaches Leyden, convinces him that Dimitrios is alive and suggests a plan to blackmail the elusive spy. Peters convinces Leyden that Dimitrios will pay a million French francs to maintain his anonymity. The film moves through locations such as Sophia, Istanbul, Geneva, Belgrade, Paris and Athens. Also in the cast are Faye Emerson, Victor Francen and Steven Geray.

Strange Cargo (1940)

The theme of this film is often described as “religious” but I think a more accurate description would be “religious mysticism”; not a subject that normally interests Hollywood. But screen writers were able to concoct a suspenseful story to keep the film moving. (Based on the novel Not Too Narrow…Not Too Deep by Richard Sale.) The plot turns on a group of hardened convicts determined to escape from the supposedly escape-proof French Guiana penal colony, Devil’s Island. Verne (Clark Gable) passes the time by reading the Bible; not for spiritual inspiration, but to find inconsistencies and contradictions to help justify his cynicism about life. Verne also shows an interest in Julie (Joan Crawford), a singer with a shady past who is performing at a nightclub across from the prison compound. (Crawford turns in a non-typical performance, avoiding her usual Hollywoodisms.) The catalyst in the film is a man named Cambreau (Ian Hunter) who mysteriously appears at the prison one day. Movie reviewers usually describe Cambreau as “Christ-like” and his insightful comments and scriptural quotations do have a profound effect on all he comes into contact with. Other cast members include Paul Lukas, Albert Dekker and Peter Lorre.

(Trivia: When this film was released, the Legion of Decency condemned it for “irreverent use of scripture” but such a condemnation is hard to understand today.)

Young and Innocent (1937)

This early and underrated Hitchcock film follows Hitchcock’s usual plot line. A young man, Robert (Derrick De Marney), is accused of a murder he didn’t commit and must prove his innocence as he flees authorities. Naturally he is aided by a beautiful girl, Erica (Nova Pilbeam), who happens to be the Chief Constable’s daughter. The film is based on a story by the great mystery writer, Josephine Tey. (Many of you will recall her book The Daughter of Time which examines the crimes charged against Richard III and finds him innocent.) All the signature Hitchcock touches are included in this little 80-minute film; suspense, humor and romance. Not too far into the film you will see Hitchcock himself wearing a cloth cap and holding a camera like a tourist. You will also see England before World War II; a simpler time with country roads, staid English families and automobiles that must be started with hand cranks. Nova Pilbeam, who had appeared on the stage as a child, would become one of Britain’s finest film actresses. The cast also includes the famous character actor, Edward Rigby as Old Will.

(Trivia: In the final scene, members of a hotel orchestra are in minstrel-style black face, a depiction that current film directors would certainly avoid.)

Son of Fury (1942)

A swashbuckling costume drama and exciting old-fashioned adventure tale set in England during the reign of George III, based on Edison Marshall’s novel Benjamin Blake. Benjamin is the orphaned nephew of Sir Arthur Blake (played by the ubiquitous George Sanders), wealthy master of the Brethen estate. However, if “Ben” could prove the legitimacy of his birth, he would be the lawful heir to Brethen, a fact that Sir Arthur recognizes only too well. So Sir Arthur makes Ben a lowly stable boy at Brethen in order to keep an eye on him. When he grows to manhood, Ben (Tyrone Power, at his dashing and romantic best) makes the mistake of becoming romantically involved with Sir Arthur’s beautiful daughter, Isabel (the lovely Frances Farmer). Sir Arthur’s wrath is incurred and after Ben makes an illegal threat against Sir Arthur, he is forced to flee the country. Ben eventually seeks refuge on a remote Polynesian island where he settles into a tranquil life with an exotic native girl he calls Eve (Gene Tierney). Still, after amassing a wealth of pearls, Ben determines to surreptitiously return to England and pursue his claim as the legal heir to Brethen. The cast also includes, John Carradine, Roddy McDowall, Elsa Lanchester and Harry Davenport.

(Trivia: Some time after this film was made, Frances Farmer was tragically committed to a mental institution against her will and, in time, subjected to invasive psychosurgeries that have since been discredited. Questions still persist as to the appropriateness and legality of her commitment.)

A Free Soul (1931)

This film is loosely based on Adela Rogers St. Johns life with her notorious alcoholic father, Earl Rogers, a prominent San Francisco attorney. In this version, the alcoholic attorney, Stephen Ashe (Lionel Barrymore) has allowed his daughter, Jan (Norma Shearer) to flout convention and pursue a controversial lifestyle. When Ashe defends Ace Wilfong (Clark Gable), a local gangster charged with murder, Jan, ever the non-conformist, gets involved with Wilfong, abandoning her, almost too noble, fiancée, Dwight Winthrop (Leslie Howard). When the gangster tells Ashe that he wants to marry his daughter, Ashe’s liberalism comes crashing down. His daughter’s ultramodern lifestyle could be tolerated but marriage to a hoodlum is too much. Ashe finally convinces Jan to break off with Wilfong but the passionate Wilfong refuses to take no for an answer. Ultimately a tragedy occurs. Lionel Barrymore won an Academy Award for his performance in this film.

Trivia: To get Wilfong acquitted of the murder charge, Ashe contrives to have the strongest piece of evidence, Wilfong’s hat — he lost his hat while fleeing the murder scene — replaced with an identical but smaller hat. In the courtroom, Ashe has Wilfong don the smaller hat which looks so ridiculous on his head that the jury is unable to control their laughter. A vote for acquittal is assured. (If the hat doesn’t fit, you must acquit. Hmmmm. Sounds familiar.)

White Cargo (1942)

Some people refuse to take this film seriously and regard it simply as a “campy curio.” But whatever your reaction, you will probably enjoy watching it. Based on the novel; Hell’s Playground by Ida Vera Simonton, the action takes place on a British rubber plantation in Africa in 1910. Plantation manager, Harry Witzel (Walter Pidgeon), is fed up with the naïve, incompetent assistants being sent to him from Britain, the latest being a Mr. Langford (Richard Carlson). As if the heat and insects didn’t cause enough problems, Witzel’s workers also fall victim to the sultry and sexy half-breed, Tondelayo (Hedy Lamarr). Viewers of the film always remember the scene when Tondelayo makes her appearance, slinking provocatively into Langford’s bungalow one night uttering the famous line: “I am Tondelayo.” Langford incurs Witzel’s wrath by becoming involved with the predatory and acquisitive Tondelayo; she is only interested in beads, bangles and silks. In time, Witzel’s anger grows and his vocal attacks push Langford into a foolish action; he marries Tondelayo. At first excited by the prospect of being married to a white plantation overseer, Tondelayo soon tires of the tedium of marriage only to learn that marriages should last “till death us do part.” Her solution to get out of the marriage involves a rare form of poison known to the local shaman. But even the best-laid plans often go astray. The cast also includes Frank Morgan and Reginald Owen.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

DIGG THIS

In a recent LRC article, Gary North explores a common mind-set of our contemporary society, "Something for Nothing." North explains that those who want to get something for nothing often resort to "wheedling." Indeed, wheedling and whining are two of the more widespread behaviors today; widespread, because unfortunately, they seem to work. And they are even more successful if the wheedling and whining is done by a group rather than an individual. Hence the phenomenal increase in "victim groups."

A recent study by an independent think tank in Great Britain indicates that 73% of that nation’s population belong to a victim group. According to the study, victimhood has drastically increased because of the advantages it confers on the self-proclaimed victims; advantages such as financial compensation from the state; preferential treatment in the workplace, and the use of state powers (including the justice system and police) to silence unwelcome critics.

In the United States, politicians have capitulated to wheedling and whining by victim groups by enacting an overabundance of legislation authorizing questionable state powers to not only extend preferences to victim groups but also to modify the speech and behavior of society at large. Members of American society may no longer speak or behave in ways that victim groups define as unacceptable. Although laws pandering to victim groups have become more comprehensive, coercive and legally suspect, our politicians as well as members of the mainstream media continue to support them. They want us to believe that our personal freedoms have not been in any way affected by the restrictions imposed by these laws and that workplace preferences for so-called victims have not hindered the career advancement or earnings potential of others.

Government policies and legislation favorable to victimhood are encouraging a proliferation of new victim groups. This trend is also aided by media. News programs on National Public Radio often feature a human-interest segment about the plight of a downtrodden member of society who suffers because a government agency is unable to supply the help needed. Although we have compassion for these people, we would like for NPR to occasionally air a report about someone who overcame poverty and adversity as a result of their own efforts, diligence and hard work. In an earlier time in our history, stories by Horatio Alger, Jr. and others portrayed such events and were very popular with the public, even motivating scores to emulate the heroes of such stories.

But, today, more and more people are choosing to be a victim rather than a victor. Currently, in addition to the long-standing victim groups, we are witnessing the potential emergence of newer ones. Some that I have read about are Indigenous Peoples; Migrant Workers, Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgender persons, Wiccans and Satanists, and Obese Persons (their advocacy organization is NAAFA — National Association for the Advancement of Fat Acceptance!)

One of the newest and possibly strangest groups seeking victim status calls itself "Body Modification." It is composed of persons with tattoos and/or body piercings. Members of this fast-growing group usually have more than just a small tattoo on the forearm or ankle. Substantial portions of their bodies are covered with tattoos. They claim they are being discriminated against by workplace rules governing appearance and grooming. For example, a bank might have a policy forbidding excessive facial tattoos for its tellers and loan officers. Or a restaurant might demand that its waiters and waitresses remove their body piercings before serving food to customers.

Body Modification is proposing that the numerous Civil Rights laws be amended to include sanctions against organizations with policies restricting tattoos and body piercings. The Body Modification activists are rapidly gaining acceptance and may soon become a government sanctioned victim group subject to the all the preferences received by established victim groups. Body Modification even has its own website "BMEZINE.COM."

After government succumbs to the original demands of a victim group, it expands its demands until they eventually become unreasonable and begin to create unanticipated problems. In one case, the establishment capitulated to so many unreasonable demands by one victim group that a backlash victim group appears to be emerging. Feminists were able to convince schools and colleges that there was a serious gender crisis in education: young girls were being discriminated against and denied educational opportunities because of favoritism shown to boys. As we would expect, educators, diversity consultants, and pandering politicians began to grovel and soon our educational system was turned upside-down and revamped to placate feminists. Now, statistics show that boys are the ones whose educations are being stunted. So there are discussions underway in academia as to how the educational system can be changed to alleviate discrimination against male students, who might become a victim group.

Contrary to what we are told, special treatment for victim groups comes at a great cost to society. To monitor preferences for victim groups, bureaucracies have been created not only at the federal level but also the state and local level. Private organizations, in addition to hiring diversity consultants, have altered personnel policies to assure that members of victim groups receive preferential treatment. These bloated bureaucracies are paid in the form of increased taxes and the additional workplace costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

Congress and the White House have done nothing to ameliorate this problem. Indeed, whenever a law that was passed to appease a victim group reaches its expiration date, it is always renewed, whether it is still needed or not. (And when was the last time you read about Congress repealing a law?)

It is a scary thought but what will happen to the United States when members of victim groups equal or outnumber the rest of society as appears to be happening in Great Britain? We shouldn’t assume that this can’t happen and we should not expect Washington to take any action to prevent it.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

DIGG THIS

I was recently reminded of the 1949 film, “Everybody Does It," a comedy about a husband who tries to thwart his not-so-talented wife’s ambition to become an opera singer. In the opening scene, the husband, apparently dragged to the opera by his wife, sleeps through the entire performance. It occurred to me that today this husband would not sleep through a performance of Mozart’s “Idomeneo” but would remain wide-awake from fear that the opera house might be attacked by Islamic terrorists angered by what they consider an affront to Mohammed — one scene depicts the severed heads of Poseidon, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed.

The director of the Berlin Deutsche Oper recently cancelled a performance of the Mozart opera after someone suggested that followers of Mohammed might be offended although there had been not been any objection to the performance. This over-reaction to a potential insult to the sensitivities of an aggrieved group has become a fairly common occurrence.

But very few people would have a problem with Mozart’s “Idomeneo” because they realize composers should be allowed artistic expression, even if it is controversial. In fact, a Berlin Jew jokingly claimed to be offended that the severed head of Moses was not included along with the other religious leaders. Also, to my knowledge, there have been no complaints made against Richard Strauss’s “Salome” in which the head of John the Baptist is displayed on a platter. Indeed, for centuries, opera composers have utilized sensational, and often tragic, scenarios to enhance their musical dramas.

However, the portrayal of women in opera’s standard repertoire is now under attack by radical feminists. This group’s disapproval of opera was formally expressed in a 1979 book by French feminist, Catherine Clement: “Opera: The Undoing of Women.” She views opera as characterized by female oppression and male domination. Opera’s heroines are victims; usually powerless in the grip of their own emotions; ruining their lives for the love of a man. These women are helplessly tossed about by the vagaries of their circumstances and their lives often end tragically.

It is true that most women in opera do not lead happy lives and often their lives do indeed end tragically. A brief look at some of the most frequently performed works will bear this out: “Tosca” — its heroine, Floria, leaps to her death from the parapet of a castle after her lover has been executed; “Madama Butterfly” — the fragile little geisha, Cio-Cio-San, commits hara-kiri upon learning that Lieutenant Pinkerton has left her for an American bride; “Tristan und Isolde” — Isolde dies of a broken-heart after Tristan’s death; “Lucia di Lammermoor” — Lucia goes mad and dies when she realizes that a forged letter tricked her into losing her true love; “Aida” — when her love, Radames, is sentenced to be buried alive, Aida conceals herself inside the tomb so that she may die with him, and “Carmen” — when this coquettish gypsy falls for a bullfighter she is murdered by her jealous former lover.

Two of the most famous opera heroines, Violetta and Mimi, (“La Traviata” and “La Boheme”) waste away slowly from tuberculosis. No sooner has the courtesan Violetta reconciled with her lover after a misunderstanding than she collapses and dies in his arms. Similarly, Mimi dies shortly after she and her love reunite after a quarrel.

These are the kinds of scenarios that Clement attacks in her book. She wants to remove opera’s “ideological bias” against women but she is a little vague as to how this should be accomplished. Her book, which has been translated into English, has attracted a feminist following and is now included in syllabi of many Women’s Studies Programs. One such program includes this language in the course description: “This course will examine the issues explored and debated in recent studies of gender, power, identity, and music from diversified cultures, including western art music, popular musics, and world musics.” We will investigate “how gender ideology, contextualized by sociocultural conditions, both constructs and is constructed by musical aesthetics, performance practice, creative processes, as well as the reception of music.”

We can only try to guess the meaning of that pedantic course description but Clement’s attack on opera is a good fit for Women’s Studies Programs. Opera heroines follow traditional female roles in which femininity is cast as the opposite of masculinity. But, to feminists, such an equation gives too much power to men and Women’s Studies are designed to “empower” women. According to feminists, women can only have power by abandoning traditional female roles.

But feminists are missing the essence of opera; the music, which is more important than the story. Although opera heroines go mad, commit suicide, are murdered or die prematurely from disease, they do so accompanied by some of the world’s greatest music. This music helps showcase the vocal talents of opera’s prima donnas, who are often the stars of the performances, upstaging the male singers. So tragic libretti is necessary to provide these divas with the spectacular arias so appreciated by opera lovers.

Unfortunately, it is the portrayal of women in opera, and not the music, that is being scrutinized in Women’s Studies Programs. And I think we can expect that, in the near future, there will be an attempt by feminists to revise the story lines of certain operas or try to have them banned. This will be consistent with campaigns from other disgruntled groups that we have witnessed over the last few decades that resulted in the revision or banning of other works of art, including novels and films.

But how will feminists change opera’s portrayals of women? Will Carmen abandon her lovers and flirtatious ways to pursue a career as Seville’s first female bullfighter? Will Cio-Cio-San tire of her closeted life and leave her comfortable situation with Lieutenant Pinkerton in order to enter the officer candidate school of the Imperial Japanese Navy? Will Violetta flee her dissipated Paris lifestyle for a cure at a mountaintop tuberculosis sanitarium, afterwards becoming an Inspector-General with the French Ministry of Health?

Changes like these might please feminists but a night at the opera will never be the same.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

DIGG THIS

“And he shall set the sheep on his right hand but the goats on the left. (Matthew 25:33)”

The acronym CEDAW might not be familiar to some of you because media has largely ignored it. However, if CEDAW, a comprehensive United Nations program, is ratified by Congress, it will essentially restructure our way of life. Consequently the media’s lack of reports about it is a little strange. On the other hand, as most of those working in the media admit to holding views “to the left of center,” they might like to see CEDAW implemented. So maybe they don’t want us to know much about it until it’s too late to prevent its ratification. After all, media has a history of applying selective and biased reporting in order to frame issues and set the agenda for society.

CEDAW stands for the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. It was adopted by the United Nations in 1979 in response to pressure from the National Organization of Women (NOW) and other radical feminists around the globe. Since its inception in 1946, the UN has had a Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), chiefly concerned with improving the status of women; promoting equality with men and ending violence toward women, primarily in developing nations. But CEDAW’s all-encompassing dictates is pushing the UN, and the countries who sign on, far beyond concerns about domestic violence and equality. In essence, CEDAW’s goal is to create a “genderless” society.

Groups supporting CEDAW want us to think that the treaty would not require any significant changes in our society. They claim that it is simply a reasonable and fair-minded approach for defending women’s rights. They try to justify CEDAW by emphasizing the violence to women in developing countries. The impression given is that the sweeping dictates of CEDAW are needed to prevent such violence. That is disingenuous. And, in fact, in some countries that have ratified CEDAW — Iraq being a perfect example, extreme violence against women continues unabated.

Since its first draft, CEDAW has been continually expanded and fine-tuned by aggressive feminists. It is now an enormous document that attempts to address every gender issue imaginable, and leaves no stone unturned. The provisions cannot be adequately covered in an Internet article but you can grasp its main thrust by viewing NOW’s website.

NOW’s mission statement contains this declaration: “NOW stands against all oppression, recognizing that racism, sexism and homophobia are interrelated, that other forms of oppression such as classism and ableism work together with these three to keep power and privilege concentrated in the hands of a few.” To combat what it perceives as our country’s pervasive oppression of women, NOW proposes replacing many of our traditions with government-imposed regulations that empower women.

NOW’s priorities are: Advancing Reproductive Freedom (abortion on demand; the decision resting solely with the woman); Promoting Diversity & Ending Racism (feminists will decide what constitutes Diversity & Racism), Stopping Violence Against Women (feminists will define what constitutes an act of violence), Ensuring Economic Justice (the State will intrude even further into decisions by private companies), Winning Lesbian Rights (state-enacted rights for Lesbians, monitored and enforced by the state. NOW has also endorsed same-sex marriage), and Achieving Constitutional Equality (amending the Constitution to sanction NOW’s priorities).

NOW’s priorities have been codified and expanded into the massive list of edicts contained in CEDAW. Incredibly, almost 200 countries have agreed to this society-altering document. Member countries are subject to the authority of the CEDAW Committee which consists of twenty-three experts on women’s rights. (emphasis added) Women residents of member countries, who feel their rights have been violated, may file a complaint with the CEDAW Committee. Grievances will be investigated and adjudicated. The Committee can also conduct inquiries into what it considers serious abuses of women’s rights by member countries. I am, to put it mildly, a little apprehensive about these CEDAW “experts” and the following actions would seem to justify my apprehension.

Regarding domestic violence against women, CEDAW associates use terms such as “financial violence” and “glaring looks” and we wonder how the Committee will interpret these terms. One bizarre action by CEDAW required Belarus to eliminate Mother’s Day. Apparently women have more important roles than being mothers and having a special day for mothers encourages an old-fashioned stereotype. The German military was forced to put women in combat positions. CEDAW criticized Slovakia because the majority of its children were cared for by family members rather than enrolled in government day care centers. Great Britain’s navy was forced to accept the partner of a homosexual officer as the legal equivalent of a naval wife. CEDAW took Ireland to task for allowing the Catholic Church to have too much influence on its people. China was advised to legalize prostitution to promote equal rights for sex workers.

If Congress ratifies CEDAW, we would not only be subjected to a radical alteration of our way of life but our progress in implementing CEDAW’s dictates would be monitored by the UN. Periodic status reports would have to be made to the UN so it could assess our “compliance.” Now you might think that Congress would never surrender our nation’s sovereignty to the UN, especially if it meant the loss of important traditions. But Congress has been under extreme pressure from activist groups to ratify CEDAW and it took a tactical maneuver in the Senate to prevent its passage just a few years ago.

Since that time, CEDAW advocates have stepped up their lobbying of Congress and in July of this year, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the treaty out of committee by a vote of 12 to 7. And in order to curry favor with feminists and similar liberal groups, other Senators are joining long-time CEDAW supporters in the Senate. (I don’t have to name these supporters, you can guess who they are. The same cast of characters who continue to increase the state’s control over our lives.) It’s possible that the lack of media coverage of CEDAW makes Senators think they can now sneak this one past the folks back home. Alarmingly, it’s possible that they might be right.

Congress and media seem to have an ear only for the National Organization of Women, the treaty’s strongest supporter, while ignoring arguments against CEDAW from our other major women’s organization, Concerned Women for America (CWA). It’s not surprising that the media would ignore CWA because its views, influenced by Christian and American traditions, do not pass media’s litmus test for what is best for our country. But members of Congress would do well to consider CWA’s significant membership growth in the past few years.

Formed in 1979 as a reaction to NOW’s radical agenda, CWA boasts 560,000 members and it continues to grow. On the other hand, NOW’s membership peaked in the 1990s and is declining — NOW experienced a membership decrease of 30,000 in the last decade. Its current membership is listed as 250,000, less than half of CWA’s membership.

Some of the Concerned Women for America’s core beliefs are that marriage consists of one man and one woman; human life should be protected from conception until natural death, parents should have the authority to determine public education issues, the entertainment industry should curtail pornography and obscenity, individuals should not have the expression of their religious beliefs interfered with and neither the United Nations nor any other international organization should have authority over the United States. Obviously, the dictates of CEDAW are diametrically opposed to such a set of beliefs.

Most Americans, women as well as men, do not accept the claim by CEDAW supporters that American women are second-class citizens and that our country is excessively oppressive to women. Most Americans would also oppose allowing the United Nations to be the arbiter of our nation’s values. And for too long we have catered to groups like NOW, who claim to be victims simply because they are discontented.

In the biblical parable cited, the equable, contented sheep are placed on the right side, the favored side, whereas goats, whose behavior is often wayward, are relegated to the left side. Sheep remain with the herd and graze peacefully in the fields where they find themselves. Goats stray from the herd and try to push their heads through fences to eat what is on the other side or stand on their hind legs trying to eat leaves that are out of reach. Goats are restless and discontented. But, unlike feminists, they cannot demand that external conditions be changed to relieve their discontent.

CEDAW represents the latest attempt to alter traditions in order to placate a disgruntled group. In this case the primary traditions affected would be those surrounding marriage and family — our most sacrosanct and esteemed traditions. The social cost we would have to pay to placate radical feminists would be entirely too great. Surely Congress cannot be browbeaten into ratifying this flawed and dangerous treaty.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

DIGG THIS

Recently the media reported the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) threat to ban post-season college football and baseball contests — post-season basketball has already been banned — from South Carolina unless a replica of the Confederate flag is removed from statehouse grounds. The initial media accounts were superficial, reporting only the basic facts while ignoring the larger issues involved. I waited for subsequent reports that might present a broader view of the matter but such reports were not forthcoming.

The absence of such reports is unfortunate because the NCAA’s threat is an example of an organization that has moved away from its prescribed activities in order to engage in trendy politically correct pursuits. And it raises questions regarding not only the NCAA’s mission and authority but also the competence of its administration as well as the soundness of its decisions.

First a brief background. The Confederate flag flew above the South Carolina statehouse for several decades without any complaints. One black South Carolinian claimed that he drove past the statehouse twice a day, going to and from work, for over twenty years and never noticed the flag. But in 1999, the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP, apparently feeling it needed media exposure to increase its dwindling contributions, threatened a tourism boycott of the state unless the flag was removed from the dome of the Capitol. Much to the NAACP’s annoyance, there was no outpouring of support for the boycott from the state’s black population. And the boycott had no noticeable impact on the state. — Tourism actually increased.

However, the legislature still voted to relocate the flag from the Capitol dome and on July 1, 2000, a smaller version of the flag was placed beside the Confederate Soldiers’ Monument on statehouse grounds. The Confederate Soldiers Monument was a creation of the Daughters of the Confederacy to honor South Carolina soldiers who lost their lives in the War Between the States. Although a relatively small monument, it is a touching and reverent structure, a befitting tribute that stands as a constant reminder of those who lost their lives in that conflict. Descendants of those dead soldiers still have pictures, letters and other mementos of those brave young men. And it is appropriate that a replica of the Confederate flag will wave beside this somber monument.

In addition to relocating the flag, the South Carolina legislature also authorized the creation of an African-American Monument on statehouse grounds; the first monument of its kind in the United States. This is no ordinary monument, not only because of its size but also its contents. It contains 12 large bronze plaques depicting the plight of African-Americans in South Carolina from the middle passage to the arrival in Charleston all the way to their achievements in the contemporary period. Visitors can casually stroll through the monument’s walkways or sit on the many benches available and contemplate the scenes depicted.

Many navely thought that removing the flag from the dome of the Capitol and constructing the African-American Monument would end the matter. But the NAACP had gotten too much publicity out of the flag episode to simply let the matter drop. So, as long as it could maintain the support of a compliant media, the organization pressed its demands for additional concessions.

What the compliant media does not report, but surely must know, is that the NAACP no longer speaks for the majority of blacks. Soon after the flag episode, when the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP met to elect officers, there was widespread dissatisfaction with the organization’s priorities expressed by its own members. As one attendee stated: “There are more important issues than the flag. We need a new strategy.” Members then highlighted issues that the NAACP was not addressing: threats to the black community posed by gangs; illegal drug activity and other criminal activities, quality of healthcare, school dropouts by black males, and the breakdown of black families. The reason the NAACP does not address these issues is because they are pandemic and difficult to solve. Also, these issues don’t produce the passionate media coverage that attacking Confederate flags and other Southern heritage symbols do.

But rank and file NAACP members made their disillusion with the state organization clear, an organization which they describe as little more than a “social club.” And an opposition candidate, representing those desiring a change in the NAACP’s direction, came within 16 votes of unseating the entrenched leadership of the state organization.

Until fairly recently, media has never questioned the NAACP’s claim that it has over 500,000 members nationally. But The Baltimore Sun wondered why this membership number had not changed in 60 years. When pressed, NAACP leaders first stated that 300,000 members might be more accurate. Finally, the organization confessed that it has only 178,000 members, roughly one-third of the routinely quoted figure. To put this in perspective: As the black population is roughly 38 million, this means that less than one-half of one percent of African-Americans are dues-paying members of the NAACP. This is another indication that the NAACP no longer speaks for the majority of blacks.

Media reports also convey the impression that all blacks think alike; in this case that blacks throughout the nation are immensely offended by the knowledge that there is a replica of a Confederate flag flying somewhere on statehouse grounds in Columbia, South Carolina. This is ridiculous and also an unwarranted stereotype of black opinions. Unfortunately, stereotyping has become a standard procedure for many of today’s journalists. They constrict the opinions of racial and ethnic groups as well as residents of regions of the country into neat little packages in order to simplify the writing of columns.

One thing you won’t read about in the media is the support for South Carolina’s flag decision coming from other parts of the country. There is a general feeling that relocating the flag from the Capitol dome was a reasonable response that should have ended the matter and the NAACP additional demands are not justified.

On August 19, 2000, the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War issued from Lansing, Michigan, a Resolution of Support for the Display of Battle Flags of the Confederacy. The Resolution read in part: ” Whereas we condemn the use of the Confederate battle flag, as well as the flag of the United States, by any and all hate groups…we support the flying of the Confederate battle flag as a historical piece of the nation’s history…we oppose the removal of any Confederate monuments or markers to those gallant soldiers in the former Confederate States and strongly oppose the removal of any reminders of this nation’s bloodiest war on the grounds of it being “politically correct.”

This is an intelligent and logical position. The use of the American flag and the Confederate flag by hate groups should be opposed. But their use by legitimate groups should not.

The NCAA’s threat to South Carolina resulted from a demand from black coaches. They claimed they had received complaints about the Confederate flag, but the NCAA did not investigate the claim to determine the validity, volume or intensity of the purported complaints. It simply made the politically correct knee-jerk response by demanding the flag’s removal.

This is not the first time the NCAA caved in to demands from black coaches. Black coaches had earlier maintained that the NCAA’s toughened freshmen eligibility requirements, established primarily by standardized testing, unfairly discriminated against black and Latino athletes. The NCAA responded by lowering academic admission standards for freshmen athletes. One disgruntled member of the NCAA’s eligibility committee stated: ” We basically gutted the initial-eligibility standards because of the racial issue. This will allow lesser academically qualified individuals to enter college.”

Another of the NCAA’s politically correct campaigns is directed against colleges with American Indian names for teams or mascots. Eighteen colleges that use American Indian team or mascot names were advised that such designations could not be used in post-season athletic events. Once again, the NCAA made no attempt to determine if this was an issue of concern to the majority of Indians. They simply relied on opinions of activist groups found in media reports.

But a 2003 poll conducted by Sports Illustrated found that among Indians not living on reservations, 89% did not object to Indian team or mascot names. Of those residing on reservations, 67% felt the same way. One of the teams threatened was the Florida State Seminoles. However, Florida State and the Seminole Tribe of Florida jointly threatened the NCAA with a law suit, at which point the NCAA withdrew its threat. A sportswriter for USA Today referred to this episode as: “Another bungled move by the NCAA, an organization that fancies itself as a group of thinkers, but oftentimes is shortsighted and reactionary.”

The NCAA’s politically correct campaigns are becoming a little tiresome. But, like the NAACP, the NCAA pursues political correct campaigns because “real” issues, such as improving the academic performance of athletes, are difficult to accomplish. However, it is exceeding its authority by trying to impose what amounts to an official state ideology not only on colleges but also on states of the Union.

So, will member institutions rein in the NCAA and put a governor on its unwarranted activities? This not-for-profit organization has gradually increased its staff to almost 400 employees. (We wonder how much of this increase results from assuming functions beyond its prescribed mission.) Its nine executives all receive high six figure salaries. — Its president is paid more than every public university president in the nation. Unless members institutions begin to raise objections to the NCAA’s actions, those that do not fall under its purview, we can expect its arbitrary assumption of new “goals” and its path to power to will continue.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

Margaret “Peggy” O’Neale was the daughter of the proprietor of a tavern and inn located in Washington, D.C. She was a dark-haired beauty, but in addition to her beauty she was noted for her cleverness and wit. The term most often applied to Peggy was vivacious. Her father’s tavern was a popular spot for Congressmen as well as Presidents and members of their cabinets. Some actually resided at the inn during their terms in office. One such tenant was John Henry Eaton, the recently widowed Senator from Tennessee. At the time of Eaton’s residency at the inn, Peggy was married to a Navy purser, John Timberlake, who was often assigned to foreign seaports for long periods of time. Rumors began to circulate about an affair between Peggy and Senator Eaton. (This was not the first rumor involving Peggy and a male tenant.) Whether true or not, her absent husband committed suicide, purportedly upon hearing reports of his wife’s infidelity.

Senator Eaton felt obligated to marry Peggy but first he sought the counsel of his friend and fellow Tennessean, Andrew Jackson, who had been elected President and had intended to make Eaton his Secretary of War. Jackson, although aware of the gossip about Peggy, offered no objection to the marriage.

Andrew Jackson’s own wife Rachael had been a victim of vicious gossip. Much to her distress, Rachael learned that when she married Jackson, her divorce from her first husband had not been legally consummated. According to the mores of the time, the newly weds were living in sin. (Upon learning that someone had cast a slur on his wife, Jackson challenged the man to a duel and killed him.) Rachael Jackson died a few months before her husband was inaugurated and Jackson always blamed Washington’s high-society gossipmongers for his young wife’s untimely death.

So Senator John Eaton married Peggy Timberlake and on March 4, 1829, joined Andrew Jackson’s cabinet as Secretary of War. Eaton’s fears that his bride would not be accepted by Washington society were soon realized. Peggy Eaton was snubbed at the inaugural ceremony, and the Eatons were not invited to Washington social functions. Her attempted social visits to wives of her husband’s associates were rebuffed by servants who informed her that the lady of the house was either out or unable to receive guests.

Naturally, the social rejection of Peggy Eaton infuriated President Jackson. But, although he made his associates aware of his displeasure, Mrs. Eaton continued to be shunned. Probably the most obstinate of the high-society ladies involved in the ostracizing of Peggy Eaton was Floride Calhoun, wife of the Vice-President, John C. Calhoun.

Although one of the most accomplished and celebrated men in our history, John C. Calhoun remains an enigma to many Americans. Within three years of his graduation from Yale, as one of the top students in his class, Calhoun was admitted the bar. Two years later he was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives and three years after that became a member of the United States Congress. From then on there was no let up in his ascension through the ranks of government: Secretary of War for President James Monroe; Vice President serving with President John Quincy Adams and also Vice President in the Jackson administration that succeeded Adams.

Calhoun rode such a persistent career path to the presidency that it was generally believed that after Andrew Jackson left office, Calhoun would become President. In fact, there were rumors that Jackson would serve only one term and step aside to allow for the Calhoun presidency. Calhoun did indeed seemed destined to become President but destiny can be fickle.

John C. Calhoun’s alliance with Jackson had its roots in 1828 when Calhoun was still Vice-President in the John Quincy Adams administration. That year Congress passed and Adams signed into law the so-called “Tariff of Abominations” wherein import duties were increased to almost 50% in order to “protect” Northern manufacturers.

(Let me digress briefly to demonstrate the critical role tariffs played in the growing conflict between the North and the South. As there was no income tax at that time, tariffs were used to generate the revenues necessary to fund government operations. The rates for such tariffs were usually modest and had broad support. However, another kind of tariff (like the one enacted in 1828) was later imposed to “protect” Northern manufactures from overseas competition. The rates for these tariffs were much higher and damaging to the South because the South relied on overseas imports not only for the implements needed for agriculture production but also items for personal use.

To illustrate, let’s assume that Southern planters could buy a plowshare from Europe for $10.00 whereas one manufactured in the North cost $14.00. If Congress could be persuaded to impose a 50% tariff on imported products, Southern planters would have to pay $10.00 for the imported plowshare plus a $5.00 import duty. Facing a total cost of $15.00 for each plowshare bought from overseas, Southern planters would probably buy the $14.00 model from the North. Hence, Northern manufacturers were “protected” from competition because the South was forced to buy their goods. Also, the tariff rates had little impact on the North’s economy as the region did not have a great need for imported products.

The South had to absorb this additional cost by increasing the price of its cotton to the point where it was less competitive in the world market. Also, as these tariffs significantly reduced Great Britain’s exports to America, it threatened to curtail its purchases of Southern grown cotton. And, as the South sold most of its cotton to Great Britain, the loss of this market would seriously harm the South’s economy. Furthermore, English exporters were reluctant to allow their ships to sail home from Southern seaports empty. Consequently, more cotton, tobacco and various other products were purchased from the Southern region. This significant source of revenue was also lost to the South as the result of high import duties.)

At the time the Tariff of Abominations was enacted, Calhoun assumed that, as President, Jackson would seek to severely reduce the unfair protective tariffs. Indeed, Jackson had given that impression. So Calhoun turned against Adams and, at the end of his term in office, campaigned for the Vice-Presidency in order to serve with Andrew Jackson.

They say politics makes strange bedfellows and that was certainly the case with Calhoun and Jackson. Calhoun was a member of the aristocracy, a scholarly man with considerable debating and legislative skills. Jackson, on the other hand, was the first president that did not come from the aristocracy. A down-to-earth planter and soldier with little formal education, whose rise to the presidency was primarily the result of his defeat of the British forces at the Battle of New Orleans. But the two men enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship until the Peggy Eaton Affair, mockingly called “The Petticoat War,” undermined the bond between them.

It is often thought that emotional responses to events are primarily confined to females whereas men react to events in a more logical fashion. Consequently, historians usually ignore the effect of emotions and attribute the actions of famous men solely to the rational pull of historical or political factors. But the behavior of men is also influenced by emotions, especially anger that frequently interferes with their judgments — Alexander Hamilton lost his life in a duel with Aaron Burr as a result of a political squabble that became personal.

The following incident illustrates how emotionally involved Andrew Jackson was in the Peggy Eaton Affair.

On September 10, 1829, one of the most unusual cabinet meetings in history took place. Andrew Jackson convened his cabinet to discuss the social rejection of Peggy Eaton. Secretary Eaton prudently avoided the meeting to allow a freer discussion of his wife’s dilemma. The President, obviously in a foul humor, opened the meeting by forcefully expressing his displeasure with “unchristian” men and women who engage in false and spiteful gossip harmful to “a helpless and virtuous female.” Jackson responded to one unfavorable comment about Peggy Eaton by shouting “She is as chaste as a virgin!” When Jackson’s own pastor mentioned unfavorable newspaper reports about Mrs. Eaton, Jackson again lost his temper. He interrupted his minister by loudly advising him that he was brought to the meeting to give evidence, not to make a speech. The insulted pastor stood, gathered up his papers, bowed to the President and left the room. The meeting was adjourned.

Martin Van Buren, Jackson’s Secretary of State, saw the Eaton Affair as an opportunity to improve his standing with the President. Van Buren began inviting the Eatons to his social gatherings; taking them for carriage rides through Washington, having tea with Mrs. Eaton and making his approval of her widely known. Van Buren’s behavior towards Peggy Eaton may have pleased the President but it infuriated Calhoun and his friends. A Calhoun group emerged and was opposed by a Van Buren camp.

As both Calhoun and Van Buren sought Jackson’s endorsement for their presidential ambitions, each tried to lessen the President’s opinion of the other. In one of their thrusts and parries, the Van Buren camp leaked to the press documentation that questioned Calhoun’s loyalty to the President. Calhoun countered with a vigorous response, also for publication, that not only disputed false charges made against him but also tactfully compared his faithfulness to the President with that of Van Buren. Still Calhoun insisted that his document not be published without the approval of the President who should make any revisions he deemed necessary. The newspaper editor prevailed upon Secretary Eaton to review Calhoun’s document with Jackson. Eaton withheld the document from the President but the next day returned it to the editor implying that Jackson had approved it. The article in the newspaper came as a complete surprise to President Jackson and he was furious with his Vice-President. Henry Eaton had his revenge on the man whose wife had caused such hurt to his own spouse.

Martin Van Buren maintained his flattering behavior towards Mrs. Eaton and President Jackson rewarded him with the ambassadorship to Great Britain. As he was only serving as a recess appointee; Van Buren’s appointment had to be voted on by the full Senate. In one of those quirks of fate, the Senate vote ended in a tie which placed the tie-breaking vote in the hands of the Vice-President, John C. Calhoun. Still smarting from Van Buren’s calculated fawning over Peggy Eaton, Calhoun voted to reject the appointment. This proved to be a grievous political error for soon the story began to circulate that President Jackson had decided to abandon Calhoun and make Van Buren his running mate in his upcoming re-election bid.

In the summer of 1832 the Senate negotiated a revision of the Tariff of Abominations. Calhoun was both surprised and disappointed that President Jackson did not insist on significant rate reductions. Either Jackson’s intentions had been misunderstood or he had changed his mind. If Jackson had indeed changed his mind, was it the result of economic or political considerations? Or was it annoyance with Calhoun and the Calhoun camp’s ill treatment of Peggy Eaton?

In any event John C. Calhoun, realizing that his presidential aspirations were not to be, resigned from the Jackson Administration in December, 1832; the first Vice-President to resign in United States history. Calhoun called upon South Carolina to issue a proclamation advising its refusal to enforce the new tariff rates. The state not only issued the proclamation, it also elected Calhoun as one of its Senators. However, the language of the proclamation stated that its provisions would not take effect until March, 1833, giving Congress time to reconsider the law. South Carolina’s proclamation led to the famous Nullification Crisis. President Jackson threatened military action against South Carolina but Calhoun’s gamble paid off. Congress revised the law and reduced tariff rates to 20% and lower over a ten-year period.

Had it not been for the Peggy Eaton Affair, Calhoun would not have fallen out of favor with Andrew Jackson. He would have served as Vice-President during Jackson’s second term and would have been anointed by Jackson for the office of President in 1837.

John C. Calhoun’s national reputation combined with the backing of Jackson, the popular war hero, would have assured his election as President. I think we can also assume that Calhoun’s years of experience in both the executive and legislative branches would have protected him from many of the pitfalls that beset lesser presidents. And, in the absence of some unforeseen crisis, he would have served at least two, or, if his health permitted, possibly three terms (there were no term limits at that time).

Could an extended Calhoun presidency have influenced the nation’s political direction to such an extent that the War Between the States might have been avoided? First we should consider the major conflicts that led to the war: the growing political influence of industrial regions accompanied by the weakening political influence of agricultural regions; high protective tariffs that benefited manufacturing regions to the detriment of agricultural regions, a trend away from the sovereignty of states toward an all-powerful central government, and the reluctance of a congressional majority to allow citizens in new territories to decide for themselves the issue of slavery. (Opposition to slavery in states where it already existed was not one of the conflicts that led to the war. It was generally understood that there was no prohibition against slavery in the Constitution, a fact that so infuriated radical abolitionists that they publicly burned copies of the Constitution.)

Although these conflicts had been festering for years, they did not reach the point where war was inevitable until roughly 1855. So, from the end of the Jackson administration, 1837, until 1855, there was a window of opportunity for a peaceful compromise. But if we look at the administrations from1837 to 1855, we will not find a president that made any serious attempts to address these issues. We will also not find a strong or popular president during that time. None was elected to a second term, although two died in office. So we are left to wonder what would have happened if a strong and popular president had set into motion a firm agenda to arbitrate the growing conflict between North and South.

But could Calhoun, a staunch supporter of slavery, modify his views to the extent necessary to be president of all the people? I maintain that he could. The office of the presidency tends to alter one’s perspective from a regional outlook to a national outlook. And based on the speeches and writings of Calhoun’s later years, we know he wanted to keep the Union intact. He also begrudgingly accepted the change in the South’s fortunes and was more concerned about the South’s survival rather than trying to reclaim its glory days. And Calhoun was known for his ability to compromise divergent viewpoints.

Central to Calhoun’s thinking was his contention that a nation’s problems are not caused by those who cling to traditions and old-fashioned ideas but rather by those who zealously try to force “progressive” changes more rapidly than the nation is able to accommodate them without drastic upheavals to its economy and social order. This is the philosophy he would have brought to the White House. As President, Calhoun might not have been able to halt the trends he opposed but he might have slowed them and managed them in such a way as to prevent them from causing a war.

John C. Calhoun knew that the two things the commercial interests in the North feared most were abolitionists and Southern secessionists. Both had the potential to seriously disrupt the North’s economy because of its reliance on the cotton trade. So the slavery conflict in the pre-war years was not so much between North and South as it was Northern entrepreneurs and Southern planters versus abolitionists and politicians. The dependence of the North’s economy on Southern grown cotton would seem to be the leverage a Calhoun presidency needed to block the zealous activity of radical abolitionists and allow for a more pragmatic solution as well as a realistic timetable for ending slavery.

Calhoun would certainly have attempted to alter the congressional rules that allowed a simple majority to enact protective tariffs that only benefited one region of the country. He might have tried to revive the failed proposal offered at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 requiring a two-thirds vote of Congress for laws regulating commerce including tariffs. (We are still suffering today from this Constitutional flaw that allows Congress to pass a law with a vote of just over 50%.) Calhoun also might have appealed to the economic interests of Northern entrepreneurs for help in industrializing the South with agricultural machinery and finding Southern locations of Northern owned mills

As a Senator, Calhoun had lost favor with some of his colleagues with his opposition to the war with Mexico. His Senate speeches show that he understood and feared the devastating effects of war so we would expect that, as President, he would make an extra effort to prevent war, especially a war between sections of the country. As a result of the success of the Nullification Crisis, he recognized the power of an implied threat of secession, but he would not have endorsed the actual act of secession. He would have used his enormous influence on the South to mitigate the voices of the more extreme secessionists in order to dissuade the region from leaving the Union, a critical factor for preventing war.

Am I overestimating John C. Calhoun’s abilities? For an answer go back to 1957 when a special committee was created by the Senate to determine the five most outstanding Senators in American history. This committee was chaired by the freshman Senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy, and had the daunting task of reviewing the legislative skills and accomplishments of all U.S. Senators from 1789 to 1957. A major criterion was “acts of statesmanship transcending party and State lines” and the recommendation of a candidate required the unanimous consent of all committee members. The top three Senators selected by the Kennedy Committee were Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay. These three were specifically cited because their “legislative compromises held the nation together during the tumultuous decades leading to the Civil War.”

The fact that Calhoun’s reputation for negotiation and compromise so impressed Senators over 100 years after his death lends credence to my assumption that he would have been a president capable of preventing the War Between the States. But, although a Calhoun presidency was once an almost a foregone conclusion, his path to the White House was blocked by Peggy Eaton’s petticoats.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

At one time the university was a place for students to acquire knowledge and expand the creative powers of their minds. But over the years administrators and faculty have gradually succumbed to the seductiveness of political correctness; an overused but still valid term. As a consequence, colleges are moving away from their traditions and replacing the goal of stimulating critical thinking with that of the imposition of an official, and politically correct, ideology.

This sad predicament was probably germinated by the campus demonstrations of the 1960s. Students skipped classes and disobeyed other school regulations in order to protest for civil rights and against the Vietnam War. Although both of these goals were commendable, they had disparate consequences. A demonstration against a war is a closed-ended protest. When the war ends the protests end. But protests for civil rights are open-ended. This is because the term “civil rights” is not easily pinned down and subject to various and ongoing interpretations.

So what began as demands for improved treatment of black Americans gradually expanded to include others who believed they were being ill-treated. College administrators soon began receiving pressure to prevent campus behaviors that lead to the victimization of women, the oppression of Gays and Lesbians and unfair practices against other mistreated groups. As you know, many colleges reacted promptly with such actions as implementing campus speech codes, requiring sensitivity training, and creating an Office for Equity and Diversity.

But, along with these innovations there also emerged a trend to “secularize” the university or, more specifically, to minimize the influence of Christianity upon campus life. I am not sure what was behind this trend. I assume it was felt that Christian principles were at variance with the “progressive” philosophies of some of the wronged groups as well as some of the faculty members. In any event, this trend has continued and most of the colleges that were founded by churches or religious denominations have de-emphasized their religious affiliations.

This brings to mind the latest assault on The University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee; founded by the Episcopal dioceses in the Southeastern states and one of the few institutions that has not retreated from its religious heritage. Two years ago, I reported on this site the pressure on the University to remove the word “South” from its official designation. A Chicago consulting firm claimed that the word “South” might have negative connotations to members of some minority, racial or ethnic groups. Of course, the increasingly diverse enrollment at the University disproves such a claim. So hopefully efforts to force a name change have been resisted.

Now, a group of 18 professors from the Liberal Arts College, roughly ten percent of the undergraduate faculty, are demanding a revision of the school’s mission statement that would lessen the institution’s commitment to Christian principles. Interestingly, only one of the group is a Sewanee alumnus; the remaining seventeen being from other schools in other areas of the country. Based on the information I have, ten of the professors are women and eight are men. Of the ten women, eight are involved in some way with the University’s Woman’s Studies Program.

The revised mission statement has been through a number of drafts and I am not sure of the current wording. But some of the group’s suggested changes are the removal of the phrase “enlightened by the Christian faith” to be replaced with “committed to justice.” Also proposed for deletion is the statement that a Sewanee education “prepares them (students) for lives of high achievement.” Apparently this wording was felt to be elitist and implied a privileged class. Suggested revisions include language such as “opportunities for dialogue and service.”

Another proposed addition to the mission statement is this language: “Invites students and faculty from diverse backgrounds to participate in a broad array of educational endeavors.” Terms such as “humanistic and scientific study” and “global perspective” have been suggested. In one of the drafts the phrase “serve God and humanity” was reworded to a “reverent concern for the world.”

I have been informed that these changes are only minor alterations made to “modernize” the University’s mission statement. I have also been advised that the changes would only apply to the Liberal Arts College and not the School of Theology. But if you make enough “minor alterations” you will soon have a major alteration. The proposed language might be acceptable for many colleges around the country but not for Sewanee. (Remember that the University of the South was founded by and is owned by the Episcopal Church. In fact, it may be the only church-owned university in the country.)

Surely the Board of Trustees realizes that if it agrees to a revised, more secularized, mission statement, it will only be a matter of time before more changes are demanded. There will be incremental changes until the University loses its Christian identity and becomes just another of the many secular institutions. The Board of Trustees has an obligation to maintain the University’s long-standing tradition as a religious school as opposed to a secular one. And the same Christian principles that apply to its School of Theology should also apply to its Liberal Arts College. Consequently, the language of the mission statement should not be subject to negotiation.

At other institutions around the country, administration usually caves in to demands from loud, disgruntled groups and submissively alters their school traditions. But we shouldn’t expect that from the University of the South. It has rigorously guarded its great religious traditions for almost 150 years. Most students, faculty and alumni are satisfied with the school’s name as well as its mission and the Board should hold firm to its principles on this issue.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

The book I’m referring to is; Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jennifer Frank. The facts they present are not normally found in school textbooks or fashionable history books. However, with diligent research, they can be discovered in the files of historical societies, museum archives, college libraries, certain encyclopedias and various scholarly journals

Those of you who have not delved deeply into the subject of slavery in America might be surprised by what you read in this book — indeed, its authors claim to have been staggered by their findings. Their book is an important one and it is disappointing, but not surprising, that it was ignored by the New York Times as well as the Claremont Institute’s review of books.

The initial impetus for the book occurred a few years ago when Aetna, one of Connecticut’s oldest and largest insurance companies, formally apologized for “insuring slaves.” This prompted The Hartford Courant, a newspaper founded in 1764, to see if it had also aided or abetted slavery. Much to its embarrassment, the newspaper discovered ads not only for the sale of slaves but also for the capture of runaway slaves.

As a result of these events, three Hartford Courant journalists — the authors listed above — began an in-depth investigation into Connecticut’s involvement with slavery. What their research uncovered was that Connecticut’s initial economic development was a result of slavery; its continued growth was based on a dependence on slavery, and Connecticut’s complicity in the institution of slavery was immense and long-standing. The authors describe their shock at these discoveries in the book’s preface: “We were now looking at nothing less than an altered reality. Our first response was confusion: Hold on, weren’t we the good guys in the Civil War? Wasn’t the South to blame for slavery? After all, Southerners had plantations, we had the Underground Railroad. They had Simon Legree, we had his abolitionist creator — Harriet Beecher Stowe’s house is literally up the street from the Courant.”

Their unearthing of Connecticut’s complicity with the institution of slavery led them to expand their research to other Northern states. Their findings are reported in this book. Again, from the authors’ comments in the preface: “We have all grown up, attended schools, and worked in Northern states, from Maine to Maryland. We thought we knew our home. We thought we knew our country. We were wrong.”

This book is not written for pedants but for laymen. The narrative flows well and I’m surprised that such a wealth of information could be conveyed in roughly 200 pages. Although the book is primarily about slavery in the North, especially the North’s economic dependence on slavery, you don’t have to have an interest in slavery to enjoy it. (I appreciated the book’s interplay of history with commerce and market forces.)

You will read about slaves and slave rebellions in New York; the treatment of slaves in the North, New England slave traders, including excerpts from actual logs of slave ships, and you will read about the huge fortunes amassed by Northern industrialists that were derived from slave labor, and how the North deviously continued the slave trade long after it had been outlawed.

Some interesting revelations in the book include:

The manufacture of pianos in Connecticut that relied on slave labor in Africa to manually transport elephant tusks and teeth from the interior to the coast. Slaves were yoked together and marched hundreds of miles weighted down with cargoes of ivory. Many died in the process and others were left crippled for life. Ironically, the owners of the piano factories were also ardent abolitionists who assisted runaway slaves from Southern plantations.

The scientific justification for slavery that was advanced by Northern scientists in the 1800s. Various pseudo-scientific arguments were put forth to imply the inferiority of blacks and rationalize their use as slaves. The authors include a famous quote from Abraham Lincoln arguing for the superiority of the white race.

The reverse underground railroad wherein freed blacks in the North were falsely accused of being runaway slaves, kidnapped and sold illegally. The most notorious gang of kidnappers was brought to justice when two Mississippi plantation owners advised authorities in Philadelphia that members of the gang had offered to sell them undocumented slaves.

The Northern rage against abolitionists. Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison chased down and captured by a mob, roped and paraded through Boston. An anti-slavery Missouri newspaper editor murdered by a mob, and the white head of a school for black females in Canterbury, Connecticut, chased out of town, her school burned.

The authors demonstrate that the economic development of the North began with the New England slave traders who were financed by Northern bankers and insured by Northern insurance companies. The slave trade benefited the entire Northern economy, especially the ship building industry. Following the invention of the cotton gin, there was a rapid growth of mill villages throughout the North, a prime example being the enormous textile mills in Lowell, Massachusetts. Southern plantations, financed and insured by Northern enterprises, shipped cotton to Northern textile mills or to Northern shipping firms who in turn shipped it to other countries.

The North and the South were both content with this arrangement. In fact, the authors make it clear that, in the mid 1800s, there was far more support in the North for the Southern states than for abolitionists, a relatively small movement. The financial stability of New York City was so dependent on cotton imported from the South that in January 1861, its Mayor suggested that if the South seceded, New York City should also secede. Evidence of the camaraderie between North and South is found throughout the book and it calls into question the North’s moral opposition to slavery suggested in public school textbooks.

I don’t want to leave you with the impression that the authors are indifferent to the institution of slavery. They are vehemently opposed to it. In the afterword, they state their goal this way: “Our intention as journalists has been not so much to debunk the myth of the virtuous North as to set the record straight.” I would hope that this book and others like it might prompt those who publish textbooks to also set the record straight in their school books so that future generations of students will be presented a less lopsided version of American history.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

For example, let’s take a brief look at two very similar terms: "boy" and "good old boy" — doesn’t sound like there is a lot of difference between them, does it? In fact, the terms are not just similar, they are identical except for the modifier, "good old." Both terms serve the same function — they are words used to belittle certain individuals. When directed at grown men they imply that such men should not be given the same level of respect as others.

But only one of them is considered improper. The other is an acceptable way to describe individuals currently out of favor with the establishment. Their conflicting interpretations illustrate what can be called "language relativism."

The derogatory phrase "good old boy" is used as an ad hominem tactic to demean men who do not kowtow to todayu2018s "progressive" agendas. It is often directed at members of Southern heritage groups who oppose the elimination of their traditions and symbols. In these cases, media’s use of the term "good old boy" implies that those who are demanding the elimination of the symbols are forward-thinking, discerning individuals, while those who want to maintain them are all lumped together as backwater country-bumpkins who want to "turn back the clock." The campaign to eradicate Southern symbols has been very successful and much of its success is due to the effective discrediting of the defenders of the traditions with such demeaning labels as "good old boy."

In other cases, "good old boy" as a term of disparagement has been less effective. It was employed by media to discredit the Augusta National Golf Club for refusing to alter its men-only status and allow women to join. Members of the U.S. Congress have even been sullied with the "good old boys" tag when they have refused to capitulate to legislative demands from organizations such as the National Organization of Women and the NAACP.

Although being called a "good old boy" might defame someone’s character, I am not aware of any legal actions that have been pursued as a result of such an accusation. Normally such speech is protected by the First Amendment.

However, the word "boy" without the modifier "good old" brings forth an entirely different response, as well as an entirely different legal treatment. This form of the word was the subject of a recent Supreme Court decision. Two black employees of Tyson Foods, Inc. in Gadsden, Alabama, sued the company for workplace discrimination because a white supervisor allegedly referred to them as "boy." They accused the supervisor of having racist opinions that resulted in their being passed over for promotions to high-level positions. This particular supervisor was known to be "curt and abusive" to all employees and two white managers had resigned as a result of his actions.

A jury agreed with the two black employees and awarded each $ 1.75 million. But the U.S. District Court in Birmingham overturned the jury’s award, concluding that the supervisor’s use of the word "boy," although insulting and disrespectful, was, in and of itself, "insufficient evidence of racial discrimination." The case next went to the Court of Appeals for the11th Circuit in Atlanta which agreed with the decision of the District Court. However, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned both lower courts and reinstated the jury’s award.

The Supreme Court ruled that the word "boy" can indeed be deemed a form of discrimination against blacks; serious enough to warrant monetary damages. In this case, the Supreme Court followed the recent trend of removing First Amendment protections from certain kinds of speech that advocates "ideas that most people would find distasteful."

Did the Founding Fathers intend that the protections of the First Amendment be set aside in order to censor "distasteful" comments? Probably not. But in today’s politically correct environment the end justifies the means, and expediency takes precedence over the rule of law. Consequently, although "boy" and "good old boy" are both insulting epithets, they are evaluated differently — the establishment supports what it currently favors and suppresses what it currently disfavors. As a result, one of the terms is considered "protected speech" under the First Amendment while the other is denied such protection. And the manipulative use of language rationalizes the dissimilar treatment of the two terms as well as the dissimilar treatment of individuals under the law.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

This year’s nominees exemplify the widening divide between films preferred by the public and those honored by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. This divide has resulted in a serious decline in movie attendance. Some analysts predict that the trend away from movie theater attendance is a permanent one. Already some films are only shown in theaters for a brief period before being converted to DVDs. And, although DVD rentals are a significant income producer, the loss of theater ticket purchases will seriously impact Hollywood’s bottom line.

Members of the Academy seem to be blissfully unaware of the forces of the free market. They continue to honor films that only attract niche audiences and generate mediocre box-office results. Soon, however, Academy members must begin to connect the dots between reduced movie ticket sales and reductions to their earnings.

Being somewhat cynical, I have always considered the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences to be a sham organization. Even its creation in 1927 seems to have been a subterfuge by movie moguls to prevent the unionization of actors, directors and writers. The Academy was the brainchild of Louis B. Mayer who wanted to create an organization of "professionals" and raise motion pictures to the level of "arts and sciences." Of course Mayer knew that making movies was just another business and not some high form of art. But I suspect he thought that people who regard themselves as "professionals" and who are part of a serious "arts and sciences" endeavor would certainly not unionize; engage in collective bargaining or strike.

But a few years after the Academy’s creation, a group of actors rebelled against the repressive studio system by forming a union: the Screen Actors Guild. At first, furious studio bosses refused to negotiate with the newly formed Guild. But eventually, and begrudgingly, studios acknowledged the Guild’s legitimacy. Guild members remained active in the Academy and began to take themselves more seriously. Over the years the members of the Academy have developed an inflated sense of their own importance.

As we know from past experience, the Academy rarely awards Oscars based on artistic merit. Prior to the awards ceremony, members of the Academy are inundated with advertisements and other public relations ploys seeking votes for a particular film or performer. Other, less than ethical, behind-the-scenes arm-twisting techniques are also used to solicit votes. Often awards have been based on the membership’s whim of the moment. Also, an actor or director might be denied an Oscar if he is temporarily out of favor with the Hollywood community. Some Oscars have been awarded to atone for the dearth of honors for members of underrepresented groups, and awards are sometimes the result of the Academy’s "feel-good" efforts to encourage a sociopolitical agenda.

In recent years the tendency to award Oscars in order to promote sociopolitical agendas has gripped Hollywood. And directors’ propaganda efforts continue to grow bolder. Consequently, many Oscar-nominated films of recent years have had limited appeal for the viewing public. Although such films have not been box-office successes, the Academy continues to thumb its nose at the viewing public by honoring them.

The Academy justifies inadequate box-office receipts by referring to the films as "serious" or "weighty " — the implication being that the public’s esthetic sense is lacking. But these manipulative terms no longer fool the public. Nor is the public duped when the making of such films is called "courageous," or when that old PC canard, "they promote healing" is trotted out.

A contemporary argument heard in Hollywood maintains that, as a result of a cultural lag, society’s mores haven’t caught up with the progressive attitudes being promoted in motion pictures. In other words, society stubbornly clings to traditions that are out-of-fashion, possibly reactionary. But factions in Hollywood cannot agree as to whether or not their agenda-driven films are altering the public’s opinions. Some make the extreme claim that motion pictures have taken over the family’s role of imparting values. However, others insist that a film, regardless of how powerful, cannot cause a radical change in a person’s core values. Watching a film is like attending a religious revival — you may leave the tent vowing to abandon your sinful habits, only to resume them three days later.

Because a box-office success can produce enormous revenue, studios go to great lengths to promote their films, often engaging in actions that are questionable and in some cases illegal. Studio employees are paid to pose as audience members and are filmed praising a movie that they have supposedly just seen. Remarkably, it was discovered that Sony, parent company of Columbia Pictures, had created a fictitious movie critic, "David Manning", who purportedly wrote for a Connecticut newspaper. Using this fake critic’s name, Sony manufactured glowing reviews of films. When this fraudulent practice came to light, the State of Connecticut fined Sony $326,000.

Authentic movie critics are also subjected to undue influence by studios. Although outright payola is difficult to prove, other inducements are definitely proffered. Movie junkets are a common practice: Studios reward friendly critics with all-expense paid weekend getaways. Critics are invited to special advance screenings where they are wined and dined and get to meet and interview film stars. Studios treat movie critics in the same way that lobbyists treat members of Congress.

Would Hollywood need to employ lobbyists and use devious promotional tactics if it would produce films to entertain rather than to indoctrinate? Studio heads and investors might prefer to produce such films but they would be passed over by the Academy. The Academy, seemingly unconcerned about profits, would probably nominate controversial films from independent studios as it did this year. And this year’s nominees didn’t excite the viewing public. A brief look at some of them will illustrate why.

Nominees included a film about a woman who postpones her sex-change surgery in order to help her illegitimate son who has been arrested for hustling. (The song written for this film was also featured at the Academy Awards.) The hero of another nominated film is a pimp and drug dealer yearning to become a Hip-Hop musician. The song from this film, "It’s Hard Out There for a Pimp," was performed at the Oscar ceremony after the performing Rap group agreed to omit some of the song’s more extreme obscenities. (It won the best song award.) Another of the films being touted celebrated Palestinian suicide bombers. The nominations also included yet another of the industry’s stereotypical racism films, a theme that is always extremely popular with Hollywood. And this year’s version walked away with the top prize. But films about gays and lesbians are becoming more fashionable with Hollywood and this year’s nominees included two: one was a movie about a gay writer (it got the best actor award) and the other about the trials and tribulations of a long-term, and adulterous, love affair between two gay sheepherders (it received the best director award). Possibly, combating homophobia will replace racism as Hollywood’s cause clbre.

While there may be an audience for these kinds of films, a majority of the viewing public has grown a little weary of movies designed to play on their sympathies for causes they disapprove of. The Federal government may be able to force them to accept things they don’t like, but Hollywood is subject to the forces of the free market. The public can decide whether to buy or abstain from buying movie tickets. In recent years the public’s refusal to buy movie tickets has seriously reduced Hollywood’s profits.

And Hollywood has other problems as well. Its primary audience, ages18 to 34, is not only growing older but it is also abandoning a night at the movies for video and Internet games. Other former moviegoers are staying away from the multiplex theaters because of escalating ticket prices; the noisy rudeness of today’s audiences, and the annoying increase in on-screen advertisements. Affordable video rentals are further reducing movie theater attendance.

We don’t know how, or even if, Hollywood will deal with these problems. Certainly, some directors will continue to produce unpopular "message" films. However, they will have to be satisfied with niche audiences. And even studios seeking mainstream audiences may have to revise their earnings expectations. The key word in Hollywood these days is "downsizing." It has already undertaken austerity measures — it will make fewer films and some of its big stars have agreed to accept lower salaries. Still, even more drastic changes may be needed to end the unprecedented box-office slump.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

Re-reading Salinger after all the intervening decades has been quite an eye-opener. My reaction to his stories was quite different from my initial impression when I first read them. I was also struck by the marked contrast between the1950s, in which his stories were set, and the current generation.

Salinger’s short stories began to be published in national magazines shortly after the end of World War II.

This was several years before "The American Dream" was eviscerated by Washington’s onslaught of ill-considered social engineering programs. Consequently, Salinger’s fictional characters inhabited a nation quite different from today’s. His characters also enjoyed privileges that many in their own generation didn’t, being members of the "fashionable upper middle class"; primarily Manhattan types commonly portrayed in The New Yorker stories of the time. In that generation, authors who wrote these kinds of stories were eagerly promoted by the New York City publishing industry. In addition to Salinger there were writers like John Updike and John Cheever, and, on a lesser level, author and filmmaker, Woody Allen.

J.D. Salinger’s major claim to fame rests on his collection of short stories about the maverick Glass family and his only novel, The Catcher in the Rye. These works concern fictional characters who are alienated from a society composed of what they call "phonies." In addressing this theme, Salinger foreshadowed the coming "counterculture." Holden Caulfield, teen-aged anti-hero of The Catcher in the Rye, is expelled from a fancy prep school and wanders aimlessly around New York City, cursing society and referring to its inhabitants as "morons." When the book was published in 1951, Catcher became a cult classic for the emerging postwar generation and it remained at the top of the heap until 1957 when it was replaced by Jack Kerouac’s On The Road.

Kerouac’s "Beat Generation" picked up where Salinger left off and took the counterculture to a place where Salinger would have never ventured. Salinger personally despised the Beats, especially what he considered to be their degenerate lifestyle. Although Salinger’s characters had "issues" with society, they lived their lives according to the proprieties of the predominant culture. If Salinger disapproved of the Beat Generation, he must have been appalled by its successor, the "Hippies," especially their "if it feels good do it" philosophy.

Although I appreciated the craftsmanship that went into the writing of The Catcher in the Rye, especially the authentic and consistent first person narrative, not an easy literary feat, it was not a book that I wanted to save and re-read. However, I was taken with the Glass family short stories, some stretching to novella length and later collected into three books.

The Glass family was composed of seven extraordinary children whose superior intelligence was showcased on a weekly radio program appropriately called: "It’s a Wise Child." These seven siblings were a far cry from the seven von Trapp children whose high spirits liven up The Sound of Music. Like many clever people who don’t have to worry about coming up with the rent money or putting groceries on the table, the Glass siblings suffer instead from a generalized angst because society doesn’t measure up to their expectations.

Salinger’s characters were disillusioned with what they perceived as the phoniness of the 1950s. Even today many people stereotypically regard the 1950s as a repressive time of stifling conformity. But in many ways it can be viewed as an era of relative calm sandwiched between the radical liberalism of the 1930s and the social upheaval of the 1960s. It was a time of two parent families. The husband, "the man in the gray flannel suit," worked in an office with similarly attired coworkers. The wife stayed home, acting as homemaker and concentrating on raising children. And most families usually belonged to a local church or synagogue that they attended regularly.

But this way of life was despised by the counterculture. They complained that the conformity of the 1950s inhibited the development of what was euphemistically called "alternative lifestyles."

In the first of the Glass family stories to appear in print, A Perfect Day for Bananafish (1948), Seymour Glass, a young veteran of World War II and seemingly on the verge of a mental breakdown, is vacationing with his wife in Florida. He feels that he is married to an insensitive, materialistic woman whom he calls "Miss Spiritual Tramp of 1948." He is thoroughly frustrated with his life and his behavior becomes more and more bizarre until one afternoon he commits suicide.

In subsequent stories, describing events that occurred before his suicide, Seymour, the first-born son emerges as the major domo of the Glass family. He is portrayed as supremely intellectual, almost larger-than-life, and idolized by the other six children who live their lives according to his sage advise. Indeed Salinger portrays Seymour as so saint-like and all-knowing that his suicide becomes nearly impossible for the author to explain.

Other members of the Glass Family appear in other stories. The death of Walt, as a result of a freak accident, is recounted in Uncle Wiggly in Connecticut (1948). His twin brother, Waker, joins the priesthood. In Down at the Dinghy (1949) we meet Boo Boo (Beatrice), probably the most normal of the siblings. She is married with a small, and over-indulged, child.

The youngest family member, Franny, shows up in Franny (1955). She is an attractive, overly sensitive college coed who decries the phoniness of her literature professors, dismissing their poems as "syntaxy droppings." With her typical sarcasm Franny describes a male associate as wearing "his little button-down-collar shirt and striped tie," and her estrangement from society eventually puts her under the sway of a spiritual tract by an anonymous 19th century Russian mystic that encourages novices to "pray without ceasing."

Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters (1955) is narrated by Buddy Glass, the second son who became the titular head of the family after Seymour’s death. (In this story, Salinger uses what will become a common device in the remaining Glass family stories: the reading of letters and dairy entries to develop the character and special attributes of Seymour.) Buddy recounts his attendance at Seymour’s on-again off-again wedding. At the last minute, Seymour backs out of the wedding but it is too late to cancel the ceremony. Seymour then has a change of heart and, after the angry guests have left the cancelled ceremony, convinces his fiancé to elope.

In Zooey (1957) we are introduced to Zooey (Zachary), a struggling actor in the fledgling medium of television. While he is re-reading a letter from Buddy, Zooey is interrupted by his mother, who prevails upon him to revive Franny, his despondent younger sister, who now alternates her time between sleeping and repeating her prayers. Zooey is finally able to bring her out of the doldrums by combining Eastern wisdom, learned from Seymour and Buddy, with his own special theatrics.

At the peak of his popularity, J.D. Salinger, seeking respite from his excessive notoriety, began to withdraw from the public eye. Eventually he left New York and relocated to a remote area of New Hampshire where he has pursued a reclusive life, refusing to grant interviews and avoiding contact with the public. His increasingly introverted behavior may have resulted from his heightened interest in Eastern religions, especially Vedanta, which lead him to hire a personal guru, Swami Nikhilananda, to aid him in his spiritual quest. But years of seclusion and introspection apparently hindered Salinger’s ability to write the clever short stories that made him so popular.

In fact, it would take quite a stretch to even apply the designation "story" in connection with the final two installments in the Glass family saga which contain no plot or story line but are simply glowing tributes to Seymour. I suspect that Salinger was apprehensive about how his readers would accept these two works because in the first, Seymour — an Introduction (1959), he tries to placate his audience: "I look on my old fair-weather friend the general reader as my last deeply contemporary confidant"; "I privately say to you, old friend, please accept from me this unpretentious bouquet of very early-blooming parentheses: (((( ))))." He then proceeds to indulge himself in an over-long, disjointed praise of Seymour.

Salinger published his last story in 1965: Hapworth 16, 1924. It is a protracted and often tedious letter from Seymour to his family written from a summer camp he was attending with his younger brother Buddy; the boys’ ages being seven and five. This almost unreadable work was submitted to The New Yorker and, incredibly, the magazine printed it. In one section that goes on for almost a dozen pages, Seymour lists the books he wants sent to camp for the boys’ reading pleasure. The erudite comments following each request indicate that many of the books have been previously read by both boys. The list of books is too long to quote here, but it includes: the complete works of Tolstoy; the entire works of Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, and the Bront sisters. Also requested were French language versions of works by Marcel Proust, Victor Hugo, Gustave Flaubert and Honore de Balzac as well as Montaigne’s essays, histories of ancient civilizations, the lives of the Medicis, and works on Eastern religions. Although the two young boys might be described as savants, their intellectual attainments as implied by their literary tastes, are simply not creditable.

With Seymour — an Introduction and Hapworth 16, 1924 Salinger moved from story telling to proselytizing. In doing so, he began to lose his readership. But, although Salinger never published again, his earlier stories sustain his reputation as a writer. They are an excellent learning tool for anyone wanting to study the craft of fiction.

I am still appreciative of Salinger’s literary skills but I confess that re-reading his stories after all these years did raise a question: "Who were the real u2018phonies’ in the 1950s? — society or Salinger’s fictional characters?" I would pin the label "phony" on Salinger’s characters who too often come across as navel-gazing narcissists, grieving because society doesn’t measure up to their esoteric expectations. And personally, I prefer the 1950s to our current society, a society that seems to be the epitome of phoniness.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

During the War Between the States and continuing into the years following the War, Lee was frequently the subject of articles by journalists and editors. These men often sought his opinion regarding affairs of state. General Lee spoke for many of us in this statement contained in his January 5, 1866, letter to New York editor, C. Chauncey Burr: "All the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." (emphasis added)

Today, the government that Lee described no longer exists, but when the General made his comments many mistakenly believed that the government "as originally organized" might survive. They had not realized how radically the government had already been altered during the War years. Lee himself thought that the concept of sovereign states combined with a limited federal authority would continue. And he wanted to do his part to sustain such a concept. So, within months of his surrender at Appomattox, he decided to apply for the restoration of his citizenship that had been revoked as a result of his War efforts.

An official pardon and a restoration of citizenship was eventually granted to Robert E. Lee, but not during his lifetime. How did it all come about? Well, "thereby hangs a tale" — 100 years in the making and along the way there were the usual bureaucratic logjams, petty politics, high hopes, and disappointments. And, also, an unsolved mystery and an extraordinary bit of luck.

General Lee began the pardon process in June of 1865, when he sent his official application to General Grant. Observing the chain of command, Grant submitted the application to Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, along with his strong recommendation that it be approved. Secretary Stanton duly sent the pardon application to President Andrew Johnson.

Before the application could be considered, an impediment had to be removed. A federal court in Virginia had indicted Robert E. Lee for treason and, although the indictment seemed to be little more than political posturing, it might stand in the way of a pardon. So once again General Grant stepped into the fray, sending a request to President Johnson to squash the indictment in as much as Grant had issued an official parole to Lee at Appomattox as a condition of his surrender. Although the indictment was never formally blocked, it was unable to attract any support and simply faded away.

Lee soon learned that there was another obstacle; an application for a pardon had to be accompanied by an oath of allegiance to the Union. Accordingly, on October 2, 1865, Lee, in the presence of a notary public, affixed his signature to the following prescribed oath. "I, Robert E. Lee, of Lexington, Virginia, do solemnly swear, in the presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Union of the States thereunder, and that I will, in like manner, abide by and faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made during the existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves, so help me God."

And there was yet another unanticipated hindrance that Lee had to deal with. Some of his former Confederate associates, a small but vocal group, objected to Lee’s amnesty application and especially his oath of allegiance to the Union, claiming that his actions were contrary to the principles for which the South seceded. They besieged Lee with protests as well as pleadings to disavow both actions. Lee did his best to explain his motives to this group and he tried to assuage their anger. His efforts in this endeavor were not entirely successful. But, as he firmly believed in the course he was following, he continued to pursue the legal measures required for obtaining a pardon.

Lee’s notarized oath of allegiance was forwarded to William H. Seward, Secretary of State, who would have then forwarded it to President Johnson. But the President never received the pledge, so the pardon process could not be completed. There is no evidence to indicate that Secretary Seward deliberately withheld the document from the President. And it is highly unlikely that such an important document could simply have been misplaced. But what happened to the document after Seward received it remains a mystery.

Without the oath of allegiance no action could be taken on Lee’s pardon application. Although Lee must have been disappointed, he accepted the matter stoically and made no further attempts to pursue a pardon. Robert E. Lee died in 1870 without receiving a pardon or having his citizenship restored. And, for the next 100 years the matter was considered a closed chapter of history.

Then, in 1970, a Civil War buff obtained permission to research old State department files stored in the National Archives. During his research, he came across a cardboard box labeled "Virginia." While rummaging through this box, he spied an aged sheet of paper containing a faded pen and ink inscription. Upon examination, he was stunned to learn that he was actually holding the notarized pledge of allegiance to the United States that Robert E. Lee had executed in 1865. Considering the numerous changes in administrations over the years, changes in State department staffing and relocations of offices and files, it is almost miraculous that this single sheet of paper survived for over a century, first in the State department and then in the National Archives.

Upon learning of the discovery of the lost pledge, Virginia Senator, Harry F. Byrd proposed a congressional resolution for a posthumous pardon and restoration of citizenship for Robert E. Lee. Normally the approval of such a resolution would have been routine. But there were a few members of Congress who did not want the federal government to take any action that would benefit the memory of the great General. One of these Congressmen, the Democratic Representative from Michigan, John Conyers, strongly and vocally opposed the measure. Conyers referred to the resolution as "neither healing nor charitable."

But Congress, to its credit, overwhelmingly voted in favor of the resolution and President Gerald Ford indicated his willingness to sign it. The signing ceremony took place on August 5, 1975, at Arlington House, the former home of General Lee’s family. The room was filled with distinguished citizens and dignitaries including Virginia’s Governor, its Senators and its Representatives. These excerpts from the comments President Ford made at the signing ceremony are a fitting tribute to Robert E. Lee.

"I am very pleased to sign Senate Joint Resolution 23, restoring posthumously the long overdue, full rights of citizenship to General Robert E. Lee. This legislation corrects a 110-year oversight of American history. It is significant that it is signed at this place.
Lee’s dedication to his native State of Virginia chartered his course for the bitter Civil War years, causing him to reluctantly resign from a distinguished career in the United States Army and to serve as General of the Army of Northern Virginia. He, thus, forfeited his rights to U.S. citizenship.
Once the war was over, he firmly felt the wounds of the North and South must be bound up. He sought to show by example that the citizens of the South must dedicate their efforts to rebuilding that region of the country as a strong and vital part of the American Union.
As a soldier, General Lee left his mark on military strategy. As a man, he stood as the symbol of valor and of duty. As an educator, he appealed to reason and learning to achieve understanding and to build a stronger nation. The course he chose after the war became a symbol to all those who had marched with him in the bitter years towards Appomattox.
General Lee’s character has been an example to succeeding generations, making the restoration of his citizenship an event in which every American can take pride.
In approving this Joint Resolution, the Congress removed the legal obstacle to citizenship which resulted from General Lee’s Civil War service. Although more than a century late, I am delighted to sign this resolution and to complete the full restoration of General Lee’s citizenship."

President Gerald Ford’s posthumous pardon of Robert E. Lee was indeed an event in which every American can take pride. But it also created an interesting bit of trivia. On Christmas Day of 1868, President Andrew Johnson, in one of his last official acts before leaving office, granted a blanket pardon to all those who "participated in the late insurrection or rebellion." Does this mean that General Lee has the distinction of being the only American to be pardoned by two Presidents — 100 years apart? It poses a fascinating question but one that I will let history professors debate.

In any event, Robert E. Lee was finally and officially pardoned. Perhaps this pardon has helped the General to rest more peacefully in his crypt at Washington and Lee University.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

Also, this reminiscence is my way of responding to readers who have accused me of being out of touch with the times, of wanting to turn back the clock. Some have dismissed me as a carping grouch who has a need to find fault with everything contemporary. The more creative respondents suggest that I am simply a "throwback" to a bygone era, an anachronism, a man who still wears spats. There is some truth to these accusations because I do have a disdain for much of what is called "progress."

People often think that with the passage of time, things get better and better. Many equate "change" with "progress." But things could just as easily get worse as get better. Then there is the belief that once a particular trend has been set in motion, it will continue unabated. Let me state emphatically that the possibility of contemporary trends continuing unabated is absolutely appalling to me. And what keeps me from utter despair is that I know that things often go in cycles. Consequently, I do not restrain my criticisms of "progress."

As a metaphor for my commentary, I have chosen a rather bland subject: saucers. Today the word conjures up visions of UFOs and spaceships, but those are not the kind of saucers I have in mind. The type of saucer I’m referring to is defined as " a small shallow curved dish on which a cup stands." A cup of coffee served with a saucer signifies a lifestyle quite different from the way of life represented by serving coffee in a mug or a Styrofoam cup. This latter method may be more expedient and suitable for today’s hurried lifestyle, but it doesn’t allow one to sip and savor coffee in the manner in which it was meant to be enjoyed. In fact, mugs and Styrofoam cups are an ideal symbol for the current hectic age; an epoch that is a far cry from the prior one which I will call the "Saucer Era."

Let’s return briefly to the Saucer Era. Visualize this. When you replace a cup onto its saucer it makes a clicking sound. The sound of a cup being placed on a saucer, — "click" — was once my alarm clock. It meant that someone in the family had just taken a sip of freshly brewed coffee. The sound raised me from my bed and pulled me to the kitchen. Taking a saucer from the cupboard, I would place a cup on it — "click" — and fill the cup with hot coffee. And how I relished that first sip of coffee! Although scientists have never discovered why, coffee sipped from a cup and saucer tastes better than coffee served in a mug.

Some mornings I left for work earlier than usual in order to pick up a morning paper and find a quiet place at one of the numerous downtown coffee shops. Reading a morning paper while sipping coffee from a cup and saucer was a healthy and urbane way to start the day. But today, coffee is rarely served with an accompanying saucer, and there are few places where you can read a newspaper without noise from loud music or a TV set. Trying to concentrate on what you are reading with this extraneous background noise produces a toxic state of mind. Furthermore, trying to read while some uncouth lout (I confess that I don’t know the female word for lout) at a nearby table is babbling into a cell phone gives rise to thoughts that are positively lethal.

During the Saucer Era, the workplace was more formal than now. Men wore business suits and ties, and women were fashionably attired, wearing dresses and feminine shoes. Although the office atmosphere was somewhat relaxed, a sense of professional decorum was always maintained. Casual attire was verboten and no one would have even considered bringing food or drink into the office. And a radio? Never!

Around mid-morning, we employees would take a "Coffee Break." Not in the office, of course, but at one of the many downtown coffee shops. Four or five of us would share a table where we could carry on conversations as there was neither music nor TV in the background. For several minutes, we chatted, sipping our coffee and replacing our cups onto our saucers — "click." Throughout the coffee shop, one would hear the sound of eager conversation combined with the pleasant clicking noise of cups contacting saucers.

Mid-afternoon was the occasion for another "Coffee Break," so it was back to the coffee shops. During the afternoon break, some opted for a soft drink. These were served in 6 1/2 ounce bottles accompanied by a glass tumbler to drink from. No one would have believed that one day people would arrive at work in the morning lugging a twenty-ounce soft drink in a plastic bottle.

I don’t want to give the impression that we squandered our workdays lounging around coffee shops. To the contrary, by separating break time from work time, we were actually more productive than todayu2018s work force. In fact, there was a pronounced work ethic among employees during the Saucer Era. Contributing to this work ethic, of course, was the fact that under-performing employees knew they could be terminated, and their terminations could not be appealed.

But please don’t think that the work environment was threatening. It wasn’t. Basically, there were certain rules, mostly unwritten, but fair and reasonable, that we understood were necessary for a pleasant, productive workplace.

So we did our jobs and had little to grumble about until one day "progress" intruded. It came under the guise of modern management theories. A new breed of managers had gradually replaced the old ones. These new managers were mesmerized by the latest management trends spelled out in best sellers by psychologists and sociologists. These social scientists claimed that making the workplace more "therapeutic" would improve efficiency.

A key element of a more therapeutic workplace was the creation of a "less stratified work environment" that would "lower status barriers." So casual dress and a casual workplace were advocated as a way of achieving this more egalitarian workplace. Eventually, employees began arriving at work in jeans, stretch pants, t-shirts and sneakers; toting bags of fast food, large containers of soft drinks, cell phones, catalogs and radios with earphones. Before long their manners became as casual as their attire.

No longer was it necessary for them to eat breakfast at home. Now they ate it at their desks. In fact, the workday evolved into one extended meal, munched on throughout the day. (I still remember one of my contemporaries putting on a pair of latex gloves prior to using a computer keyboard after he had watched another employee awkwardly inputting data on it while gnawing on a piece of fried chicken.)

The guiding principle for this new breed of managers seemed to be "change." The old way, whether it worked or not, had to be replaced with a new way. Departments were continually reorganized. Tasks, work flows and staffing patterns were frequently realigned. Because many of the reorganized departments continued to perform poorly, I wondered if the reorganizations were simply a way for managers to mask their incompetence or at least, delay its discovery.

The trend that excited these new managers the most was holding meetings. During the Saucer Era, a company might go for a full year without holding a single meeting. The staff was advised of procedural changes via an internal memo and managers saw no need to hold a meeting to reiterate verbally what was written in the memo. But now meetings began to be held so frequently that employees couldn’t keep up with their daily tasks. In some cases overtime was required to keep the work current and this increased the cost of operating the department. So another meeting was called to discuss how to reduce the department’s expenses. (It seemed to me that the weakest managers held the most meetings. In fact, it is my theory that a manager’s level of competence is in inverse proportion to the number of meetings he or she holds.)

Ominously, organizations began installing break rooms so that coffee breaks could be taken without leaving the office. Little did we know that this was only the forerunner of other disturbing innovations. Soon, break rooms were eliminated and a coffee urn was placed on a table in the hallway surrounded by stacks of Styrofoam cups. Now, the so-called "Coffee Break" had to be taken at your desk where you could continue working while sipping from a Styrofoam cup.

Personnel policies were drastically expanded in an attempt to address every possible situation that might occur, regardless of how remote. Additional staff was needed to administer the mushrooming mass of new bureaucratic rules. As employee satisfaction had become a primary concern for organizations, the new personnel policies contained numerous employee grievance procedures.

Ironically, although organizations had reached the point of essentially allowing an "anything goes" work environment, there was a notable increase in employee complaints. Some employees began medicating themselves with psychotropic drugs in order to cope with "stress" in the workplace. Days were spent popping pills, eating and clumsily shuffling papers, most of which were covered with food stains.

Regrettably, after all these changes, there was no noticeable improvement in productivity and, contrary to predictions by experts, employee morale actually worsened. Some of us began to dread going to an office that smelled like a kitchen; an office with moody employees, some of whom appeared to have just rolled out of bed and others that you couldn’t converse with until you signaled to them to remove their earphones.

This contemporary office environment is the product of lamentable theories social scientists promoted in order to sell their books. Some of these theories enjoyed a brief season in the sun but eventually proved unworkable and were quickly replaced with others. And over the years I have witnessed numerous failed management theories. But the ability to manage people effectively is not something that can be acquired by reading books or attending workshops. Some possess it and others don’t. People with management skills don’t need theories to help them and no theory will help a person who lacks management skills.

So this is where we are today. And, as much as I would like to turn back the clock, I know that I can’t. So I cope. But some mornings, in the solitude of my kitchen with my cup of coffee resting on its saucer, I slip into a reverie that returns me again to one of those quaint little coffee shops where I can hear the sound of other cups clicking into other saucers.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

Fittingly, I will begin with a Christmas book, one that portrays Christmas in South Carolina’s Lowcountry in the mid-1800s: The Golden Christmas by William Gilmore Simms. This little book is described as being influenced by Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet as well as Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol. But there is also the flavor of Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest as Simms humorously describes two young Southern aristocrats trying to win the affection of their true loves during Charleston’s holiday season. Although Simms’s language offers quite a contrast to today’s speech, the book is a pleasure to read and Simms draws you into the festive environment. As a bonus, the book includes an introduction by Simms scholar, David Aiken, that provides a wealth of information about the Lowcountry at the time of Simms’s story.

Next, a Christmas book that you are probably familiar with but one that deserves to be mentioned: A Christmas Memory by Truman Capote. This book, little more than a short story, is a remembrance of a Christmastime when Capote was seven years old and living with relatives in Monroeville, Alabama. The young boy and his elderly cousin, a very special lady who has retained her youthful enthusiasm, prepare for Christmas in a small town in the rural South in the 1930s. Although often referred to as a children’s story, it has been enjoyed by many adults. And if you are not too jaded, you might be very moved by it.

Band of Angels may not be a well-known novel but it is a very special one. This is a work by Robert Penn Warren, Pulitzer Prize winner and member of the literary group known as The Fugitives that came out of Vanderbilt University in the 1920s. This book has been compared to Gone With the Wind and there are striking similarities. Both protagonists are beautiful women eagerly sought after by men, often to their regret. Both are daughters of Southern plantation owners and both stories are set in the period before, during and after The War Between the States. Without giving away too much of the story, I will say that the idyllic life of Warren’s heroine, Amantha Starr, comes to an abrupt end when she learns that her recently deceased father was deeply in debt and creditors are seizing his entire estate. Among the "property" seized is Amantha herself, who discovers that her long-deceased mother, whom she had never known, was a slave. This makes Amantha a half-caste and, according to her father’s creditors, a slave. At a New Orleans slave auction, she is purchased by a strange yet kindly master and so begins a series of entanglements and adventures. This is quite a book and Warren’s portrayal of historical events is informative and accurate, especially the Union’s military occupation of New Orleans.

Another member of The Fugitives literary group was Donald Davidson, whose scholarly essays made him a preeminent advocate of the agrarian South. In the mid-1950s, Davidson tried his hand at fiction, writing The Big Ballad Jamboree, a humorous account of the conflicts arising when urbanism creeps into rural communities. A country music star, Danny MacGregor, tries to win his childhood sweetheart, Cissie Timberlake, once a country music singer but now a serious folk-music scholar. MacGregor stops at nothing in his romantic quest and his shenanigans are as inept as they are hilarious.

In Walking Toward Home, James Kibler presents a thoroughly enjoyable collection of eccentrics who inhabit a remote rural area of South Carolina — the nearest ATM is over twenty miles away. You will encounter strange names like Shot-Face, Triggerfoot, Lulu Bess, Mattie Lou, Jim-Jesse, and Hoyalene. And the dialect is authentic throughout. Kibler’s people, like Davidson’s characters, also have conflicts with modernity. But they don’t lose their identity and their stories are often humorous but not without a touch of sadness. This is one of those books that come along from time to time to give us respite from the troubles of the day.

Finally, for those who love mysteries, and most of us do, I recommend The Hunt for Confederate Gold by Thomas Moore. As the title implies, the story concerns an attempt to find the legendary Confederate gold, hidden from the invading Union forces at the end of The War Between the States. Moore tells his story craftily, switching back and forth between 1865 and the current era, allowing his main character, Bo Bolitho, to reveal a few facts at a time to keep us in the chase. Moore adds spice to his tale with the inclusion of trumped up charges of treason against Bolitho’s cohort and mentor, University of South Carolina history professor, Parker Hastie; charges that result in Hastie’s imprisonment by the Federal government. And, of course, there is the obligatory attractive female, Iona Herrick, to tickle the romantic fancies of the intrepid Bo Bolitho. In a preview, you can’t say too much about a mystery story for fear of diluting the mystery. But this book is a great read and would make an excellent Christmas gift.

These books are available from Amazon.com and most can be shipped in a couple of days.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

Teresa Wright’s flame blazed brightly in the 1940s and 1950s. She remains the only actress to receive Academy Award nominations for her first three films. Her first movie role in 1941 earned her an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actress. Her second movie part, in 1942, also resulted in a Best Supporting Actress nomination and this time she won the award. In her third movie, also in 1942, she was nominated for Best Actress.

In 1946, Life Magazine contained a feature article on The Best Years of Our Lives, the biggest Hollywood draw since Gone With The Wind. The film won seven Oscars, including Best Film, and won over a field of strong contenders that included It’s a Wonderful Life. Some of Hollywood’s finest talents were members of the filmu2018s cast: Frederic March, Myrna Loy, Dana Andrews, Teresa Wright and Virginia Mayo. Picking one of these stars for the cover photo was not an easy task but the editors of Life finally, and wisely, chose Teresa Wright.

Teresa Wright caught the attention of director Alfred Hitchcock while he was still a relatively recent transplant to the United States. At the time Hitchcock was working on a film script that required the leading lady to transform from a naïve young girl into a mature woman fairly rapidly as a result of the circumstances she was thrust into. As the main character of the film the young actress would have to hold the audience’s attention and project intense emotions with minimal dialogue. It was a role that called for a seasoned actress but Hitchcock believed that the newcomer, Miss Wright, could pull it off.

The result was the 1943 film noir, Shadow of a Doubt, Hitchcock’s personal favorite. The film was a departure from Hitchcock’s usual formula in which a male protagonist, assisted by a glamorous lady, evades police while trying to prove his innocence to a crime he has been wrongly accused of. In these films, the female usually provides the love interest and her role is secondary to the male’s. In Shadow of a Doubt, Teresa Wright, receiving top billing over an impressive array of stars, portrays Young Charlie Newton who is named after her favorite relative, Uncle Charlie, played by Joseph Cotten. Young Charlie is bored and restless with her uneventful life in the small town of Santa Rosa, California, so she is elated by the news that Uncle Charlie is coming for a visit — what she doesn’t know is that Uncle Charlie is a notorious murderer who is hurriedly fleeing from New Jersey as a result of a nationwide manhunt that is closing in on him.

Young Charlie’s initial excitement over her uncle’s visit gradually wanes as she witnesses his periodic dark moods. Eventually she makes the terrifying discovery that her Uncle Charlie is the famous "Merry Widow" Murderer who romances and kills wealthy widows for their money. The tension mounts after Uncle Charlie realizes that Young Charlie has learned his awful secret. Young Charlie, knowing it would break her mother’s heart if she learned that her favorite brother was a murderer, decides to keep the secret to herself while scheming to force Uncle Charlie to leave.

Hitchcock placed immense confidence in the youthful Teresa Wright by selecting her for such a difficult role. Not only does she prove equal to the task but her suggestions for script changes during filming were readily accepted by Hitchcock. In this film, Alfred Hitchcock resisted the temptation for intense gripping action, choosing instead a subtle building of tension leading to the final scene. Because of the absence of fast-paced action, gratuitous sex and other Hollywood gimmicks, the film may not satisfy some of today’s moviegoers.

The disparity between the behavior of small town residents during the period in which this film is set as compared to contemporary society is striking. We see unaccompanied women of all ages safely walking through town after dark. The youngest Newton daughter is reading Ivanhoe, a book she checked out of the local library. The Newton family sits around the dining room table in the evening, conversing as they have dinner together. This is a family before television and fast-food franchises; a portrait of America before it began losing its traditions

Santa Rosa was selected for the filming location because it had all the characteristics of a small town of the time; it could have been in the northeast, the south or the Midwest. Hitchcock believed that placing a notorious murderer from a large metropolitan city in a small crime-free town enhanced the tension. The contrast between the cosmopolitan Uncle Charlie and the provincial Newton family creates another level of tension.

Teresa Wright is the ideal symbol for the 1940s and early 1950s; an era, that if you contrast it to the decades that followed, could very well be called the best years of our lives. Although Teresa Wright was less glamorous than other actresses of the period, she cast quite a spell over male moviegoers. She was the quintessential girl next door; fresh, wholesome and uncontaminated by Feminism, the sexual revolution or Women’s Studies. She was the girl you dreamed of bringing home to meet the family. The girl you proposed to in the old-fashioned way.

However, it would be a mistake to characterize Miss Wright as a submissive shrinking violet. She was an independent, strong-willed woman as evidenced by her first Hollywood contract. She insisted on language that exempted her from the inane publicity stunts and photos that studios required of their actors and actresses. Her contract contained this sentence: "The aforementioned Teresa Wright shall not be required to pose for photographs in a bathing suit unless she is in the water." Her continued refusal to engage in what she considered unbecoming behavior to publicize films eventually caused Samuel Goldwyn to cancel her contract.

Standing firm, she said: "The type of contract between players and producers is, I feel, antiquated in form and abstract in concept. We have no privacies which producers cannot invade, they trade us like cattle, boss us like children." Although she lost her $5000 per week contract with the MGM mogul, Miss Wright continued to make films for other studios, stating: "I will gladly work for less if by doing so I can retain the common decency without which the most acclaimed job becomes intolerable."

Unlike today’s militant feminists, Teresa Wright knew how to be autonomous without sacrificing her femininity. And when we compare Miss Wright with today’s actresses, or with many of today’s young women, we are aware of a tremendous loss. Teresa Wright exemplified the phenomenon known as "young lady," a very precious element of our society and one that we are losing.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer.

The Scopes Trial has been described as both the trial of the century and a media circus. It was indeed a media circus but hardly the trial of the century. No great legal arguments were made and no legal precedents were set. And to this day, certain details are omitted from media versions of the trial. Their omission is deliberate and illustrates the power of media stereotypes; how media, news reports and entertainment sources, reinterpret historical events in order to influence public opinion.

Stanley Kramer’s 1960 film adaptation of the play Inherit the Wind is the version of events most people view as factual. But this is a fictionalized account only loosely based on the actual proceedings. In fact, the film includes invented characters to help dramatize the message Kramer wanted to bring home. To understand Stanley Kramer, we must remember that although he produced some fine films, many were simply "message" films driven by a "leftist liberal" agenda. Indeed, he was called "Hollywood’s Conscience."

Kramer is credited with producing the first Hollywood film to deal with racism: Home of the Brave (1949). This film concerns acts of bigotry against a black soldier. The Defiant Ones (1958) portrays the racial conflict between two escaped convicts, one black and one white. In his 1967 film, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, Kramer addresses the problems of interracial romance.

Like his other message films, Kramer’s Inherit the Wind is melodramatic and contrived, even laughable in points. The characters are one-dimensional and their good and bad traits are highly exaggerated. As you view this 45-year-old film today you will find it embarrassingly corny. (Kramer should have heeded the advice of MGM’s Samuel Goldwyn: "If you want to send a message, call Western Union.")

But a synopsis of the film will set the stage for our discussion. To avoid confusion, I will use actual names of participants rather than their Hollywood stage names.

The film opens in downtown Dayton, Tennessee, with Give Me That Old Time Religion being sung in the background to achieve a Southern fundamentalist effect. The local sheriff has just arrested high school biology teacher John Scopes for teaching Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in violation of state law. A violent mob of bigoted religious fanatics hurls rocks at the window of Scopes’ jail cell while shouting "Devil" at him. These narrow-minded yokels hold noisy prayer meetings and parades throughout the film.

When he arrives at the train station, William Jennings Bryan receives a warm-hearted reception. Bryan is portrayed as a loud-mouthed, close-minded, religious blowhard who believes that every word in the Bible is literally true. In contrast, Clarence Darrow’s arrival is greeted with boos and someone shouts "Devil" at the famous attorney. Darrow is depicted as the opposite of Bryan — a brilliant, courageous, self-sacrificing attorney willing to risk his own safety in order to restrain the forces of ignorance and intolerance.

The unfolding events are a pastiche of the comic antics of backwater local citizens as well as the ineptitude of the prosecution team contrasted with Clarence Darrow’s masterful courtroom defense that culminates in his dramatic cross-examination of Bryan, exposing him as an ignorant, pontificating, Bible-thumper. In the film, Darrow’s intense questioning pushes Bryan into a shouting frenzy resulting in a paroxysm. He collapses onto the courtroom floor and dies.

In the film’s closing scene, Clarence Darrow holds Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in the palm of one hand and the Bible in the other as though weighing them. He smiles, claps the two books together, places them in his briefcase and leaves the courtroom as (I’m not making this up) The Battle Hymn of the Republic is sung in the background.

As we might expect, this film is still being used as an instructional tool in many public schools. Other versions of the event, written for young adults, although not as simplistic as the film, follow what has been called "the standard version of the Scopes trial."

Any understanding of the Scopes trial must begin with the creation of the American Civil Liberties Union. In the early 1900s, many elites were fascinated by the Russian implementation of a Communistic society. To lift workers from oppression, Marxism sought the elimination of private ownership of property so that the state could allocate economic benefits to workers, according to their needs. Marx viewed religion as an obstacle to Socialism because it promised paradise in an afterlife as a reward for hardship in this life. To Marx, this aspect of religion accommodated Capitalism’s exploitation of workers. Communism, on the other hand, offered rewards in the earthly life which workers would demand if the promises of religion were eliminated.

We must remember that at this early stage the Russian experiment with Communism seemed to be working — this was years before Stalin’s brutal purges. So groups such as the Communist Party of the USA, the Socialist Party, the Industrial Workers of the World and the Friends of the Soviet Union were actively involved in implementing Socialism in the United States. It was in this environment that the American Civil Liberties Union was conceived. When it was formed in 1920, its board of directors contained many of the prominent members of these organizations and the ACLU shared an office with the Communist Party’s newspaper, New Masses.

The ACLU went out of its way to avoid being perceived as a political organization; even its name was carefully chosen to sound innocuous — after all, who could object to an organization that protected civil liberties? But its founder, Roger Baldwin, let the cat out of the bag with his statement: "Civil liberties, like democracy, are useful only as tools for social change." The newly formed ACLU needed a high profile case as a vehicle to establish its significance and it thought it had found one when Tennessee passed a law prohibiting the teaching of evolution. So it placed ads in major Tennessee newspapers seeking a volunteer to teach evolution with the promise of free legal protection.

Although the little town of Dayton was certainly provincial compared to large metropolitan centers, it was hardly the stagnant backwoods collection of hayseeds portrayed in the "standard version" of the Scopes trial. Its men had participated in World War One and, in the process, sipped French wine in Paris and German beer in Berlin. The women of Dayton had also served in the war effort in Europe as nurses and aides. A popular song of the time asked: "How ya gonna keep ‘em down on the farm, after they’ve seen Paree?" But these soldiers, although permanently altered by their years overseas, did return to their farms and picked up where they had left off.

In 1925, Dayton’s population contained quite a number of inhabitants transplanted from other parts of the nation including George Rappleyea, manager of a local mine, who had recently relocated from New York. It was Rappleyea who convinced the city fathers to accept the ACLU’s offer and find a teacher who would claim to have taught evolution in violation of state law. Rappleyea maintained that media coverage of the trial would boost the city’s economy. So John Scopes, math teacher and football coach, agreed to play the role of a biology teacher who violated state law.

William Jennings Bryan agreed to assist the city’s prosecution of Scopes and, because of his famous oratorical skills, Bryan would also present the closing argument to the jury. Upon learning of Bryan’s participation, Clarence Darrow offered to assist the ACLU’s defense team. The ACLU did not want Darrow’s services because it knew he would use the trial as a forum to attack religion and attempt to humiliate Bryan. As a fledgling organization trying to establish its reputation, the ACLU did not want to be perceived as anti-religious but rather as an impartial defender of the right of educators to present alternative views on the origin of life. Upon the urging of H.L. Mencken and others however, the ACLU reluctantly added Darrow to its defense team.

The most misunderstood and maligned player in this drama was William Jennings Bryan, a complex man who is simplistically portrayed in the "standard version." Bryan was also an attorney with several years experience as a trial lawyer and with his immense skills of persuasion could have become one of the most famous lawyers in the nation. Bryan, at age 36, became the youngest presidential candidate in American history. In fact, although he was never elected, the Democrats made Bryan their presidential candidate three times. President Woodrow Wilson selected Bryan as his Secretary of State but Bryan, because of his strong anti-war views, resigned the office because he felt Wilson’s policies might involve the United States in World War One

Contrary to the "standard version," Bryan was not a rigid religious fundamentalist who took every word in the Bible literally. In fact, he showed an early interest in Darwin’s theory of evolution because he felt it was compatible with the creation of the world by God. Bryan thoroughly studied all of Darwin’s ideas — not just On the Origin of the Species but also The Descent of Man (I have always wondered why Darwin didn’t call his work, The Ascent of Man?) Bryan’s research effectively ended his support of Darwin’s ideas, especially for what has been labeled "Social Darwinism." Consequently, Bryan strongly objected to the textbook used to teach evolution in 1925; a textbook that the "standard version" does not mention.

Today, that textbook, A Civic Biology by George William Hunter, would be considered racist and callous. Following Darwin’s example, Hunter classified humans into racial groupings and ranked races according to how far each has advanced up the evolutionary scale. Hunter’s book contains this language: There are "five races or varieties of man…the Ethiopian or Negro type…the Malay or brown race…the American Indian…the Mongolian or yellow race…and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America."

Hunter, also like Darwin, proposes what has been called a "soft" form of eugenics. Again from Hunter’s textbook: "If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection." The book maintains that undesirable behaviors — criminality, alcoholism, prostitution, low intelligence, etc. — are inherited and passed on to family members. After providing examples, the textbook claims: "Hundreds of families such as those described above exist today, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country … just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society." Hunter’s textbook maintains that these people should be separated from others and not allowed to proliferate or intermarry.

Darwin’s radical theories had a strong following throughout Europe. In Germany, Ernst Haeckel even used fraudulent data to further Darwin’s agenda. Darwinian ideas strongly influenced Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Darwin’s grouping of races into a hierarchy was a central impetus for Hitler’s concept of creating a "master race." When Hitler came to power, he appointed psychiatrist Ernst Rudin to draft the Nazi Sterilization Law; the blueprint for the elimination of "unwanted ethnic groups." This law was an extension of the solutions posed in Hunter’s A Civic Biology; the textbook the ACLU went to court to defend.

In addition to omitting important facts, the "standard version" of the trial deliberately falsifies incidents. There were no angry mobs nor raving religious fanatics roaming the streets of Dayton or holding noisy aggressive rallies during the trial. The local populace never turned against John Scopes nor did it throw rocks at his jail window. Indeed, Scopes was never even arrested much less placed in jail. The most serious thing Scopes endured was a reprimand from the judge for returning late to court after a noon break when Scopes and three members of the prosecution team went for a swim together to get relief from the heat.

Dayton residents were as excited to have Clarence Darrow in their city as they were to have William Jennings Bryan. Both men received warm welcomes and both were feted at local banquets. Darrow would later write that the treatment he received from the people of Dayton was the warmest and friendliest he had ever experienced.

An incident early in the trial tells us a lot about the people of Dayton as well as the character of Bryan. After Bryan made an impassioned speech attacking the Hunter textbook and the harmful effects it could have on young students — a speech that received an enthusiastic ovation — the defense was allowed to respond. Dudley Moore, a former assistant to Bryan in the State department, calmly and methodically assailed Bryan’s opinions and then made an ardent plea for open-mindedness regarding educational instruction. Moore’s powerful comments received a more animated ovation than Bryan’s speech. When the afternoon session ended, Bryan sought out Moore and took him aside: "Dudley," he said, "that was the greatest speech I have ever heard."

The high point of the "standard version" is Darrow’s cross-examination of Bryan regarding the veracity of biblical stories in the Old Testament — the creation of the earth in seven days, Jonah and the whale, Noah’s Ark, etc. Darrow is supposed to have humiliated Bryan, but if you read the transcript you get a different picture. Throughout the trial, Bryan was always a strong contender. He was upbeat and his sense of humor frequently punctuated his responses.

Bryan viewed these biblical stories as allegorical, but his answers were cautious, as one would expect from someone with legal training. He responded to one question, "I believe the stories in the Bible should be taken as written." That answer leaves the door open for individual interpretations. As to creation of the earth, Bryan maintained that seven days in biblical creation language may not be the same as contemporary calendar days. Bryan maintained this guarded approach with all his answers. However, on the subject of miracles he stood firm. When Darrow scoffed at biblical miracles, Bryan responded: "It is hard to believe for you, but easy for me. A miracle is a thing beyond what man can perform."

As an attorney, Bryan knew this line of questioning had no relation to the issue at hand and he probably wondered why the judge allowed it. However, Bryan continued to spar with Darrow until his exasperation provoked him to state: "They (the defense) did not come here to try this case. They came here to try revealed religion." This prompted Darrow to angrily respond: "You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion." This was what the ACLU had feared might happen. Under the scrutiny of worldwide radio and newspaper coverage, Clarence Darrow had called Christianity a "fool religion." Darrow’s attempt to refute Bryan’s assertion inadvertently supported it.

Later in the trial Darrow questioned some of Scopes students in an attempt to demonstrate that they were not adversely affected by the teaching of evolution: "Did it hurt you any? Do you still believe in church although you were told all life comes from a single cell?" Bryan knew Darrow would eventually try to make the point. Indeed, he had been eagerly waiting for Darrow to do so. Now Bryan pulled a sheaf of papers from his briefcase; the transcript of the Leopold and Loeb case of the previous year. In that case, Darrow claimed that the defendants were led to commit their crime because they were taught the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche at the University of Chicago. Bryan read Darrow’s arguments which contained this comment: "Your Honor, it is hardly fair to hang a nineteen-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university." This was one-upmanship for Bryan and a significant moment in the trial.

But Darrow had one more card to play. When the testimony ended, Darrow declined the opportunity to make a closing speech to the jury. Under Tennessee law, if the defense waived its right to give a closing speech, the prosecution is barred from making one. So Bryan was denied the opportunity to make the speech he had worked on for weeks. To no one’s surprise, the jury found Scopes guilty and the judge fined him $100, the minimum fine.

The ACLU knew it would lose the case and indeed wanted to lose it. Now it could appeal the decision to the Tennessee Supreme Court, where it was confident it would lose again. That would open the door for an appeal to the United State Supreme Court, the ACLU’s goal from the beginning — but the Tennessee Supreme Court outsmarted the ACLU. A technicality in state law prevented a local judge from assessing a fine in excess of $50 and Scopes had been fined $100. So the state court overturned Scopes’ conviction thereby preventing an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

We should remember that scientists felt confident about the theory of evolution in 1925 because they believed the "missing link" connecting humans with apes had been found. But their famous missing links, Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man, were later proven to be hoaxes. The missing link has never been found. Now, eighty years after the Scopes trial, scientists are beginning to have serious doubts about Darwin’s theory of evolution.

No recounting of the trial would be complete without a mention of the sloppy journalism involved. Some journalists covering the event missed significant portions of the trial because of long lunches and other absences. Many returned home while the trial was still in process, filing reports from their desks. One journalist never even attended a single court session. His justification is telling: " I don’t have to know what’s going on; I know what my paper wants me to write." This journalistic philosophy continues to this day and only authorized versions of the Scopes Trial as well as other important events are allowed to be printed.

A final note. One of the arguments made by the ACLU at the Scopes trial was that a state should allow the teaching of differing viewpoints on issues, especially the origin of life. Ironically, today only evolution is allowed to be taught, and the ACLU aggressively argues against permitting the teaching of other viewpoints.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer living in Beaufort, S.C.

~ Sarah Williams

With the problems our nation is currently facing, many people may not view a critique of daylight savings time as a subject of consequence. Indeed, they may wonder why I would waste time over something as seemingly trivial as DST. But the federal government’s arbitrary reshuffling of our days is a typical example of inappropriate bureaucratic behavior and, in my opinion, quite significant.

I have been an opponent of daylight savings time (I know it should be "saving" rather that "savings" but I’ll use the government’s terminology) for as long as I can remember. For years I have sent grumbling letters to the editors of local newspapers at the onset of DST. When my letters appear, I always hear from many people who agree with me. But a significant number disagree. I am amazed that so many actually support this arbitrary time change.

Supporters of daylight savings time claim that days, hours and minutes are simply arbitrary constructs of man, therefore man is at liberty to change them to accommodate his needs. Although a "day" is in essence, a creation of mankind, its structure is far from arbitrary. Prehistoric man set noon as the moment when the sun is at its highest point in the sky. With noon as a fixed point, morning, afternoon and night could be placed in their relationship to noon. When the sun rose, it signaled the beginning of day. When the sun went down, it signaled the beginning of night. Night is as essential as day to our health and well-being.

The animal kingdom also conducts its activities around this concept of a day, often called the "rhythm of nature." The blooms of many plants open when the sun rises and close when it sets. Of course, there are nocturnal animals and plants but they also adhere to the circadian rhythms. When civilized communities developed, the rhythm of nature continued to determine how days were broken up into hours — usually based on shadows projected from sundials strategically placed to determine the location of the sun. This same rhythm of nature model was used when time was eventually "standardized"; standardized by creating time zones across the country based on the earth’s rotation around the sun.

For millennia this concept of a day worked well. But it was inevitable that man would eventually try to alter the rhythm of nature. Benjamin Franklin may have been the first person to conceive the idea of saving daylight. As a resident of Paris in the 1780s, Franklin focused his keen mind on the amount of candles and oil for lamps Parisians were using after the sun went down. Franklin’s projections on the overall cost of candles and oil consumption by Parisians led to a proposal for an official delay of the onset of darkness. This experiment of saving daylight was tried, without much success, not only in Paris but other parts of Europe. Still over the years, DST has continued to intrigue bureaucrats, especially as governments grew larger and more intrusive.

We are told that 25% of our power usage is for lighting and small appliances used by families in the evening hours. The government maintains that by moving the clock ahead one hour, we can reduce the amount of power we consume by about one percent each day. I don’t know what this estimate is based on but I do not believe it. I have never found anyone who has noticed any reduction, however small, in their monthly power bills during DST. If there is a savings by government agencies or large corporations, it certainly has not been passed along to the public.

Do government bureaucrats think that these "small appliances" are only used after the sun goes down? Do they honestly believe that TVs, stereos, VCRs, DVDs, video games, home computers, ovens, dishwashers, microwaves and all the other appliances are only used after sunset? Do they also believe that sunlight passing through windows completely negates the use of electric lights? Millions of Americans live in apartment complexes with windows on only one side of a four-sided unit. Sunlight from windows on only one wall will hardly provide enough lighting for the average apartment dweller. And I hope these bureaucrats don’t think that an extra hour of sunlight reduces the use of air conditioning.

But if a theory sounds good, politicians do not usually spend a lot of time analyzing the data justifying it. They blithely pass a law like daylight savings time without knowing if it will be beneficial or not. However, that doesn’t prevent them from referring to the law as "progress." Being something of a Luddite, I always cringe when I hear a politician use the word "progress." It usually means something that works well is being replaced by an untested theory. In the case of DST, it is a theory that moves us further away from nature and the rhythm of nature.

To make things worse, politicians rarely amend or repeal a law even though the conditions for its original justification might have changed. To their way of thinking, if daylight savings time seemed like a good idea in 1966 it must still be a good idea in 2005. Of course there are the herd mentality politicians who simply follow along — a recent example can be found in Indiana, one of the places that had wisely resisted DST. In April, the Indiana legislature, by a slim majority, voted to impose DST on the state. The Indiana House Speaker encouraged the vote with this comment: "Now is the day to tell the rest of the world that we are willing to step into the 21st century." I think the people of Indiana would prefer their legislators to base their votes on something more substantial than showing the world that the state was willing to step into the 21st century.

Other arguments for DST — it reduces traffic accidents and promotes commerce — are also questionable. Studies in various countries on the reduction of traffic accidents as a result of DST have produced conflicting conclusions. And I doubt that there is any hard data that indicates that shifting one hour of daylight from morning to evening will significantly increase commerce. But these kinds of dubious claims seem to be good enough for our legislators.

From an aesthetic standpoint, daylight savings time has robbed us of the night; that mysterious and most therapeutic part of the day. Darkness provides solace from busy daylight hours unless one simply replaces the noisy restlessness of the day with frenetic television programs in the evening. But an end to DST would allow us to once again to sit outside in the quiet of the evening, without the television set or the cell phone, and try to recover the lost art of conversation while experiencing the curative powers of sunsets, stars and moonlight.

Especially annoying to me is that DST prevents us from enjoying the ancient human tradition of viewing sunsets. I always remember watching fantastic sunsets as a child. Often the entire family would sit outside talking and reminiscing as we watched the sun sink below the horizon. Even more spectacular is viewing the sunset from the vantage point of a beach. There are amazing, magical-seeming color changes in the sky — blue, gray, orange, red and violet — eventually the sun becomes bright red and slips into the ocean.

I also remember searching for constellations in the night sky. Many in the current generation may find this activity a little boring compared to watching the latest segment of "Desperate Housewives" on television. But, as a young person and even as I grew older, it was exciting to try to locate those clusters of stars as their positions changed with the seasons. And young children enjoy discovering the interconnectedness of constellations like the Big and Little Dipper and Orion. It teaches them patience, doesn’t set their nerves a jangle and isn’t likely to cause Attention Deficit Disorder.

Luckily, the number of people who want daylight savings time ended is growing. There is even an End Daylight Savings Time website that has become a focal point for those who want this intrusive annual time change ended. The site provides information about DST and encourages opponents to let congressmen in their states know their feelings (as I have done). It also provides how-to information as well as a petition that can be signed to urge the return to year-round Standard Time.

The late Canadian journalist and author, Robertson Davies, said this of DST: "I object to being told that I am saving daylight when I am doing nothing of the kind. I even object to the implication that I am wasting something valuable if I stay in bed after the sun has risen. As an admirer of moonlight I resent the bossy insistence of those who want to reduce my time for enjoying it. At the back of the Daylight Savings scheme I detect the bony, blue-fingered hand of Puritanism, eager to push people into bed earlier, and get them up earlier, to make them healthy, wealthy, and wise in spite of themselves."

The poll numbers regarding approval of DST are confusing. We are told that the majority like it. But in these same polls, the percentage of those opposing the annual time change is identical to those favoring it.

Having an agrarian predisposition, I believe our society is moving too far away from the rhythm of nature. I also believe that this estrangement from nature contributes to the malaise of our overly-medicated generation. Uninterrupted, year-round Standard Time would not be a panacea for our discontent but I think it might be a first step in the right direction.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a free-lance writer living in Beaufort, S.C.

Of course, with politicians, abuses of power are a common occurrence. Not a day goes by that we do not read about an elected official’s involvement in some kind of scandal. The more flawed the individual, the more serious the breach of ethics. But these unethical lapses do not usually threaten lives nor cause death. And that is the difference between a corrupt public official and a tyrant. The actions of dictators often cause the loss of lives, yet dictators believe that their actions are defensible because the end justifies the means, however harsh they may be.

Dictators do not feel bound by rules of law; their actions must not be questioned, they do not negotiate, and they silence or eliminate those who oppose their policies. Unfortunately, no form of government has been designed that can prevent the emergence of a tyrant. Dictators simply ignore or circumvent established laws by using cunning verbal platitudes. And too often, those with influence do not speak out against them until it is too late.

But, contrary to what court historians claim, there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. A brief look at some of history’s more famous tyrants will show that they all were cast from the same mold and they were not benevolent.

Although he was Emperor of Rome for only four years, that was enough time for Caligula to create a legacy of barbaric cruelty. Caligula had been raised by his uncle, the Emperor Tiberius, who decreed that Caligula and his nephew, Tiberius Gemellus should succeed him as joint emperors. But Caligula had his nephew murdered in order to become sole emperor. Caligula soon depleted the treasury and had to impose heavy taxation, including a tax on prostitutes, in order to maintain his lavish, debauched lifestyle. Like most dictators, he aggressively silenced and eliminated any opposition — primarily with "treason trials" for those he accused of "disloyalty." Conviction of treason was a foregone conclusion and those convicted were executed and their property confiscated. (So many so-called "criminals" were executed that there weren’t enough criminals to fight lions in the arena. On one occasion, Caligula became so peeved by the inadequate number of criminals that he literally ordered spectators to be dragged from their seats and placed in the arena to face the lions.)

Many believe that Caligula was insane and as evidence they cite his attempt to make his horse a senator. But this may have been the Emperor’s way of expressing what he thought of the Roman senate. Caligula created so many enemies that a member of his own guard finally assassinated him.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that someone who becomes the absolute ruler of a nation at age three would eventually develop despotic tendencies. So it was with Ivan the Terrible who assumed the throne when he was three years old and became Russia’s first tsar at age sixteen. There were positive aspects of Ivan’s reign but they are overshadowed by his tyrannical actions. He enacted laws restricting the freedoms of peasants that eventually reduced them to virtual serfdom. Also, Ivan created the infamous Oprichnina; a personal security force whose purpose was to suppress those, primarily members of the nobility, who offered opposition to his actions. The Oprichnina murdered both nobles and peasants as Ivan viewed his rule as absolute and would not tolerate dissenters. Ivan murdered his own son during an argument. And history reports that a secret dose of poison caused Ivan’s death.

America’s founders thought they had fashioned a republic resistant to a dictatorship. But President Abraham Lincoln brushed aside the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that the Founders had so carefully constructed. "Saving the Union" was Lincoln’s excuse for refusing to meet with representatives from Southern states in order to attempt a negotiated compromise to the impending war. In true despotic fashion, Lincoln decided that there was only one way, his way, to save the Union. (Can you imagine George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other presidents refusing to attempt a negotiated compromise to a war; especially an internal war that would eventually cost the lives of over 600,000 young men?) Apparently, "saving the Union" was also Abraham Lincoln’s justification for waging war against defenseless civilians in Georgia, South Carolina and other parts of the South. In doing so he established a bloody precedent. Lincoln also shut down newspapers, arresting and imprisoning newspaper editors for being "disloyal."

An infamous example of Lincoln’s oppressive and illegal acts against civilians occurred in October 1862, in Palmyra, Missouri. The Union relied on secret informers to disclose the locations of Confederate sympathizers so they could be arrested. When their informer in Palmyra suddenly disappeared, General John McNeil ordered that a public decree be issued warning that if the informer was not returned within ten days, military forces would execute ten Palmyra civilians. The townspeople didn’t take the threat seriously because they couldn’t believe the federal government would ignore due process and certainly would not slaughter innocent civilians. However, when the informer was not located within the allotted time, ten civilians were selected by lottery and executed. (One was a nineteen-year-old man whose wedding had been scheduled for the day following his execution.) Newspapers in the South, the North and even Europe furiously condemned this murder of innocent civilians, labeling General McNeil the "Butcher of Palmyra." But President Lincoln rewarded McNeil by promoting him to Brigadier General of the United States Volunteers.

Lincoln conducted his presidency using the same techniques he had used as a country lawyer. He would support one position in one case, and the opposite position in another. And, although a non-believer, he laced his compassionate speeches to jurors with biblical quotations. His passionate, high-flown and manipulative rhetoric worked well with jurors and seems to be the only basis for today’s "Lincoln mythology." But Lincoln’s tyrannical behavior earned him the hatred of thousands of Americans and, as we know, one of those enraged Americans assassinated him.

The designation of history’s most notorious dictator might come down to a contest between Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini and Adolph Hitler. Although the enormity of Hitler’s atrocities still amazes us, his method of operation was no different from other dictators. Like Lincoln, Hitler also utilized the military to suppress any opposition to his policies. He shut down newspapers; had books burned, spied on and harassed ordinary citizens, and created concentration camps. Adolph Hitler also borrowed a page from Lincoln’s play book and converted the "saving the Union" ploy to lebensraum — living space — as justification for war. Whereas Lincoln had made Southern secessionists his scapegoat, Hitler blamed Germany’s problems on the Jews. So successful was Hitler’s propaganda machine that he was able to eliminate millions of European Jews. But Hitler’s grand scheme was too grandiose and unrealistic to succeed and when it eventually collapsed, the demoralized dictator took his own life.

Smaller nations have also been plundered by dictators as evidenced by Francois (Papa Doc) Duvalier of Haiti. One of Papa Doc’s first acts was the creation of a secret police force, the Tontons Macoute, that was used to silence and eliminate his opponents. In addition to the Tontons Macoute, Duvalier also had a Palace Guard and his own personal army. Like Lincoln, Papa Doc, claiming "seditious acts," arrested and jailed the country’s leading newspaper editors and radio station owners. Duvalier had his opponents executed and even went so far as to execute his own allies if he felt they were becoming too ambitious. Papa Doc was able to terrify the uneducated mass of Haitians into subservience by claiming to be a voodoo spirit of the dead. For years Duvalier duped Washington into giving him larger and larger sums of foreign aid, usually playing the race card by accusing America of leaving his "poor Negro Republic out in the cold." Although during his lifetime Papa Doc took in enormous amounts of foreign aid, he died leaving Haiti in financial ruin; a land of miserable slums filled with a homeless and starving populace.

These tyrants I’ve mentioned were all cut from the same cloth, all were seriously flawed individuals, and all are distinguished by their arrogance, an insistence on the absolute rightness of their opinions and a refusal to negotiate differences. History will remember them for their inhumane treatment of others, especially those who opposed their actions. The fickleness of destiny thrust each into a position of power for which they were unsuited, either by temperament or ability. Consequently, the lives of those they ruled were made worse by their appalling abuses of power.

But there are those who say that we mustn’t forget that Mussolini made the trains run on time; that Hitler planned and constructed the Autobahn, or that Lincoln "freed" the slaves. These rationalizations are supposed to mitigate the barbaric actions of these dictators. However, intelligent people are not fooled. Also these justifications are not true. Mussolini did not make the trains run on time. The corrections to Italy’s railway system began long before Mussolini came to power and even during his reign they were still sub-par. The construction of the German Autobahn began years before Hitler came to power. And, not a single slave was freed during Lincoln’s presidency as a result of any initiative of his — some slaves were voluntarily manumitted by their masters but not as a result of any government directive. Slaves were finally freed as a result of the 13th Amendment. When it was ratified, Lincoln had been dead for almost a year.

America’s current court historians are doing a great disservice to our country by trying to elevate a malicious dictator like Abraham Lincoln into sainthood. And the continued justification of the dictatorial acts of this president can only encourage the acceptance of dictatorial actions of current and future leaders.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail], a CPA living in Beaufort, SC, is an advocate of the voluntary union of states established by the founders.

But when song lyrics are crafted by talented musicians, they don’t sound silly. And from the early 1900s to the time when Rock and Roll altered the musical landscape, American popular music was blessed with numerous talented lyricists. People like Cole Porter, Sammy Cahn, Ira Gershwin, Yip Harburg and Oscar Hammerstein. But, for me, at the head of the class in terms of the novel use of words and phrases was Savannah’s favorite son, Johnny Mercer.

Born in Savannah, Georgia in 1909, Johnny was a member of the prestigious Mercer family; his earliest American ancestor being Hugh Mercer who emigrated from Scotland, settling in Fredericksburg, Virginia. A statue of Hugh Mercer stands today in Fredericksburg, celebrating his heroics as a famous general in the Revolutionary War. Hugh’s grandson, and Johnny’s great-grandfather, Hugh Weedon Mercer relocated to Savannah and became a general in the Confederate army. General Mercer loved his adopted city and imported a famous architect from New York to design his home, Mercer House, an ornate Italianate structure located on Savannah’s Monterey Square.

In the 1980s, Mercer House gained notoriety when its current owner, antique dealer Jim Williams shot and killed his homosexual lover. The shooting and the succeeding trials were recounted in John Berendt’s best seller Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. In his film version of the book, Clint Eastwood opens with his cameras sweeping across the Wilmington River and into Savannah’s historic Bonaventure Cemetery. With Johnny Mercer’s Skylark as background music, Eastwood’s cameras weave through the cemetery, finally coming to rest on the graves of Johnny and his wife Ginger. Ginger’s grave contains the inscription, You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby and Johnny’s grave bears the image of a piano and the title of another Mercer song: And the Angels Sing.

In the late 1920s, without prospects or financial wherewithal, Johnny Mercer took his song writing and singing skills to New York City. His hustling and struggling in the big city finally paid off when he was hired for one year to emcee, write songs, and sing for the famous Paul Whiteman band. Soon after, Johnny and another struggling song writer, Hoagy Carmichael, wrote Lazybones. It was an instant hit and Johnny was on his way.

One of Mercer’s most impressive talents is his ability to fit difficult or uncommon words into his lyrics; words that other lyricists would shy away from. When Lionel Hampton and Sonny Burke asked Johnny to compose lyrics for their already popular song, Midnight Sun, Mercer’s research led him to "Aurora Borealis" — a nocturnal phenomenon associated with the Northern Lights — not a term you’d expect to find in a popular song but Johnny was undaunted.

Your lips were like a red and ruby chalice
Warmer than the summer night
The clouds were like an alabaster palace
Rising to a snowy height
Each star its own Aurora Borealis
Suddenly you held me tight
I could see the Midnight Sun.

In Summer Wind, Mercer includes a "piper man," a profession we haven’t heard much about since the poetry of William Blake in the 1700s.

Like painted kites, the days and nights went flying by
The world was new, beneath a blue umbrella sky
Then softer than a piper man, one day it called to you
I lost you to the summer wind.

Johnny again goes to the 1700s for the lyrics of Fools Rush In. This time he comes across a line from Alexander Pope’s Essay on Criticism: "No place so sacred from such fops is barr’d …Nay, fly to altars; there they’ll talk you dead; For fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

Four of Mr. Mercer’s songs won Academy Awards for best song, the first being On The Atcheson, Topeka and the Santa Fe (1946). That’s a mouthful to put into a song’s lyrics but he managed it.

Do you hear that whistle down the line
I figure that it’s engine number forty-nine
She’s the only one that’ll sound that way
On the Atcheson, Topeka and the Santa Fe.

The song was written for The Harvey Girls, a Judy Garland film involving an interesting bit of trivia. The first trains traveling west did not serve meals, so an enterprising businessman, Fred Harvey, opened restaurants at railroad stations along the way. These were upscale restaurants and Harvey recruited well-bred young ladies from across the country who traveled from location to location by train, to serve as waitresses.

Mercer also won an Academy Award for In the Cool, Cool, Cool of the Evening (1951), a song that was used in Here Comes the Groom. In 1962, the poignant song, Days of Wine and Roses, written for the film by the same name, won the award for Johnny Mercer and his partner Henry Mancini. The year before, these two also won the award for the song that many consider to be Johnny’s best: Moon River.

The head of Paramount insisted that Moon River be deleted from the film version of Truman Capote’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s, but its star, Audrey Hepburn furiously demanded that it remain. And Johnny’s lyrics do indeed fit the story line. Lulu Mae Golightly, a young girl from somewhere in the rural South, leaves her husband and eventually makes her way to New York City, in much the same way that Capote left Monroeville, Alabama for the same destination. Lulu Mae changes her name to Holly and creates a new life for herself. We can still recall that touching scene when Audrey Hepburn sits on her fire escape, strums her guitar and sings this distinctive song.

Two drifters, off to see the world
There’s such a lot of world to see
But we’re after the same rainbow’s end
Waitin round the bend, my Huckleberry friend
Moon River and me.

Johnny’s phrase "my Huckleberry friend" was a master stroke. When Audrey Hepburn died, Tiffany’s took a full-page ad paying tribute to the actress, referring to her as their Huckleberry friend.

Fourteen other Mercer songs were nominated for Academy Awards including: Accentuate the Positive, Blues in the Night, Charade, Jeepers Creepers, My Shining Hour, Something’s Gotta Give, and That Old Black Magic.

David Raskin’s haunting musical score for Otto Preminger’s classic film Laura became so popular that he decided to have lyrics composed for it. No easy task because "so complex a melody would be highly impractical to publish." Raskin naturally turned to Johnny Mercer. In choosing his immortal lyrics, Johnny captured the mysterious atmosphere of the story. A beautiful lady is erroneously thought to have been killed. But even in death she continues to exude an irresistible attraction to men; including the detective investigating her murder.

Laura, is the face in the misty light
Footsteps that you hear down the hall
The laugh that floats on a summer night
That you can never quite recall.

Like Laura, Johnny wrote lyrics for other songs after the instrumental version had already become popular. Two such hits are Satin Doll and Autumn Leaves.

Mercer’s immense repertoire included much more than romantic ballads. The flavor of the South of his time, especially the Blues and the meter and idiom of Southern Blacks, saturates the mood of many of his songs. It was said that Mercer "could alternate between cornpone and ultra-sophistication." Consider his Save the Bones for Henry Jones (Cause Henry Don’t Eat No Meat.)

Today’s super sensitive censors might recoil at some of Johnny’s humorous works. Luckily he wrote them during a time when America still had a sense of humor. So his take-off (sorry) on strip poker, Strip Polka, would always generate a few laughs.

The thrill of the evening is when out Queenie skips
And the band plays the polka while she strips.

And, of course, his popular and playful Huggin and Chalkin would have today’s politically correct police scrambling for their patrol cars. It is a song about a man who is love with a fat girl, and the first verse shows what the fun is all about.

Oh, gee, but ain’t it great to have a gal so big and fat
That when you go to hug her you don’t know where you’re at
So, you take a piece of chalk in your hand
You hug a ways and chalk a mark to see where you began
One day I was a’huggin and a’chalkin and beggin her to be my bride
When I met another fella with some chalk in his hand
Comin round the other side.

No article about Johnny Mercer would be complete without mentioning his classic; One For My Baby. Generation after generation has witnessed that incredible dance routine from the 1943 film, The Sky’s The Limit, where Fred Astaire dances while smashing cocktail glasses and anything else he can find — but only after singing this melancholy song.

I’m feelin so bad
I wish you’d make the music dreamy and sad
Could tell you a lot
But that’s not in a gentleman’s code
Make it one for my baby
And one more for the road.

The tributes Johnny received during his long career too numerous to list; they include a postage stamp issued in his honor. And for years he had his own radio show. Paul McCartney described Mercer as: "The greatest lyricist on the planet." It is estimated that Johnny Mercer wrote over 700 songs and if you pick any one of them, you will discover his special touch in the lyrics.

In Too Marvelous for Words, we find:

You’re much too much and just too very, very
To ever be in Webster’s dictionary.

And this Mercer flavor is found in Early Autumn. (Woody Herman wrote the music and his instrumental recording was the public’s first exposure to his young saxophonist, Stan Getz, who performs a short but unforgettable solo passage.)

There’s a dance pavilion in the rain all shuttered down
A winding country lane all russet brown
A frosty window pane shows me a town grown lonely.

In Hooray for Hollywood, Johnny tells it like is when he describes Hollywood in its halcyon days.

Hooray for Hollywood
That screwy, ballyhooey Hollywood
Where you’re terrific if you’re even good.

Johnny Mercer was not only a successful singer and songwriter but an astute businessman. In the early 1940s, he was part of the group that founded Capitol Records. With Johnny as President, Capitol became one of the most successful recording companies in the business. Mercer continued to write songs and recorded many of them for Capitol. Also, Johnny used Capitol Records to help promote the careers of some great newcomers including Peggy Lee, Frank Sinatra, Stan Kenton, June Christy, the Nat King Cole Trio, and Dean Martin.

As the 1950s drew to a close, Johnny Mercer sold his interest in Capitol Records in order to spend more time with his family at his homes in Palm Springs and Savannah — the Savannah home was located on Savannah’s Black River, later renamed Moon River. Although he continued to write songs, a paradigm shift began occurring in American culture in the mid-1960s. The public’s taste in music moved away from romantic ballads with sophisticated lyrics to Rock and Roll and Motown. This shift signaled the end of the epoch of American popular music in which Johnny Mercer had thrived. And Mercer’s death in 1976 could be considered its symbolic end. But Savannah’s favorite son left us the legacy of his genius; wonderful songs that are still occasionally performed and recorded by today’s young musicians.

Anyone interested in the music of Johnny Mercer has a cornucopia of CDs to choose from. For the serious listener the CD to start with is Johnny Mercer: The Old Music Master. This has some of Johnny Mercer’s early songs with artists like Bing Crosby, Billie Holiday, Fred Astaire, Louis Armstrong, Peggy Lee, Billy Eckstine, and even Johnny himself.

An enjoyable collection of Mercer songs by contemporary artists is Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, Clint Eastwood’s companion CD for his film of the same name. It features such talented artists as Diana Krall, k.d. lang, Joe Williams, Cassandra Wilson, Tony Bennett, and Alison Krauss.

A recommended Mercer CD by an individual singer is Frank Sinatra Sings the Select Johnny Mercer.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail], a CPA living in Beaufort, SC, is an advocate of the voluntary union of states established by the founders.

But the kind of mindset that looks for hidden meanings can be easily led into subjective analyses. The scientific community is itself conflicted over the relative value of exact science (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) versus social science (psychology, sociology, etc.). The argument is made that social sciences are less reliable than exact sciences because they are subject to the individual interpretation of the investigator.

Taking that objection a step further, I maintain that a social scientist can create a problem where none exists. And if a social scientist is pushing a political agenda, they can and do create special terminology to gain favor for their program while discrediting those who oppose it. In other words, they subject those who criticize their program to creative, manipulative language that insinuates that dissidents are either biased or have some other mental defect.

A recent case in point is the novel use of the word: "Nostalgia." The expression implies that our memories of the past are false; clouded with a wistful longing for a time that really never was. Because people are threatened by social innovations (for example: the latest PC craze), they yearn to return to a comfortable yet fictionalized past. This yearning for the past is caused by a complex psychological mechanism: Nostalgia.

Stephanie Coontz, a history and family studies professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, uses this technique in her book: The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. Miss Coontz is a product of the feminist school of thought and her views on gender equity make her a frequent and popular lecturer at Women’s Studies programs. Like Betty Friedan and other well-known feminists, Coontz believes that traditional marriage is a trap that snares women and prevents them from achieving their potential. Furthermore, she maintains that what we normally think of as the contented traditional family is fiction; a creation of "nostalgia" based on 1950s television programs like "Ozzie and Harriet," "Father Knows Best" and "The Donna Reed Show."

People like me who grew up in the 1950s remember families that were like the one on "Leave it to Beaver." But Miss Coontz emphatically states that "Leave it to Beaver" was not a documentary. This is her take on the 1950s: "The stability of family and community life during the 1950s rested on pervasive discrimination against women, gays, political dissidents, non-Christians, and racial or ethnic minorities, as well as on a systematic cover-up of the underside of many families. Victims of child abuse, incest, alcoholism, spousal rape, and wife battering had no recourse, no place to go, until well into the 1960s." Strong stuff. And her book is filled with strident indictments like this.

Curiously, she claims that the so-called "traditional" family did not exist before the advent of Capitalism. Prior to that time, there were commune-like extended families wherein all work was shared equally. Capitalism created corporate entities that took husbands away from the idyllic egalitarian family unit and elevated them to the superior role of "bread winner" while reducing wives to the subservient role of "help-mate."

To Coontz, the holding up of traditional marriage as the ideal living arrangement discourages alternative forms of relationships, especially same-sex marriage. Also, according to her, the idea of marriage based on love is a "myth" and such marriages are unlikely to be satisfying. She maintains that marriages based on economics are far more solid, but even these may not succeed without the support of strong government programs. In fact, a larger role for government in all aspects of life is what Miss Coontz promotes. She lavishes praise on the social legislation of the 1930s and 1960s while dismissing the notion that a loving husband and wife team can be successful and contented without help from the state.

Stephanie Coontz’s interpretation of cause and effect is diametrically opposed to the view Charles Murray presented in Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950—1980. Murray argued that the Great Society programs as well as other social legislation of the time did not produce significant improvements, and often made conditions worse. Coontz states: "The phenomenal publicity and approval generated by Murray’s book had more to do with the way it tapped into powerful cultural myths about self-reliance and dependency than with any connection to empirical evidence."

Coontz’s book does contain an immensity of data. Her research is impressive. But her feminist bias allows for only one interpretation of facts. No doubt Coontz will be disappointed to learn that a recent poll revealed that three out of four women described the word "feminist" as an insult. Even worse, the percentage of working women who believe that a career is as important as being a wife and mother has fallen a dramatic 23% since the 1970s. The truth of the matter is that outside of a few cloistered environments like academia, feminism is already dead. And Coontz and her ilk may be the last gasp of a dying breed.

Traditional marriage is a fairly recent target of academia but the American south has been one of its favorite whipping boys for decades. A recent version of south scolding is: Reconstructing Dixie: Race, Place and Femininity in the Deep South. This is the work of Tara McPherson, an assistant professor at the University of Southern California, who teaches courses in gender and cultural studies, television and new media. Her book also employs the nostalgia ruse.

Miss McPherson believes her book can "advocate progressive change in southern racial transactions" which will help the south move beyond being viewed as simply "an embarrassing site of retrograde regionalism." To her credit, McPherson admits that there is no such thing as an "objective scholar." With that disclaimer out of the way, she proceeds to dismantle what she calls the mythic portrayals of "southern belle" and "southern gentleman." And stories related by southerners are categorized as products of "nostalgia, guilt, and race."

Miss McPherson examines stories by southern women, especially Margaret Mitchell’s Gone With the Wind. She faults them for not adequately discussing the south’s racial past but focusing instead on nostalgic recollections of other aspects of southern life. In doing so she maintains that they evade any "personal responsibility" for the region’s racist acts.

I wonder what Tara McPherson would say about Edith Wharton’s The Age of Innocence, a novel describing high-society life in New York in the late 1800s. Wharton portrays the glamorous lifestyles of wealthy New Yorkers, but makes no reference to the atrocious exploitation of child labor occurring in New York at that time. Children, often younger than ten years old, were forced to work up to 14 hours a day in mines, mills, factories and New York’s garment district; commercial enterprises that generated the wealth of New York’s upper crust. Unable to attend school, these children worked in crowded, unsanitary conditions where disease and premature death were common. Miss Wharton’s novel, a Pulitzer Prize winner, makes no mention of this tragedy.

But McPherson is only concerned with southern women writers whom she accuses of having exaggerated the harshness of post-war Reconstruction measures in order to twist racial guilt into victimhood. McPherson conveniently overlooks the fact that many of these accounts by southern women were diaries, like Mary Boykin Chestnut’s famous, A Diary from Dixie. These diaries were day by day journals of the actual events as they unfolded. I don’t know if daily dairy entries are significantly influenced by "nostalgic memories."

I am astonished that McPherson actually accuses PBS filmmaker Ken Burns of downplaying the south’s racial past in his documentary The Civil War. She is also quite upset with Burns for producing a "masculine" narrative of war where the bravery, honor and sacrifice of the soldiers is extolled but the role of women is ignored. Also she claims that Burns rarely mentioned the issue of race; it was certainly not mentioned as a cause of the war. But Mr. Burns himself felt that race was the centerpiece of his documentary.

Professor McPherson doesn’t think the New South is much of an improvement over the Old South. After all, she states, Wal-Mart, the world’s largest corporation, hails from Arkansas, exporting a new style of plantation economy for the next millennium. For "scholars" like McPherson, only the heartless south could produce such a mean-spirited, insensitive corporation.

If I may wax nostalgic, the writings of Stephanie Coontz and Tara McPherson bring to mind the oft quoted lines of Alexander Pope: "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep or taste not the Pierian Spring." It appears that these two professors did not drink deeply enough. But, despite the fact that both books resemble graduate school term papers, we can assume their work will receive applause in academic circles and might even win one of those numerous literary prizes that are only awarded to politically correct books. Those honors will certainly look good on their curriculum vitae!

Social scientists pass judgment on the pluses and minuses of society. But social science faculties at many colleges include former graduates who stayed on to become assistant professors without any detour into the real world outside the walls of academia. This is like obtaining a driver’s license by taking the written test only and skipping the driving test.

So we end up with professors more adept at indoctrination than teaching. But the future may not be so bright for such instructors because with the current cost of college for one year being roughly $30,000, parents are scrutinizing faculty members more carefully before choosing a college. And alumni are beginning to question financial support of alma maters staffed with agenda-driven professors.

These professorial types seem to think that with the passage of time, things get better and better. But I believe there is an equal probability that things might get worse. In fact, I think the societal changes of the last fifty years prove that things can get worse.

Nostalgia might shade our memories of the past but it certainly cannot make the sum total of our recollections wrong. Opposition to much of so-called "modernity" is actually based on common sense and the nostalgia ploy is nothing more than a devious technique to stifle dissent.

In any event, social scientists now have a new term to manipulate us with — "nostalgia," an expression that will probably take its place in the vernacular alongside sexism, racism, and homophobia.

Gail Jarvis [send him mail], a CPA living in Beaufort, SC, is an advocate of the voluntary union of states established by the founders.