Connect with us

Opinion

To Censor or not to Censor, that is a Difficult Question

Published

on

One of the hot news stories is the bill in Florida banning discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in elementary schools. The bill is called “Parental Rights in Education Bill” but has been dubbed the “Don’t say gay” bill. This, of course, has led to a national debate about censorship, decency, and age appropriateness. This is not the first of this discussion as schools are passing similar laws against issues like “Critical Race Theory” and taking books off school library shelves deemed inappropriate. As always, this column does not propose to answer any of these debates, but, historically speaking, censorship is not new and looking at historical examples may help us make more informed decisions today.

Actual laws allowing for censorship are in no way new. President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law which fined or arrested anyone speaking out against the government. President Woodrow Wilson signed a similar Sedition Act. Lincoln did not sign a sedition law. He just locked everyone up who spoke out against him, claiming it as a war measure. Yet, I want to focus on a particularly difficult time when censorship was rampant and consider how one particular President handled the situation.

The year was 1950 and America was embroiled in the Red Scare, where we were suspecting communists were hiding under our beds and in our closets. Granted, this was not just paranoia, as communists had infiltrated American agencies and organizations. Before 1950, The House Un-American Activities Committee had already held trials to stamp out communists in the movie business and created the infamous blacklists. In this same year a little-known senator from Wisconsin gave a speech in West Virginia, claiming to have a list of communists who were working for the State Department. Overnight, Joseph McCarthy became famous, and McCarthyism was born. McCarthyism is often compared to a witch hunt, especially after the release of “The Crucible,” but there is one stark difference: there were no ghosts in Salem but there were communists in government. However, what McCarthy did was greatly exaggerate the situation for personal gain and created a frenzy in this nation to rid all aspects of communism from everywhere.

One area where McCarthyism focused its attacks were libraries, especially the State Department’s oversees libraries. In April 1953, two of McCarthy’s chief staffers, Roy Cohn and David Schine, took a tour of Europe, attacking the books in the libraries and the State Department officials who ran them. After the tour, the State Department issued a list of which books were appropriate and which were not. While some of these books were overtly communist, most were not. Some were banned simply because an author who was not a communist would not publicly reject communism.

President Eisenhower was in a tough position. He did not agree with McCarthy, but they were in the same party and McCarthy held a great deal of power. Eisenhower refused to tangle with McCarthy publicly, as it was his policy not to debate any opponent publicly, possibly his greatest character trait and one I wish modern presidents could mimic. Yet finally the President had had enough. On June 14, 1953, while speaking at Dartmouth College, he took up the idea of censorship. After speaking about having fun and joy in life, he spoke about courage. He ended that part of his speech with:

“Don’t join the book burners. Don’t think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don’t be afraid to go in your library and read every book, as long as that document does not offend our own ideas of decency. That should be the only censorship.

“How will we defeat communism unless we know what it is, and what it teaches, and why does it have such an appeal for men? Why are so many people swearing allegiance to it?”

“And we have got to fight it with something better, not try to conceal the thinking of our own people. They are part of America. And even if they think ideas that are contrary to ours, their right to say them, their right to record them, and their right to have them at places where they are accessible to others is unquestioned, or it isn’t America.”

When asked about his statements a couple of days later at a press conference, Ike added, “When I talk about books or the right of dissemination of knowledge, am I [not] talking about any document or any other kind of thing that attempts to persuade or propagandize America into communism? Indeed, our courts found 11 communists guilty of practically traitorous action; they pointed out that these men were dedicated to the destruction of the United States form of government by force, and that they took orders from a foreign government. So, manifestly, I am not talking about that kind of thing when I talk about free access to knowledge.”

As an academic, I agree with President Eisenhower that information should not scare us. He went on to say that if more Americans had read Mein Kompf, we might have been better prepared to stop Hitler, so reading more about why people were attracted to communism might not be a bad thing. But notice that Ike did make two exemptions: those that “offend our own ideas of decency” and those that “persuade or propagandize.” For myself I would add “age appropriateness.” Think about our movie ratings. Most things that are PG 13 movies are not bad but are not age appropriate for younger children to learn about yet or without parents’ approval. I know this is a difficult subject. We have been fighting it for years. when it comes to our children, we will probably never stop fighting it. Eisenhower warned us against censorship, but he also believed there were certain things that should not be read.


Dr. James Finck is an Associate Professor of History at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma in Chickasha. He is Chair of the Oklahoma Civil War Symposium. Follow Historically Speaking at www.Historicallyspeaking.blog.

Share the News:

Opinion

The Forgotten Variable in Pending Overturn of Roe v Wade – Unwanted Children

Published

on

I sat in church Sunday and heard my pastor say abortion is immoral and we should be okay with Roe v. Wade being overturned. It was hardly a trailblazing announcement, but it made me look around and assess the women in that room, many of whom I’d lay money on having had one. There were women of all ages but not too much diversity. Mostly white and mostly middle class. Mostly.

In the immediacy, this likely development doesn’t affect me personally. My uterus is safely on the other side of its sell-by date. The young women that I personally know seem largely indifferent to the fall of Roe v Wade (kind of reminds me of the Iraqis that wouldn’t fight for their own skin.) My two daughters are generally viewed as extremely ill-advised in the reproducing department.

Amelia tells me repeatedly that she has no desire for a baby. I blame Sofi for that. Sofi is 7 years old and who knows what she’ll want? Developmentally she’s about 2.5 years old (according to UVA) so with any luck, she’ll be menopausal before she chooses to be a biological mom.

So, what does this mean to me? Several things. It means Pro-Lifers are delusional if they think they’ll be good at caring for this new onslaught of unwanted children. They’ve done very poorly thus far. There will be more unwanted children languishing in substandard conditions. When a woman has an abortion she’s saying, “I can’t do this.” She means it, people. She always has. Legal and safe abortions tidied that up for all of society.  Orphanages were common until the mid-60s but less so afterward. So, there will still be babies to save. There always have been.

As for Pro-Choicers, well maybe these 50 years were an anomaly. Maybe what the world (or simply America) DOESN’T want for women dwarfs what it does. It DOESN’T want us to be equal financially because we’ve never been, and children are the why for that. It DOESN’T want us thinking we are equal without a willingness to reproduce – a common complaint among my childless women friends.

Legal abortion had its flaws (damnation being a common belief aimed at those unfortunate repeat offenders.) Far more interesting to me is the who, when, and why regarding those who do manage to step up to solve an unsolvable problem – unwanted children. The prevention of and care for will ALWAYS be battles that need fighting. The high-horse attitudes of both sides are laughable in the face of the misery that unwanted children cause, and indeed endure.

Ann Deans Masch
Fauquier County

Share the News:
Continue Reading

Opinion

Do the homework – and pray for all oppressed peoples

Published

on

Shireen Abu Aqla, a Palestinian Christian, reporter, and the mentor and close friend of a dear Palestinian Christian, reporter, and friend of mine of over 25 years, was brutally gunned down recently by the government of “God’s Chosen People”, despite clearly wearing a visible “PRESS” vest. Do your own homework.

While trying to hold a peaceful funeral, the officers of “God’s Chosen People” kicked and beat the pallbearers. Where is the outrage from “Christian” America? Where is the outrage from those who claim to be a “child of God”?, yet remain silent while one of your own is brutally slaughtered? Do your own homework.

So many had no problem jumping on the “Save Ukraine” bandwagon. By the way, I support the people of Ukraine 100%!! – I also happen to support the people of Palestine. I support the beautiful peaceful native Tibetans. For that matter, I support those in Russia who are eager for genuine peace, yet who are stuck with brutal and soulless regime, run by well-known thugs. Do your own homework.

I have to ask: have any of you who say you support Israel actually read that Bible you say you believe in? Please give it a try. Cool book! I’m a huge fan. Enlighten yourselves to the many times that “God’s Chosen People” turned their hearts against God, and God left them to deal with the consequences. Stop making excuses for the thugs and punks that operate against their supposed God at will, just because of a culture they cling to out of convenience, as opposed to purpose. Do your own homework.

Granted, one could say the same about the manner in which U.S. politicians support this brutal government and their paid assassins, all in the name of convenience, while possessing zero value for true faith in a loving and compassionate God, whom I choose to believe sent his son to die for my sins. I want nothing to do with the God of murderers, thugs and the politicians who support them all for self-serving convenience. Do your own homework.

While we all pray for the beautiful people of Ukraine, please (after doing your own homework) also pray for the beautiful people of Palestine. The horrors which the people of Ukraine have been subjected to have been part of Palestinian life for over 70 years. Don’t they, also, have a “Right To Life?!?”

Michael Sean Williams 
Front Royal, Virginia

Share the News:
Continue Reading

Opinion

All in the training

Published

on

As an observer of the video on Mr. Ennis’s arrest, I have to agree with Mr. Candenquist’s letter to the editor.

There was no reason for the officer who came up behind Mr. Ennis to handle Mr. Ennis in the manner of which he did.

Could the officer have been a rookie, just out of training class? Did the officers not know who they were dealing with? I believe they had another encounter with Mr. Ennis before this encounter. Being at night does make an officer warier of approach, but there was enough light from cars and the parking lot to see this man did not even show a threat! WCSO and FRPD need not let officers that seem a little zealous make certain calls to certain situations.

We citizens need to have the utmost respect and trust in our law enforcement; this is one place, if not the last place, for defense against the bad guys and gals. Mr. Ennis was not a bad guy.

Tenia Smith
A former resident of Front Royal

Share the News:
Continue Reading

Opinion

Shameful behavior exhibited in Mr. Ennis’s arrest clearly undermines the trust and respect that our police agencies deserve

Published

on

Having read the Police Report by Corporal Lowery, as reported in the Royal Examiner, filed on the occasion of the arrest of Ralph Ennis on April 2nd, it strikes me (no pun intended) that the law enforcement officers who made the arrest used excessive force when taking Mr. Ennis into custody. Mr. Ennis, according to the report, clearly posed no threat to the officers. I did not know Mr. Ennis, nor do I know his family and friends; my feelings are entirely objective as a point of fact.

It was observed by Cpl. Lowery, in his report, that Mr. Ennis was elderly and seemed confused. The report shows that Mr. Ennis did not exhibit any threatening behavior. What was the reason why the deputy ran up behind Mr. Ennis, strongly restraining him, and “jerked him around,” slamming his face into the camper top of his pick-up truck? Was it perhaps a broken tooth or teeth that Mr. Ennis apparently spit out onto the ground? Why was it necessary to apparently shove Mr. Ennis in such a way that he tripped over the hitch on the rear of the truck, causing this collection of apparent flailing individuals to fall to the ground, at which time Mr. Ennis struck the back of his head on the pavement?

Moreover, the vehicle video footage and the body-cam footage of the arrest of Mr. Ennis confirm that Mr. Ennis was simply standing still when the police officer ran up behind him, restrained him from behind, and slammed him into the back of the pick-up truck. Moreover, in the body-cam footage, a police officer clearly stated, when he got back into his car, that the manner in which Mr. Ennis was arrested “was uncalled for.”

Based on the police report and the footage, was all of this physical force necessary to arrest an elderly and obviously confused man who apparently posed no threat to anyone? His apparent dementia aside, might have Mr. Ennis have been exhibiting signs of a diabetic emergency, which mimic the behavior that Mr. Ennis was reported to have shown, based on the police report? There have been instances where drivers with a diabetic emergency have been roughly treated by law enforcement, with serious consequences; the training for an encounter with a potential motor vehicle operator with a diabetic emergency has been included in some law enforcement agencies.

It seems to me that the written reported and video recorded manner in which Mr. Ennis was arrested, and his subsequent death, led to the apparent nationwide mistrust of law enforcement agencies by the public in recent years. In these perilous times, when crime and complete disregard for any type of lawful authority is thoroughly out of control, we cannot abide from having our local law enforcement agencies exhibit unnecessary behavior when the situation, as indicated in the police report and in the video footage, clearly does not call for excessive and unwarranted force.

On the contrary, had Mr. Ennis exhibited threatening behavior or in any way resisted arrest, then the manner in which he was arrested could have been justified. What transpired in this particular case was, in my opinion, clearly unwarranted and clearly unnecessary.

Our police agencies have a very difficult time as it is to uphold the law and the rights of the public; they deserve the utmost respect as they perform their sworn duties. Such shameful behavior exhibited in Mr. Ennis’s arrest clearly undermines the trust and respect that our police agencies deserve.

I hope that such behavior, as demonstrated in the police report and video footage, is an aberration of the normal performance by our local law enforcement agencies, and those who were responsible for the manner in which Mr. Ennis was arrested are or will be appropriately handled. I attend church and occasionally shop in Warren County, and I do not like to be nor want to be especially wary of the police and deputies in Front Royal and in Warren County. The Sheriff in Warren County and the Police Chief in Front Royal are ultimately responsible for what happens with their employees in their respective jurisdictions, and it is their responsibility to ensure that such actions as this response to arrest Mr. Ennis do not happen.

Arthur Candenquist
Amissville, Rappahannock County

Share the News:
Continue Reading

Opinion

Brother Against Brother, Again

Published

on

Right and left. How did we come to this? We’re starting to hate each other and we think we know why but we’re not really sure. Lately it seems the ideology is irrelevant. Whatever the other side is for, my team must be against. Yes, we’re like teams. But some of the fans have gone overboard and are tipping the boat too far, dragging us down with them.

Full disclosure: The following is not an even-handed viewpoint because I’m so far to the left that I make a complete circle and come back to where I started, but I can see there is enough blame at either end to make a case for sharing the responsibility for the spiraling predicament in which we now find ourselves. America is falling apart in divisive anger and bad ideas. The extreme on the left wants to eliminate the police. Think about that. And the opposing fringe on the right insists that Trump won the election. But saying so doesn’t make it so. Let’s not let the ‘Big Lie’ become our new Pledge of Allegiance.

Why do we invest ourselves in illogical dogma with such vehemence? That’s what’s happening. Worst of all, we now see those deep divisions in many of our families, a malevolent spell cast on those we love.

Civil discourse seems to be mimicking the angry, yelling talking heads in the media. They are whipping us up. It seems to me that each of them appears to be running for office, or pulling for ratings that translate to advertising income, for them. Their platform is partisan division. Why do we let them get away with it? America is beautiful. Don’t let anyone scare you into thinking otherwise.

Thriving in a democracy equates to disagreements. That’s healthy, moves us along nice and slowly. Perfect. Don’t need threats, hucksters, autocrat wannabees or media induced histrionics. Why let violent agitators on the right or left spoil the barrel? They are bad apples, not your well-intentioned friends and relatives. We don’t have to rush the barricades at their instigation.

Our families on the right want respect, respect for the working man or woman, the lineman splicing your power line in a snowstorm. He or she should get the same respect AND income as the IT techie waiting at a warm cozy desk for the wireless connection to come back on. And the left wants equal rights and respect for the ‘others’ amongst us – LGBT, immigrants (from whom we all originate), people of color, and anyone else who is different. What do we care if someone is LGBT or Ronald McDonald? It has nothing to do with you or me. I don’t know a binary from a strawberry and don’t care. Why do you? We can’t catch ‘gay.’ They won’t hurt us. Respect.

Banning books may be the first step on the stairs to witch trials. No one is forcing you to read the books. Chill out. Go to a movie, a comedy. Watch reruns of Seinfeld. He’s hysterical. Better yet, keep ambitious politicians out of our schools and libraries. They’re making a mess of it.

Brother and Sisters, we’re all on the same team. Let’s root for America together.

Jay Buckner
Warren County, Virginia

Share the News:
Continue Reading

Opinion

PSYWAR in the valley

Published

on

There’s a line in the 1968 “Green Beret” movie where John Wayne says, “Put PSYWAR on it.”  That’s essentially what the Confederacy did when things looked bleak 160 years ago. In case you missed that last point – this spring is the 160th anniversary of Jackson’s Valley Campaign. Just so you know, Front Royal is probably the only town in America that can claim a run and gun shootout between opposing armies in its streets. Urban engagements were a rarity in the U.S. Civil War.

As a former Intelligence officer, I was intrigued with the military deception and Information warfare exhibited in the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1862 – and in particular – the effects of said campaign. So much so, that I moved from Washington to the Valley in 2007 to have a closer look. I have yet to depart. Today most of us glance at the Civil War historical signs from time to time but rarely do we pause and visualize what the Valley must have been like in yesteryear. Our collective culture and technology have matured so much that it takes an in-depth imagination to construct such a visual. Meanwhile military classrooms around the world continue to regal their students with captivating tales and lessons learned from maneuvers that occurred on the very streets and grounds we walk around on every day in the Valley.

The Visual: The spring of 1862 was much like the one in 2022 – colder than most with lingering snow. The future dawned dark for the Confederates as Federal progress threatened to make this conflict a brief footnote in U.S. history. The combined U.S. Army offensive driving westward between the James and York Rivers was coordinated with another U.S. force moving southward along what is now the I-95 corridor from Fredericksburg. This one-two punch comprised the hammer and anvil smash General McClellan had in mind for the Southern capital. All told, the U.S. army had a force of 200,000 closing in on Richmond. The Confederate defenses had roughly 60,000 troops to oppose this enormous force. The numerical disproportion was increased by the North’s vast material resources.

For a gambling man, this is not a difficult wager here. Take the United States to win by 4 touchdowns – no brainer. No doubt a smart bet if the U.S. had not succumbed to a masterful influence operation. As Houdini said, “What the eyes see and the ears hear – the mind believes.”  The brain trust of the rebel alliance found a weakness in the Lincoln Administration’s thinking and the results shocked the world. Lincoln and advisors were very concerned about protecting their capital. General Lee and President Davis would exacerbate those fears by way of a little-known soldier at the time.

For the next three months, General Stonewall Jackson crisscrossed the Valley wired hot with dispatches from General Lee to cause havoc and remain foremost in the mind of the Lincoln Administration. Jackson’s objective was to tie up as many Federal forces as possible thereby relieving pressure on the rebel capital while feigning towards Washington if possible. It was a tall order but if successful, Jackson’s maneuvers would divert troops at the very moment McClellan needed them for the combined offensive against Richmond. This would require fake newspaper stories, deceptive marches eastward to get on train transport westward, operational security and speed.

Advertisement for 150th Anniversary of Jackson’s Valley Campaign in 2012, on display at the Warren Rifles Museum in midtown Front Royal. Acknowledgement of the 160th Anniversary of the Valley Campaign and the Battle of Front Royal will be held at 6:30 PM, Monday, May 23, at Soldier’s Circle in Prospect Hill Cemetery weather permitting, with the author as featured speaker. In event of bad weather the ceremony will be moved indoors to the Warren Rifles Museum at 95 Chester St. Photos of Museum materials by Roger Bianchini

Stonewall’s antics in the Valley did not get inside General McClellan’s head but his actions clearly had effects on the National Command team headed by President Lincoln in Washington. The impact on the President and his advisors caused the redirection of three Federal armies totaling over 50,000 troops away from Richmond at a critical juncture. He essentially removed the anvil portion of the equation. Lincoln re-directed those forces to converge on the Valley with the aim of destroying Jackson and preventing him from threatening Washington. Jackson’s infantry force of about 15,000 was way too small to cause harm to Washington but the U.S. leadership did not know that. Deception is everything in warfare.

One of the advantages Jackson used was a hyper-accurate survey of the Valley’s floor in collusion with cavalry screening and deception to keep the Federal opposition guessing wildly. Federal and Southern newspapers sounded the alarm further enhancing the impact of his exploits – in some cases providing misinformation. Jackson’s troops were known as foot cavalry trudging 40 miles a day. Washington could not make sense of the reports stating Jackson was 60 miles from the last report, so calculations of his troop strength rose exponentially with each report. Federal forces were lulled to sleep by the effective use of cavalry along the valley corridors and mountain gaps. Against Union General Banks, Jackson segregated his force from the protection of his cavalry in order to deceive the opposition as to his location. One minute the Federal forces are exchanging fire with his cavalry diversion in Strasburg and the next minute Banks and staff are reading reports that Jackson is blitzing through Front Royal – seizing Federal supply wagons on his way to Harper’s Ferry. All this was quite alarming to Lincoln and his staff as Harper’s Ferry is in proximity of Washington especially for a force that moves as rapid as Jackson’s appeared to be – and especially since there is minimal protection between them. So Lincoln pulled more troops from McClellan thereby further impeding McClellan’s moves against Richmond. Jackson had no intention of attacking Washington.

Meanwhile Jackson’s use of operational security was so effective that his own brigade commanders had no idea where they were going next. That caused a few problems, as you can imagine, but it also meant that stragglers and the Valley citizens could not reveal what they did not know. We call that OPSEC today. The Richmond papers promoted the idea that Richmond defenses were ringed by an enormous force of two hundred thousand. Interestingly, these numbers were confirmed by McClellan’s chief of Intelligence – a man named Pinkerton. As noted above, there were barely sixty thousand. The results of this disinformation cautioned the Federal leviathan’s movements toward Richmond while Lincoln redirected more troops toward the protection of the capital. In modern parlance – this is called “effects based PSYOP at its best!”

There’s an ole saying, it’s not the years in one’s life that matter but the life in one’s years. Prior to the U.S. Civil War, few had ever heard of Stonewall Jackson. In fact, the following summer Jackson would be killed in battle. But in the spring of 1862, in the span of three months, Stonewall Jackson would become the most famous officer in the world. His forces marched hundreds of miles, fought 5 pitched battles and tied up over 50,000 Federal troops in three months’ time. He effectively saved the Confederacy from certain destruction in 1862. His campaign altered the course of the war, forcing U.S. war planners to vector brigades earmarked for the hammer and anvil out to the Valley to crush him.

The strategic results of the Valley campaign followed up by General Lee’s audacious maneuvers along the Chickahominy provide history with the biggest turnaround ever witnessed in warfare. Within weeks of the Valley exploits, the Confederates were at the gates of Washington staging for the invasion of Northern territory. Unreal. But it all started right out here in the Shenandoah Valley 160 years ago.

How about that.

(Editor’s note: Author John Paul Morgan will be the featured speaker at May 23rd ceremonies sponsored by the Warren Rifles Museum commemorating both the Battle of Front Royal and the 160th anniversary of Jackson’s Valley Campaign. The event will begin at 6:30 PM, weather permitting at Soldiers’ Circle in the Prospect Hill Cemetery. In the event of bad weather the event will be moved indoors to the Warren Rifles Museum at 95 Chester Street in midtown Front Royal.)

Soldier’s Circle in Prospect Hill Cemetery in Front Royal where 275 confederate soldiers were laid to rest.

Share the News:
Continue Reading