Thursday, April 12, 2018

The Ghost Of Delores Landon (nee Riley)-A Si Landon Story

The Ghost Of Delores Landon (nee Riley)-A Si Landon Story  

By Zack James

[The Pete Markin mentioned in the sketch below is the late Peter Paul Markin who despite a lot of serious work as a journalist back in the early 1970s fell off the wagon down south of the border and fell down shot dead with a couple of slugs in some desolate back alley in Sonora after a busted drug deal as far as anybody in America was able to find out. The Peter Markin who moderates this site is a pseudonym for a guy, Frank Jackman, who along with Si Landon, Jack Callahan, Frankie Riley, Josh Breslin and a bunch of other guys knew Markin in the old days and has taken the pseudonym in honor of his fallen comrade who before his untimely end taught him a lot about the world and its ways. “Peter Paul Markin”]          


Si Landon like a lot of guys, gals too, but this is about guys from his now creeping aging generation, a generation a guy, Pete Markin  who hung around with Si in the old days, the old high school days around North Adamsville where they grew up called the “generation of ‘68” because that seemed to have been the watershed year in the explosive 1960s which they all had been  washed by, washed clean by at least for a while, was a man of hard-bitten memory. Had remembered whatever needed to be remembered when called upon by the surviving members of the tribe, the corner boys they called themselves back in the late 1950s, early 1960s when everybody, every professional everybody from teachers and the cops to the Governor was trying to figure out why ordinary growing up working class guys were so sullen, so “alienated” was the term most frequently used, from what has been called the golden age of the American working class and its progeny. Had despite drifting away from the old crowd more than most in the recent past had that “remembering” gene activated big time after a period of dormancy.      

Si was, according to Frankie Riley, who was anointed the leader of the leaderless corner boys who hung around the corner of Doc’s Drugstore up on Sudbury Street near the Josiah Adams School (the town was named after this head of an illustrious ship-building family who had help settle the town back, way back, when religious dissenters, dissenters from orthodox Puritanism, were not welcomed in Boston) something of a loner. A guy who was genial enough on those awkward Friday and Saturday nights when they shared their individual alienations collectively, but more inclined than anybody to brood endlessly and walk alone along the existential beaches that dotted the old town. So it had been no surprise that he was the first to leave the group, drift away would probably be a better way to put it, once they graduated from hallowed North Adamsville High School.        

What the corner boys, what anybody who came in contact with Si back then, did not know was that Si’s family life was something like a living hell on a day to day basis. The only one who did have an inkling was that same Markin mentioned up in the brackets whom Si would confide in when things got really bad and he had to stay over at Markin’s house when he for the umpteenth time got kicked out of his family house for some schoolboy misbehavior. Si would tell the others, tell the lie, the big lie, that he had walked out of the   
house, had decided to seek the next best thing, had decided to seek a newer world a term he learned from a poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson that he had read in English class in school and then a few days later would be seen coming out of the family house. You get the drift.   

The cause of Si’s constant anguish had a name, had a name to be conjured with. Delores Landon nee Riley the latter surname reflecting the overwhelmingly Irish “Acre” neighborhood where Si and about three prior generations of Rileys had grown up, some to prosper others like the Landons to suffer the slings and arrows of misfortune since Delores had not only married outside the neighborhood, outside the religion, outside the Irish diaspora, a decided no-no, but had married what the whole clan had determined was beneath her status as lace curtain progeny. Had married Si’s father, a southern redneck transported by fate, and world politics, World War II-style, to finish up his time as a Marine at the well-known Riverdale Naval Depot and the rest was history, family history mostly kept under the rug. That rug referring to a neighborhood steeped in the tradition of not “airing the family business in public,” of keeping closed-mouth about what was going on inside the house (or inside the brain). Si’s father Lawrence was nothing but a high school drop-out whose lack of skills and education would be the torment of one Delores Landon once the reality of that teenage marriage and the five subsequent children, all boys, sunk in.     

Moreover it did not help that Si was the oldest of the lot and therefore bore the brunt of Delores’ unspoken anger at her situation. Unspoken to anybody but Si upon whom it came out as continual carping and belittling from the time that the last, mercifully the last, of the Landon siblings were born. The anger, the righteous Delores anger came out in little ways and large. Little by the constant pressure on Si to act beyond his years as a secondary father figure to the younger boys. Any variation, any trouble that normal Acre boys got into without much damage got magnified way out of proportion in screaming matches that while they were held in private could be heard all the way to Adamsville proper. An example, small but one that the great rememberer would brood about even fifty years later. 

In fifth grade at a time in the neighborhood where boys and girls started to see each other as interesting rather than as something to be avoided like the plague Si had been sweet on one Rosalind Lahey, a born heartbreaker as would later prove to be the case but just then the focal point of his un-channeled lust. As things went in school life then Miss Willow had planned a dance exhibition to show parents what little well-versed social creatures their off-spring had turned into. As blind fate would have it the dance exhibition was about square dancing which Miss Willow had spent several months trying to teach her charges. As double fate would have it Si was to be paired with Rosalind. So Si thought it natural when Miss Willow told the class that they should make an effort to dress up as country folk, farmers to do something to impress Rosalind. That was when overheated brain Si decided that if he cut up the bottoms of the one of two pairs of dungarees to his name that he would impress the lady Rosalind. He did so as it turned out before the exhibition and before the parents arrived including Delores Landon (Lawrence was trying to hold onto for dear life a nighttime extra pay job and so could not attend which was probably just as well).           

Things were okay until the dancing squares were formed and somehow Delores spotted what Si had done to his pants and let out a blood-curdling cry against her son. Said right there in public so you know that it was a bad time how could Si disgrace and disrespect his parents meager hold on reality and cut  up one of his only two pairs of pants which moreover were slated to be handed down soon to the next oldest boy, Norman. Needless to say that was the end of any “romance” with the fickle Rosalind. But that was not the worst of it for he was grounded for the next two weeks and the subject of the “belt” from his father. Even that was not the worse since for about the next four years until something more serious replaced it in Delores ammunition dump of grievances Si and whoever else was around the hearth got an earful about Si’s rotten deed.

That event four years later would set up what would be an on-going battle between mother and son for the next forty years or so until she passed away. (Si would be estranged for longer and shorter periods from high school onward and would not even attend Delores’ funeral so you know how bad the blood between them had been.) The simple fact was that Delores between her young age at marriage and on-going health problems from complications in a couple of her deliveries coupled with extreme economic distress for most of Si’s time at the family house was in way over her head whatever love she had, and it was untiring devoted love, for Lawrence Landon. (Si would regale his corner boys with his stories about that extreme economic distress-long-hand for the weekly “envelopes”-the envelopes which sat on the kitchen table every Thursday payday for the various bill collectors one at least each week would be empty and the stall would be on for a week’s reprieve. When things got really bad the envelopes were all “short.” Si dearly knew those weeks because those would be the weeks when he from about age six to twelve after which he refused to do the arduous chore anymore and it was farmed out to his brother Norman had to go with the envelope to the landlord and look very sheepish, very sheepish with the “tide over until good times” short money. Little did Si know then that in “don’t air your dirty linen in public” Acre that his corner boys could have retailed the same kind of stories.       

That inability of Delores to do anything more than rant and rave at Si in her frustration combined with that economic distress which the late Pete Markin called the “wanting habits” the whole crowd suffered from left him with very few outlets for his own anger. Made him very malleable when it came to any kind of ways to grab some dough or to do some other misadventure. That misadventure part happened one night when Si had just turned sixteen and he and a few corner boys, he would not mention any names, still wouldn’t almost fifty years later, when he was the only one caught, had “hot-wired” a 1959 Chevy and went joy-riding down the causeway one hot summer night. Problem: Si had no driver’s license when he crashed into a stone wall and the others fled leaving him to face the inevitable coppers alone. Fortunately the guy whose car was stolen had adequate insurance to cover the damage but Si wound up with six months’ probation in “juvvy.”

That was the straw that broke the camel’s back for Delores and was the very first of an untold number of kicks out of the house (Si always disputed whether he was kicked out or had left of his own volition on each occasion including the last serious one when he left the house for good never to return to stay, never.)  That was the way things went for the next forty years as was already mentioned with longer and longer periods between temporary reconciliations. The main thrust of the battles royals was that Si was some version of the devil incarnate which Delores was made to suffer against some unknown offense against the church, the church being the holy apostolic Roman Catholic Church which was the only serious religious expression in the Acre dominated by the Irish and the Italians.      

Here’s the funny thing in the long haul which will make the story sort of byzantine. Si would go on to be a fairly successful lawyer in Boston although Delores refused to recognize that accomplishment. She would dwell on the more mundane fact of his three unsuccessful marriage, no that is not right, she would have known only about two of them but the three unsuccessful marriages is right and the failure of that third one is what brings us back to the ghost of Delores Landon. A few months before, maybe six months, his third wife, Maria, had given Si his walking papers. Had told him that between his eternal moodiness and withdrawal and her own need to “find herself” they were done as a couple after nearly a decade of marriage. (Delores had always hated Maria since she was “one of those,” a heathen, a bloody Protestant, English to boot, forgetting, conveniently forgetting, that the late Lawrence Landon, the love of her life, had been a Southern Baptist before he converted after agreeing to raise the children as Catholics when they were married. Married not in the church because he was a Protestant but in the rectory by the parish priest who from all accounts was not pleased to perform the ceremony.)         

The immediate effect of their separation was that Maria would stay in the marriage house for the sake of the children and that “rolling stone” Si would go fend for himself someplace. Initially he had taken a sublet from a friend’s daughter who was heading to Europe for six months. When that six months was up, actually before that six months was up Si decided once it was finally very clear that Maria was not going to attempt any sort of reconciliation that he needed some feeling of rootedness, some grounding after all the years of feeling out of sorts, feeling like some silly alienated youth which he found that he never really grew out of. So he decided to go back to the old town, old North Adamsville. Since he was not up for buying a condo he had decided to rent one for a year and see if that helped his situation. He eventually found a place not far from where he had grown up. The place had been an old elementary schoolhouse which had been several years before due to changes in the demographics of the neighborhood and its ethnic composition closed down, sold and converted to condos.       

Although Si had not gone to the school, Adams, named after that same Josiah who was a big wheel in shipbuilding in the town’s more prosperous days, since he had gone to elementary school across town at the Harbor school, three of his younger brothers had and so he thought it ironic that “what goes around, comes around.” He did not think much more about the matter until he moved into his new rental, his condo. Of course converting an old school into individual units was no big deal just reconfigure the old classrooms. What the converters had done though was to keep some of the flavor of the old school in the main foyer by preserving various aspects of the school when it was functioning as such. One of the things that they had done was to place many of the early graduating classes on the walls. Si still didn’t think much of the matter until he noticed a newspaper article in the North Adamsville Gazette announcing the opening of the school in 1925. Damn.

The school was located only a block from where Delores had grown up and so she would have gone to elementary school there in the early 1930s. And sure enough when he perused the various class pictures from the early 1930s there among the Class of 1931 was one Delores Riley. Si freaked. A few nights later when he was a little restless not about his discovery but about the finality of the split with Maria he thought he heard a voice, a shrill voice calling out that he would never amount to anything. Probably just the wind gusting outside but he shuddered to think that he would have to live with the “ghost” of Delores Landon for the duration. Double Damn.       
  

For Frederick Douglass On His 200th Birthday- On The 155th Anniversary Of The Beginning Of The American Civil War – Karl Marx On The American Civil War-In Honor Of The Union Side








Markin comment: 


I am always amazed when I run into some younger leftists, or even older radicals who may have not read much Marx and Engels, and find that they are surprised, very surprised to see that Marx and Engels were avid partisans of the Abraham Lincoln-led Union side in the American Civil War. In the age of advanced imperialism, of which the United States is currently the prime example, and villain, we are almost always negative about capitalism’s role in world politics. And are always harping on the need to overthrow the system in order to bring forth a new socialist reconstruction of society. Thus one could be excused for forgetting that at earlier points in history capitalism played a progressive role. A role that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and other leading Marxists, if not applauded, then at least understood represented human progress. Of course, one does not expect everyone to be a historical materialist and therefore know that in the Marxist scheme of things both the struggle to bring America under a unitary state that would create a national capitalist market by virtue of a Union victory and the historically more important struggle to abolish slavery that turned out to a necessary outcome of that Union struggle were progressive in our eyes. Read on.
**********
Articles by Karl Marx in Die Presse 1861

The Civil War in the United States


Written: Late October, 1861;
Source: Marx/Engels Collected Works, Volume 19;
Publisher: Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964;
First Published: Die Presse No. 306, November 7, 1861;
Online Version: Marxists.org 1999;
Transcription: Bob Schwarz and Tim Delaney;


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Let him go, he is not worth thine ire!” Again and again English statesmanship cries - recently through the mouth of Lord John Russell-to the North of the United States this advice of Leporello to Don Juan's deserted love. If the North lets the South go, it then frees itself from any admixture of slavery, from its historical original sin, and creates the basis of a new and higher development. 

In reality, if North and South formed two autonomous countries, like, for example, England and Hanover, their separation would be no more difficult than was the separation of England and Hanover. "The South," however, is neither a territory closely sealed off from the North geographically, nor a moral unity. It is not a country at all, but a battle slogan.

The advice of an amicable separation presupposes that the Southern Confederacy, although it assumed the offensive in the Civil War, at least wages it for defensive purposes. It is believed that the issue for the slaveholders' party is merely one of uniting the territories it has hitherto dominated into an autonomous group of states and withdrawing them from the supreme authority of the Union. Nothing could be more false: “The South needs its entire territory. It will and must have it.” With this battle-cry the secessionists fell upon Kentucky. By their “entire territory” they understand in the first place all the so-called border states-Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri and Arkansas. Besides, they lay claim to the entire territory south of the line that runs from the north-west corner of Missouri to the Pacific Ocean. What the slaveholders, therefore, call the South, embraces more than three-quarters of the territory hitherto comprised by the Union. A large part of the territory thus claimed is still in the possession of the Union and would first have to be conquered from it. None of the so-called border states, however, not even those in the possession of the Confederacy, were ever actual slave states. Rather, they constitute the area of the United States in which the system of slavery and the system of free labour exist side by side and contend for mastery, the actual field of battle between South and North, between slavery and freedom. The war of the Southern Confederacy is, therefore, not a war of defence, but a war of conquest, a war of conquest for the spread and perpetuation of slavery.

The chain of mountains that begins in Alabama and stretches northwards to the Hudson River-the spinal column, as it were, of the United States-cuts the so-called South into three parts. The mountainous country formed by the Allegheny Mountains with their two parallel ranges, the Cumberland Range to the west and the Blue Mountains to the east, divides wedge-like the lowlands along the western coast of the Atlantic Ocean from the lowlands in the southern valleys of the Mississippi. The two lowlands separated by the mountainous country, with their vast rice swamps and far-flung cotton plantations, are the actual area of slavery. The long wedge of mountainous country driven into the heart of slavery, with its correspondingly clear atmosphere, an invigorating climate and a soil rich in coal, salt, limestone, iron ore, gold, in short, every raw material necessary for a many-sided industrial development, is already for the most part free country. In accordance with its physical constitution, the soil here can only be cultivated with success by free small farmers. Here the slave system vegetates only sporadically and has never struck root. In the largest part of the so-called border states, the dwellers of these highlands comprise the core of the free population, which sides with the Northern party if only for the sake of self-preservation.

Let us consider the contested territory in detail.

Delaware, the most north-eastern of the border states, is factually and morally in the possession of the Union. All the attempts of the secessionists at forming even one faction favourable to them have since the beginning of the war suffered shipwreck on the unanimity of the population. The slave element of this state has long been in process of dying out. From 1850 to 1860 alone the number of slaves diminished by half, so that with a total population of 112,218 Delaware now numbers only 1,798 slaves. Nevertheless, Delaware is demanded by the Southern Confederacy and would in fact be militarily untenable for the North as soon as the South possessed itself of Maryland.

In Maryland itself the above-mentioned conflict between highlands and lowlands takes place. Out of a total population of 687,034 there are here 87,188 slaves. That the overwhelming majority of the population is on the side of the Union has again been strikingly proved by the recent general elections to the Congress in Washington. The army of 30,000 Union troops, which holds Maryland at the moment, is intended not only to serve the army on the Potomac as a reserve, but, in particular, also to hold in check the rebellious slaveowners in the interior of the country. For here we observe a phenomenon similar to what we see in other border states where the great mass of the people stands for the North and a numerically insignificant slaveholders' party for the South. What it lacks in numbers, the slaveholders' party makes up in the means of power that many years' possession of all state offices, hereditary engagement in political intrigue and concentration of great wealth in few hands have secured for it.

Virginia now forms the great cantonment where the main army of secession and the main army of the Union confront each other. In the north-west highlands of Virginia the number of slaves is 15,000, whilst the twenty times as large free population consists mostly of free farmers. The eastern lowlands of Virginia, on the other hand, count well-nigh half a million slaves. Raising Negroes and the sale of the Negroes to the Southern states form the principal source of income of these lowlands. As soon as the ringleaders of the lowlands had carried through the secession ordinance by intrigues in the state legislature at Richmond and had in all haste opened the gates of Virginia to the Southern army, north-west Virginia seceded from the secession, formed a new state, and under the banner of the Union now defends its territory arms in hand against the Southern invaders.

Tennessee, with 1,109,847 inhabitants, 275,784 of whom are slaves, finds itself in the hands of the Southern Confederacy, which has placed the whole state under martial law and under a system of proscription which recalls the days of the Roman Triumvirates. When in the winter of 1861 the slaveholders proposed a general convention of the people which was to vote for secession or non-secession, the majority of the people rejected any convention, in order to remove any pretext for the secession movement. Later, when Tennessee was already militarily over-run and subjected to a system of terror by the Southern Confederacy, more than a third of the voters at the elections still declared themselves for the Union. Here, as in most of the border states, the mountainous country, east Tennessee, forms the real centre of resistance to the slaveholders' party. On June 17, 1861, a General Convention of the people of east Tennessee assembled in Greenville, declared itself for the Union, deputed the former governor of the state, Andrew Johnson, one of the most ardent Unionists, to the Senate in Washington and published a “declaration of grievances,” which lays bare all the means of deception, intrigue and terror by which Tennessee was “voted out” of the Union. Since then the secessionists have held east Tennessee in check by force of arms.

Similar relationships to those in West Virginia and east Tennessee are found in the north of Alabama, in north-west Georgia and in the north of North Carolina.

Further west, in the border state of Missouri, with 1,173,317 inhabitants and 114,965 slaves-the latter mostly concentrated in the north-west of the state-the people's convention of August 1861 decided for the Union. Jackson, the governor of the state and the tool of the slaveholders' party, rebelled against the legislature of Missouri, was outlawed and took the lead of the armed hordes that fell upon Missouri from Texas, Arkansas and Tennessee, in order to bring it to its knees before the Confederacy and sever its bond with the Union by the sword. Next to Virginia, Missouri is at the present moment the main theatre of the Civil War.

New Mexico-not a state, but merely a Territory, into which twenty-five slaves were imported during Buchanan's presidency in order to send a slave constitution after them from Washington-had no craving for the South, as even the latter concedes. But the South has a craving for New Mexico and accordingly spewed an armed band of adventurers from Texas over the border. New Mexico has implored the protection of the Union government against these liberators.

It will have been observed that we lay particular emphasis on the numerical proportion of slaves to free men in the individual border states. This proportion is in fact decisive. It is the thermometer with which the vital fire of the slave system must be measured. The soul of the whole secession movement is South Carolina. It has 402,541 slaves and 301,271 free men. Mississippi, which has given the Southern Confederacy its dictator, Jefferson Davis, comes second. It has 436,696 slaves and 354,699 free men. Alabama comes third, with 435,132 slaves and 529,164 free men.

The last of the contested border states, which we have still to mention, is Kentucky. Its recent history is particularly characteristic of the policy of the Southern Confederacy. Among its 1,135,713 inhabitants Kentucky has 225,490 slaves. In three successive general elections by the people-in the winter of 1861, when elections to a congress of the border states were held; in June 1861, when elections to the Congress in Washington took place; finally, in August 1861, in elections to the legislature of the State of Kentucky-an ever increasing majority decided for the Union. On the other hand, Magoffin, the Governor of Kentucky, and all the high officials of the state are fanatical supporters of the slaveholders' party, as is Breckinridge, Kentucky's representative in the Senate in Washington, Vice-President of the United States under Buchanan, and candidate of the slaveholders' party in the presidential election of 1860. Too weak to win over Kentucky for secession, the influence of the slaveholders' party was strong enough to make this state amenable to a declaration of neutrality on the outbreak of war. The Confederacy recognised the neutrality as long as it served its purposes, as long as the Confederacy itself was engaged in crushing the resistance in east Tennessee. Hardly was this end attained when it knocked at the gates of Kentucky with the butt of a gun to the cry of: “The South needs its entire territory. It will and must have it!"

From the south-west and south-east its corps of free-booters simultaneously invaded the “neutral” state. Kentucky awoke from its dream of neutrality, its legislature openly took sides with the Union, surrounded the traitorous Governor with a committee of public safety, called the people to arms, outlawed Breckinridge and ordered the secessionists to evacuate the invaded territory immediately. This was the signal for war. An army of the Southern Confederacy is moving on Louisville, while volunteers from Illinois, Indiana and Ohio flock hither to save Kentucky from the armed missionaries of slavery.

The attempts of the Confederacy to annex Missouri and Kentucky, for example, against the will of these states, prove the hollowness of the pretext that it is fighting for the rights of the individual states against the encroachments of the Union. On the individual states that it considers to belong to the “South” it confers, to be sure, the right to separate from the Union, but by no means the right to remain in the Union.

Even the actual slave states, however much external war, internal military dictatorship and slavery give them everywhere for the moment a semblance of harmony, are nevertheless not without oppositional elements. A striking example is Texas, with 180,388 slaves out of 601,039 inhabitants. The law of 1845, by virtue of which Texas became a State of the Union as a slave state, entitled it to form not merely one, but five states out of its territory. The South would thereby have gained ten new votes instead of two in the American Senate, and an increase in the number of its votes in the Senate was a major object of its policy at that time. From 1845 to 1860, however, the slaveholders found it impracticable to cut up Texas, where the German population plays an important part, into even two states without giving the party of free labour the upper hand over the party of slavery in the second state. This furnishes the best proof of the strength of the opposition to the slaveholding oligarchy in Texas itself.

Georgia is the largest and most populous of the slave states. It has 462,230 slaves out of a total of 1,057,327 inhabitants, therefore nearly half the population. Nevertheless, the slaveholders' party has not so far succeeded in getting the Constitution imposed on the South at Montgomery sanctioned by a general vote of the people in Georgia.

In the State Convention of Louisiana, meeting on March 21, 1861, at New Orleans, Roselius, the political veteran of the state, declared:

“The Montgomery Constitution is not a constitution, but a conspiracy. It does not inaugurate a government of the people, but a detestable and unrestricted oligarchy. The people were not permitted to have any say in this matter. The Convention of Montgomery has dug the grave of political liberty, and now we are summoned to attend its burial."

Indeed, the oligarchy of three hundred thousand slaveholders utilised the Congress of Montgomery not only to proclaim the separation of the South from the North. It exploited it at the same time to reshape the internal constitutions of the slave states, to subjugate completely the section of the white population that had still preserved some independence under the protection and the democratic Constitution of the Union. Between 1856 to 1860 the political spokesmen, jurists, moralists and theologians of the slaveholders' party had already sought to prove, not so much that Negro slavery is justified, but rather that colour is a matter of indifference and the working class is everywhere born to slavery.

One sees, therefore, that the war of the Southern Confederacy is in the true sense of the word a war of conquest for the spread and perpetuation of slavery. The greater part of the border states and Territories are still in the possession of the Union, whose side they have taken first through the ballot-box and then with arms. The Confederacy, however, counts them for the "South" and seeks to conquer them from the Union. In the border states which the Confederacy has occupied for the time being, it is holding the relatively free highlands in check by martial law. Within the actual slave states themselves it is supplanting the hitherto existing democracy by the unrestricted oligarchy of three hundred thousand slaveholders.

Were it to relinquish its plans of conquest, the Southern Confederacy would relinquish its capacity to live and the purpose of secession. Secession, indeed, only took place because within the Union the transformation of the border states and Territories into slave states seemed no longer attainable. On the other hand, were it to cede the contested territory peacefully to the Southern Confederacy, the North would surrender to the slave republic more than three-quarters of the entire territory of the United States. The North would lose the whole of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean, except the narrow strip from Penobscot Bay to Delaware Bay, and would even cut itself off from the Pacific Ocean. Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, Arkansas and Texas would draw California after them. Incapable of wresting the mouth of the Mississippi from the hands of the strong, hostile slave republic in the South, the great agricultural states in the basin between the Rocky Mountains and the Alleghenies, in the valleys of the Mississippi, the Missouri and the Ohio, would be compelled by their economic interests to secede from the North and enter the Southern Confederacy. These north-western states, in their turn, would draw after them into the same whirlpool of secession all the Northern states lying further east, with perhaps the exception of the states of New England.

What would in fact take place would be not a dissolution of the Union, but a reorganisation of it, a reorganisation on the basis of slavery, under the recognised control of the slaveholding oligarchy. The plan of such a reorganisation has been openly proclaimed by the principal speakers of the South at the Congress of Montgomery and explains the paragraph of the new Constitution which leaves it open to every state of the old Union to join the new Confederacy. The slave system would infect the whole Union. In the Northern states, where Negro slavery is in practice unworkable, the white working class would gradually be forced down to the level of helotry. This would fully accord with the loudly proclaimed principle that only certain races are capable of freedom, and as the actual labour is the lot of the Negro in the South, so in the North it is the lot of the German and the Irishman, or their direct descendants.

The present struggle between the South and North is, therefore, nothing but a struggle between two social systems, the system of slavery and the system of free labour. The struggle has broken out because the two systems can no longer live peacefully side by side on the North American continent. It can only be ended by the victory of one system or the other.

If the border states, the disputed areas in which the two systems have hitherto contended for domination, are a thorn in the flesh of the South, there can, on the other hand, be no mistake that, in the course of the war up to now, they have constituted the chief weakness of the North. One section of the slaveholders in these districts simulated loyalty to the North at the bidding of the conspirators in the South; another section found that in fact it was in accordance with their real interests and traditional ideas to go with the Union. Both sections have equally crippled the North. Anxiety to keep the “loyal” slaveholders of the border states in good humour, fear of throwing them into the arms of secession, in a word, tender regard for the interests, prejudices and sensibilities of these ambiguous allies, has smitten the Union government with incurable weakness since the beginning of the war, driven it to half measures, forced it to dissemble away the principle of the war and to spare the foe's most vulnerable spot, the root of the evil-slavery itself.

When, only recently, Lincoln pusillanimously revoked Frémont's Missouri proclamation on the emancipation of Negroes belonging to the rebels, this was done solely out of regard for the loud protest of the “loyal” slaveholders of Kentucky. However, a turning point has already been reached. With Kentucky, the last border state has been pushed into the series of battlefields between South and North. With the real war for the border states in the border states themselves, the question of winning or losing them is withdrawn from the sphere of diplomatic and parliamentary discussions. One section of slaveholders will throw off the mask of loyalty; the other will content itself with the prospect of a financial compensation such as Great Britain gave the West Indian planters. Events themselves drive to the promulgation of the decisive slogan-emancipation of the slaves.

That even the most hardened Democrats and diplomats of the North feel themselves drawn to this point, is shown by some announcements of very recent date. In an open letter, General Cass, Secretary of State for War under Buchanan and hitherto one of the most ardent allies of the South, declares emancipation of the slaves the conditio sine qua non of the Union's salvation. In his last Review for October, Dr. Brownson, the spokesman of the Catholic party of the North, on his own admission the most energetic adversary of the emancipation movement from 1836 to 1860, publishes an article for Abolition.

“If we have opposed Abolition heretofore,” he says among other things, “because we would preserve the Union, we must a fortiori now oppose slavery whenever, in our judgment, its continuance becomes incompatible with the maintenance of the Union, or of the nation as a free republican state."

Finally, the World, a New York organ of the diplomats of the Washington Cabinet, concludes one of its latest blustering articles against the Abolitionists with the words:

“On the day when it shall be decided that either slavery or the Union must go down, on that day sentence of death is passed on slavery. If the North cannot triumph without emancipation, it will triumph with emancipation."

On The Anniversary Of The Start Of The American Civil War-Karl Marx’s View

On The Anniversary Of The Start Of The American Civil War-Karl Marx’s View  

Frank Jackman comment:

I am always amazed when I run into some younger leftists, or even older radicals who may have not read much Marx and Engels, and find that they are surprised, very surprised to see that Marx and Engels were avid partisans of the Abraham Lincoln-led Union side in the American Civil War. In the age of advanced imperialism, of which the United States is currently the prime example, and villain, we are almost always negative about capitalism’s role in world politics. And are always harping on the need to overthrow the system in order to bring forth a new socialist reconstruction of society. Thus one could be excused for forgetting that at earlier points in history capitalism played a progressive role. A role that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and other leading Marxists, if not applauded, then at least understood represented human progress. Of course, one does not expect everyone to be a historical materialist and therefore know that in the Marxist scheme of things both the struggle to bring America under a unitary state that would create a national capitalist market by virtue of a Union victory and the historically more important struggle to abolish slavery that turned out to a necessary outcome of that Union struggle were progressive in our eyes. Read on.
*********

Articles by Karl Marx in Die Presse 1862

The English Press and the Fall of New Orleans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: MECW Volume 19, p. 199;
Written: on May 16, 1862;
First published: in Die Presse, May 20, 1862.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
London, May 16

On the arrival of the first rumours of the fall of New Orleans, The Times, The Herald, The Standard, The Morning Post, The Daily Telegraph, and other English “sympathisers” with the Southern “nigger-drivers” proved strategically, tactically, philologically, exegetically, politically, morally and fortificationally that the rumour was one of the “canards” which Reuter, Havas, Wolff and their understrappers so often let fly. The natural means of defence of New Orleans, it was said, had been augmented not only by newly constructed forts, but by submarine infernal machines of every sort and ironclad gunboats. Then there was the Spartan character of the citizens of New Orleans and their deadly hatred of Lincoln’s mercenaries. Finally, was it not at New Orleans that England suffered the defeat that brought her second war against the United States (1812 to 1814) to an ignominious end? Consequently, there was no reason to doubt that New Orleans would immortalise itself as a second Saragossa or a Moscow of the “South”. Besides, it harboured 15,000 bales of cotton, with which it could so easily have kindled an inextinguishable fire to destroy itself, quite apart from the fact that in 1814 the duly damped cotton bales proved more indestructible by cannon fire than the earthworks of Sevastopol. It was therefore as clear as daylight that the fall of New Orleans was a case of the familiar Yankee bragging.

When the first rumours were confirmed two days later by steamers arriving from New York, the bulk of the English Ispro-slavery press persisted in its scepticism. The Evening Standard, especially, was so positive in its unbelief that in the same number it published a first leader which proved the Crescent City’s impregnability in black and white, whilst its latest news” announced the impregnable city’s fall in large type. The Times, however, which has always held discretion for the better part of valour, veered round. It still doubted, but, at the same time, it made ready for every eventuality, since New Orleans was a city of “rowdies” and not of heroes. On this occasion, The Times was right. New Orleans is a settlement of the dregs of the French bohème, in the true sense of the word, a French convict colony -and never, with the changes of time, has it belied its origin. Only, The Times came Post festum to this pretty widespread realisation.

Finally, however, the fait accompli struck even the blindest Thomas. What was to be done? The English pro-slavery press now proves that the fall of New Orleans means a gain for the Confederates and a defeat for the Federals.

The fall of New Orleans allowed General Lovell to reinforce Beauregard’s army with his troops; Beauregard was all the more in need of reinforcements, since 160,000 men (surely an exaggeration!) were said to have been concentrated on his front by Halleck and, on the other hand, General Mitchel had cut Beauregard’s communications with the East by breaking the railway connection between Memphis and Chattanooga, that is, with Richmond, Charleston and Savannah. After his communications had been cut (which we indicated as a necessary strategical move long before the battle of Corinth), Beauregard had no longer any railway connections from Corinth, save those with Mobile and New Orleans. After New Orleans had fallen and he was only left with the single railway to Mobile to rely on, he naturally could no longer procure the necessary provisions for his troops. He therefore fell back on Tupelo and, in the estimation of the English p ro-slavery press, his provisioning capacity has, of course, been increased by the entry of Lovell’s troops!

On the other hand, the same oracles remark, the yellow fever will take a heavy toll of the Federals in New Orleans and, finally, if the city itself is no Moscow, is not its mayor a a Brutus? Only read (cf. New York”) his melodramatically valorous epistle to Commodore Farragut, “Brave words, Sir, brave words!” But hard words break no bones.

The press organs of the Southern slaveholders, however, do not construe the fall of New Orleans so optimistically as their English comforters. This will be seen from the following extracts:

The Richmond Dispatch says:

‘What has become of the ironclad gunboats, the Mississippi and the Louisiana, from which we expected the salvation of the Crescent City? In respect of their effect on the foe, these ships might just as well have been ships of glass. It is useless do deny that the fall of New Orleans is a heavy blow. The Confederate government is thereby cut off from West Louisiana, Texas, Missouri and Arkansas.”

The Norfolk Day Book observes:

“This is the most serious reverse since the beginning of the war. It augurs privations and want for all classes of society and, what is worse, it threatens our army supplies.”

The Atlantic Intelligencer laments:

“We expected that the outcome would be different. The approach of the enemy was no surprise attack; it has long been foreseen, and we had been promised that, should he even pass by Fort Jackson, fearful artillery, contrivances would force him to withdraw or ensure his annihilation. In all this, we have deceived ourselves, as on every occasion when the defences were supposed to guarantee the safety of a place or town. It appears that modern inventions have destroyed the defensive capacity of fortification. Ironclad gunboats destroy them or sail past then) unceremoniously. Memphis, we fear, will share the fate of New Orleans. Would it not be folly to deceive ourselves with hope?”

Finally, the Petersburg Express:

“The capture of New Orleans by the Federals is the most extraordinary and fateful event of the whole war.”

Happy, Happy Birthday Baby-On the 200th Anniversary Of The “Birth” of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”-A Comment

Happy, Happy Birthday Baby-On the 200th Anniversary Of The “Birth” of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”-A Comment 

A link to a 200th anniversary discussion of Mary Shelley and her “baby” Frankenstein on NPR’s On Point.  

http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2018/02/12/working-in-the-lab-late-one-night





By Lenny Lynch

We all know in the year 2018 that it is impossible to create a human being, maybe any being, out of spare human parts, and few jolts of electricity. Back in day 1818 when Mary Shelley (she of the thoroughbred breeding via Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin and channeling Percy Shelley) wrote her iconic classis Frankenstein although I like the Modern Prometheus part better science was pretty primitive on that count but provided an impetus to further discovery. Unlike today through genetic engineering we have better understanding of science and medicine although at times we need to treat science like a thing from which we have to run. (Example, a very current example, nuclear weapons.)      

Still Mary Shelley was onto something, some very worthy thoughts about human beings, about beings, about where women fit into the whole scheme of things if we can at the flip of a button create life. Also puts a big crimp in the various ideas about God and his or her tasks. We know, or at least I know, that Frankenstein aka Modern Prometheus has gotten a bad rap especially since the rise of the cinema turned him from a misunderstood and challenged being into a monster. Mary Shelley started something for us to think about and now we have to try to put the genie back in the bottle.  

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

As The 100th Anniversary Of The Last Year Of World War I Continues (Remember The War To End All Wars) ... Some Remembrances

As The 100th Anniversary Of The Last Year Of World War I Continues  (Remember The War To End All Wars) ... Some Remembrances






From The Pen Of Frank Jackman  


The events leading up to World War I from the massive military armament of almost all the capitalist and imperialist parties in Europe and elsewhere in order to stake their claims to their unimpeded share of the world’s resources to the supposedly eternal pledges not honored by most of the Social-Democrats and other militant leftist formations representing the historic interest of the international working-class to stop those parties in their tracks at the approach of war were decisive for 20th century history. Also decisive although shrouded in obscurity early in the war in exile was the soon to be towering figure of one Vladimir Lenin (a necessary nom de guerre in hell broth days of the Czar’s Okhrana ready to send one and all to the Siberian frosts and that moniker business not a bad idea in today’s NSA-driven frenzy to know all, to peep at all), leader of the small Russian Bolshevik Party ( a Social-Democratic Party in name anyway adhering to the Second International although not for long), architect of the theory of the “vanguard party” building off of many revolutionary experience in Russia and Europe in the 19th century), and author of an important, important to the future communist world perspective, study on the tendencies of world imperialism, the ending of the age of progressive capitalism, and the hard fact that it was a drag on the possibilities of human progress and needed to be replaced by the establishment of the socialist order. But that is the wave of the future as the sinkhole trenches of Europe are already a death trap for the flower of the European youth.   

The ability to inflict industrial-sized slaughter and mayhem on a massive scale first portended toward the end of the American Civil War once the Northern industrial might tipped the scales their way almost could not be avoided in the early 20th century once the armaments race got serious, and the technology seemed to grow exponentially with each new turn in the war machine. The land war, the war carried out by the “grunts,” by the “cannon fodder” of many nations was only the tip of the iceberg and probably except for the increased cannon-power and rapidity of the machine-guns would be carried out by the norms of the last war. However the race for naval supremacy, or the race to take a big kink out of British supremacy, went on unimpeded as Germany tried to break-out into the Atlantic world and even Japan, Jesus, Japan tried to gain a big hold in the Asia seas.

The deeply disturbing submarine warfare wreaking havoc on commerce on the seas, the use of armed aircraft and other such technological innovations of war only added to the frenzy. We can hundred years ahead, look back and see where talk of “stabs in the back” by the losers and ultimately an armistice rather than decisive victory on the blood-drenched fields of Europe would lead to more blood-letting but it was not clear, or nobody was talking about it much, or, better, doing much about calling a halt before they began among all those “civilized” nations who went into the abyss in July of 1914. Sadly the list of those who would not do anything, anything concrete, besides paper manifestos issued at international conferences, included the great bulk of the official European labor movement which in theory was committed to stopping the madness.

A few voices, voices like Karl Liebknecht (who against the party majority bloc voting scheme finally voted against the Kaiser’s war budget, went to the streets to get rousing anti-war speeches listened to in the workers’ districts, lost his parliamentary immunity and wound up honorably in the Kaiser’s  prisons) and Rosa Luxemburg ( the rose of the revolution also honorably prison bound) in Germany, Lenin and Trotsky in Russia (both exiled at the outbreak of war and just in time), some anti-war anarchists like Monette in France and here in America Big Bill Haywood (who eventually would controversially flee to Russia to avoid jail for his opposition to American entry into war) and the stalwart Eugene V. Debs (who also went to jail, “club fed” and ran for president in 1920 out of his jail cell),  were raised and one hundred years later those voices have a place of honor in this space.

Those voices, many of them in exile, or in the deportations centers, were being clamped down as well as the various imperialist governments began closing their doors to political refugees when they were committed to clapping down on their own anti-war citizens. As we have seen in our own times, most recently in America in the period before the “shock and awe” of the decimation of Iraq in 2002 and early 2003 the government, most governments, are able to build a war frenzy out of whole cloth. At those times, and in my lifetime the period after 9/11 when we tried in vain to stop the Afghan war in its tracks is illustrative, to be a vocal anti-warrior is a dicey business. A time to keep your head down a little, to speak softly and wait for the fever to subside and to be ready to begin the anti-war fight another day. So imagine in 1914 when every nationality in Europe felt its prerogatives threatened how the fevered masses, including the beguiled working-classes bred on peace talk without substance, would not listen to the calls against the slaughter. Yes, one hundred years later is not too long or too late to honor those ardent anti-war voices as the mass mobilizations began in the countdown to war, began four years of bloody trenches and death.                   


Over the next period as we continue the last year of the long night of the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I and beyond I will under this headline post various documents, manifestos and cultural expressions from that time in order to give a sense of what the lead up to that war looked like, the struggle against its outbreak before, the forlorn struggle during and the massive struggles after it in order to create a newer world out of the shambles of the battlefields.      

On Patriot's Day In Massachusetts Join The Protest March From Lexington To Hanscom Field To Stop The U.S.Nuclear Command Center From Being Stationed There

On Patriot's Day In Massachusetts Join The Protest March From Lexington To Hanscom Field To Stop The U.S.Nuclear Command Center From Being Stationed There   


We have mentioned that one of the things you very definitely want to say "not in my neighborhood" about is the designation of Hanscom as the control and command center for the U.S. military nuclear program. Join your friends and neighbors to protest this activity. The Executive Board 



Out In The 1950s Crime Noir Night- Humphrey Bogart’s “The Enforcer”

Out In The 1950s Crime Noir Night- Humphrey Bogart’s “The Enforcer”





DVD Review

The Enforcer, starring Humphrey Bogart, Everett Sloane, Warner Brothers, 1951 


I have been on something of a Humphrey Bogart tear of late. And when I get in the occasional tear mood I tend to grab everything of an author, singer, artist, or actor in sight. And hence this review of a very much lesser known Humphrey Bogart film, The Enforcer. If you are looking for the oddly charismatic Humphrey Bogart of To Have or To Have Not, Casablanca, The Big Sleep or even the lumpen thug, Duke Mantee, of The Petrified Forest then you will be disappointed. Here Bogie goes over to the other side of the law and plays a hard-working, tough (naturally) District Attorney who will stop at nothing to put the bad guys in this quirky police procedural.

Quirky because the film switches between the film's 1950s present and an earlier time in order to figure out why a woman was killed by her gun-for-hire boyfriend. As it turns out what Bogie and his police crew have stumbled into is the film version of Murder, Inc. a real phenomenon of professional killers who kill strictly for the dough, and no regrets. Except, as always, there is a weak link in the chain. That weak link is the that the woman killed by her boyfriend for seemingly no reason allegedly saw the psycho head capo of the murder for hire operation (played by Everett Sloane) kill a guy and he needed to cover it up. Was she the right woman? See the film and see if Bogie can figure things out. Figure the bad guys out as well as Phillip Marlowe or Sam Spade could.

On the 100th Anniversary Of The Russian Revolution-A SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF LEON TROTSKY

On the 100th Anniversary Of The Russian Revolution-A SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF LEON TROTSKY  




BOOK REVIEW

LEON TROTSKY, IRVING HOWE, HOLT,RHINEHART, New York, 1978


As readers of this space may know I make no bones about being an admirer of the work of Leon Trotsky (see archives). I also believe that the definitive biography of the man is Isaac Deutchers’ s three-volume set. Nevertheless, others have written biographies on Trotsky that are either less balanced than Deutscher’s or come at it from a different angle with a different ax to grind. Irving Howe’s, self-defined quasi-biography is a standard social-democratic take on Trotsky’s life and work.

The late Mr. Howe, long time editor of the political journal "Dissent" and a political 'godfather' of today's neo-conservatives, takes on the huge task of attempting to whittle down one of the big figures of 20th century history against the backdrop of that mushy social-democratic ‘State Department’ socialism that the left New York intelligentsia gravitated to in the 1950’s and early 1960’s. That standard response invokes admiration for the personality and intellectual achievements of Trotsky the man while abhorring his politics, especially those pursued as a high Soviet official when he was in political power. In the process Mr. Howe demonstrates as much about his weak ‘socialist libertarian’ politics grounded in a theory of Soviet ‘bureaucratic collectivism’ than a serious examination into Trotsky’s politics. There are some chasms that cannot be breached and this is one of them.

In classic fashion Howe sets up Trotsky’s virtues early. Thus he recognizes and appreciates the early romantic revolutionary and free-lance journalist in the true Russian tradition who faced jail and exile without flinching; the brilliant, if flawed, Marxist theoretician who defied all-comers at debate and whose theory of permanent revolution set the standard for defining the strategic pace of the Russian revolution; the great organizer of the revolutionary fight for power in 1917 and later organizer of the Red Army victory in the Civil War; the premier Communist literary critic of his age; the ‘premature’ anti-Stalinist who fought against the degeneration of the revolution; the lonely exile rolling the rock up the mountain despite personal tragedy and political isolation. However, my friends, Howe’s biographical sketches are about an intensely political man by one who was a political opponent of everything that Trotsky stood for. Thus, all the patently obvious and necessary recognition of Trotsky as one of the great figures of the first half of the 20th century is a screen for taking Trotsky off of Olympus.

And here again Howe uses all the points there are in the social democratic standard catechism. The flawed nature of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution as applied to Russia in 1917 and also to later semi-colonial and colonial countries; the undemocratic nature of the Bolshevik seizure of power in regard to other socialist parties; the horrors of the Civil War which helped lead to the degeneration of the revolution; Trotsky’s recognized tendency as a Soviet official to be attracted to administrative solutions; his adamant defense of the heroic days of the Bolshevik party and the Soviet Union, even in its degenerated state, against all comers until the end of his life; his weakness as a party political organizer in the fierce intra-party factional struggles and later, in attempting to found new communist parties and a new international; and, the inevitable ‘crime of crimes’ for the social democratic set- his failure to politically bloc with the Bukharinite Right Opposition after its defeat by Stalin.

Of course the kindest interpretation one can make for Howe’s polemic is that he believes like many another erstwhile biographer that Trotsky should have given up the political struggle and become- what? Another bourgeois academic or better yet an editor of Partisan Review, Dissent or Commentary? Obviously Mr. Howe did not pay sufficient attention to the parts that he considered Trotsky’s virtues. The parts about the intrepid revolutionary with a great sense of history and his role in it. And the wherewithal to find a place in it. Does that seem like the Trotsky that Howe wrote about? No. A fairer way to put it is this. Trotsky probably represented the highest expression of what it was like to be a communist man, warts and all, in the sea of a non-Communist world. And that is high historical praise indeed.

The Mayfair Swells Without The Music-Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant And Jimmy Stewart’s “The Philadelphia Story” (1940)-A Film Review

The Mayfair Swells Without The Music-Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant And Jimmy Stewart’s “The Philadelphia Story” (1940)-A Film Review 




DVD Review

By Associate Film Critic Alden Riley

The Philadelphia Story, starring Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, directed by George Cukor, 1940


[A while back my “boss” in this space Sandy Salmon the long time film critic for the American Film Gazette who took over the chores here from the retiring Sam Lowell did a review of Howard Hughes’ production of the film adaptation of the successful Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur play The Front Page where he ruminated that he thought that he had already reviewed the film since the story line seemed very familiar. Sandy thought he was having a senior moment, thought maybe he had seen one too many films and had scratched his head over the plotline and message behind too many such efforts as well. As it turned out he had merely “confused” himself with the fact that he had previously reviewed His Girl Friday starring Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell which was just the distaff perspective, Sandy’s word, of the same story, in other words a woman is the ace reporter who can’t give up the newspaper rat race when a big story hit her right in the face despite her avowal she was going for the white picket fence, dog, three point two children and a nine to five guy to bring home the bacon.

The same thing, that deja vu thing has happened to me recently, and I am far younger and less fragile than Sandy, when I reviewed a 1950s musical extravaganza called High Society starring vivacious Grace Kelly in her last role before becoming a fairy queen, princess, you know royalty, Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby. Somebody, maybe Sandy, had shortly thereafter suggested that I check out the film to be reviewed below which except for the music is very much the same freaking story. Let me tell you this and be done with it this is the last time I will be reviewing this story line although somebody, not Sandy, says there is yet another version of this same sappy, soapy story line if I want to disturb my sleep futher than it already had been to no good purpose. Enough. Alden Riley] 

******
The Mayfair swells whether in plush Main Line Philadelphia (of which the very underrated novelist from nowhere Pottsville, Pennsylvania made a literary career out of detailing starting with Appointment At Samarra if you really want to get the load down on their work habits and sexual inclinations) or high end summer watering holes like Newport which a guy like Henry James would have had a field day “celebrating” if he hadn’t gone Anglo-exile, certainly have their problems. Whether or not they have musical abilities or not. Can croon to make the angels blush for their inadequacies or not. And no matter what time frame from the edge of the Great Depression which they, at least the survivors of 1929 had heard about in passing or in the dead of the red scare Cold War night as one film critic has described the 1950s. When I first saw this film I said to myself in some disbelief that I had already seen the film, or at least knew the story-line because I had just reviewed a Technicolor production of High Society with Grace Kelly (before she went off to be the real queen of Sheba or some kind of royalty in some fake kingdom by the sea), crooner Frank Sinatra (last reviewed in this space as a psycho hired assassin in Suddenly, no that is not right it was his well-deserved Oscar-winning performance in the film adaptation of James Jones’ From Here To Eternity) and crooner Bing Crosby (last seen probably in an un-reviewed Going My Way ) getting into mischief down in sunny Newport during the Jazz Festival.

That mischief, as here, involved the nefarious, yes, nefarious schemes of one Dexter Haven a high-end Mayfair swell tunesmith (figures for crooner Crosby) to get his ex-wife comely high-spirited and high-minded Tracy Lord (played by Princess Grace before she was Princess Grace) back in the fold. Problem: a big problem was that Ms. Tracy was getting ready to democratically marry a non-Mayfair swell the very next weekend. Here Dexter, played by cavalier Cary Grant, is nothing but a scheming high-end nautical architect slumming in the leafy suburbs of Main Line Philadelphia (you know among the Quaker-influenced old line gentry). Old Tracy, played by handsome and bright Katharine Hepburn, though is hard to get what with those high-spirited and high-mined ways that either version of the Mayfair swell assertive young Tracy held in hand. So the chase was on to see if old Dexter, or somebody could make Tracy see reason and dump this snobbish upstart who is looking to go up the social food chain by this timely marriage.                      

Enter Spy magazine in the person of frustrated writer Mike, played by Jimmy Stewart, who is hack writing for this scandal rag to keep the wolves from his door. In fact to have a door to keep them at bay with otherwise tossed out on the mean streets. This tainted high society marriage idea is meat for that publication. Mike, a hard-boiled, realistic, witty, sardonic guy is smitten, seriously smitten, by the upscale Tracy. Now the chase really was on. The three suitors spent the rest of the film jockeying for Tracy’s affections. Naturally the upstart guy she is supposed to marriage will be left at the altar and was a non-starter. Mike almost made the whole distance when Tracy had an epiphany after a drunken pre-nuptial reverie and was ready to go down and dirty to push Mike onto that serious writer’s career he longed for. But in the end, in the almost inevitable end among the Mayfair swells old-line class and breeding won out as Dexter’s anaconda strategy paid off.


Like I said I have already covered this plot-line. Enough. No mas. Even if it is a great story well- acted.