The Charlotte News

Sunday, October 15, 1939


Site Ed. Note: As to Charles Lindbergh's usual idiotic pronouncements on foreign policy, as explored in both "Exploded" and "Invitation", the idea of trying to somehow have Britain and France give up their island possessions in the Caribbean and elsewhere in this hemisphere would also be taken up by another great mind, that of Senator Robert Rice Reynolds of North Carolina. He proposed that France give up its island possessions in exchange for forgiveness of its debt to the U.S. from World War I, as discussed the following day in "War on England", and as further explored in "About Face", February 15, 1941.

For more on Hitler's designs on these islands, see "Notice", July 7, 1940, "Adolf Is Here", July 9, 1940, "At Martinique", October 4, 1940, "Coming Closer", October 27, 1940, "Free Hand", January 12, 1941, and "Our Quandary", May 22, 1941.

And, for more on the Black Daniel who bid, "Au revoir," and departed, see all of that at July 23, 1939.

Done readin' it?

There, there, Rustican, it will be alright in the mawnin', now--when the Reavooluution come.

And if you h'ain't got it yet, well, all's we can says is, if you was a carpenter, too, you'd understand it betta.

Well, it's a long way to Tipperary...

Black Daniel

His Trials And Tribulations Only Attest His Virtue

It may have been Friday the Unlucky to a lot of people, but to Jim Massey, King of Charlotte's Harlem, it was the occasion for another one of those lucky breaks that happen only once-in-a-lifetime to ordinary individuals.

Jim is no ordinary man. He gets in an astonishing amount of trouble with the law, to be sure. But he nearly always gets out. It's a wonder, forsooth, that such cops as feel no compunctions about arresting him do not themselves become discouraged, for the net effect of dragging Jim into court is only to have his virtuousness re-affirmed and his good and regular standing brought up to date.

Jim's been arraigned a half-dozen times in recent months on all manner of charges from carrying a gun, to assault on a female, to assault with a deadly weapon, or anyhow with something that went off like a firecracker. He has a suspended sentence hanging over him, put there by the County Recorder. Its terms are that if he's convicted of trafficking in liquor again, he'll go to the roads.

Twice since the Damoclesian sword was hung over his head has Jim been brought into court on liquor charges. Each time the verdict of the court only sustained Jim's contention that not dealing in liquor was the thing he was carefullest of. The 150 pints they found on his N. Long Street premises the second time--why, they had been there when he was raided the first time, some three months before. And the Constitution says thou shalt not place a man in jeopardy twice for the same offense.

As for being found this last time standing in his yard surrounded by three cases of liquor, Jim was both amazed and indignant. He didn't know where they came from less'n somebody with a grudge against him had planted it there. The judge can't imagine either, so this Black Daniel bid the lions au revoir and departed.

Lost Freedom

Broadcasters Frankly Take The Role Of Public Censors

The new code adopted by the National Association of Broadcasters, plainly directed against Father Coughlin and his kind, deserves a closer examination. It turns out to be ingenious--ingenious to the point of keeping the rambunctious orator of Royal Oak completely off the air.

Father Coughlin, being "a spokesman of controversial public issues," may not buy his own time. He may be invited to speak on a station's free time, to be sure, provided he submits his manuscript in advance. And provided, always, that a station wants to invite him.

And however much broadcasters contend that they are not thus muzzling free speech and assuming unto themselves authority to determine what will be safe and what unsafe for the little radio listeners to hear, they cannot reasonably deny that this is censorship of the most deliberate kind. They forget that Voltaire offered to defend to the death a man's right to say--not that which he tolerated but that which he despised.

Father Coughlin is a nuisance, admittedly. Father Coughlin is worse than that in the minds of a great many people: he is a menace. Father Coughlin is an unsettling influence during a time of great distress in this nation.

Conceded. But he is a man with an opinion to express and a means, hitherto, of expressing it. He had been denied that privilege on the admitted ground that the expression of his opinion is against the public interest. Therefore it follows, unavoidably, as far as the radio is concerned, free speech is out.

And that development, messires, is far more to be feared than a hundred Coughlins.

Site Ed. Note: Well, he sort of did, therefore, after all. Even if for different reasons, people of different viewpoints and backgrounds and opinions on other things can and often do find a common meeting place--in Independence Hall.


Eliot Destroyed This Claim Before Lindbergh Made It

In his speech Friday night Colonel Lindbergh attempted to make the same distinction between "defensive" and "offensive" weapons which Herbert Hoover attempted to make a few days ago. Both were willing to see the unrestricted sale of the former, but wanted an absolute ban on the latter.

Major George Fielding Eliot answered that argument in his article which appeared on the front page of The News yesterday. And there is no reasonable doubt that Eliot, who has spent his life studying such matters, knows a good deal more about the subject than either of the other two. That is obvious, so far as Hoover goes, for he is a layman, without claim to expert military knowledge.

Lindbergh himself is no recognized expert in these matters. He is a man who flew the Atlantic, who has remained enormously interested in airplanes and so knows a good deal about them. But so does any crack flyer.

Major Eliot points out that the distinction is purely fictitious. So-called "offensive" weapons, such as bombers, are also necessary "defensive" weapons. They are necessary to the defense of the home bases of the defending army as against the air fleet of the offensive side. And far more important:

"... A very considerable part in the defense of any country, threatened by air attack on the part of a neighbor, is the latter's fear of reprisals in kind... To assert that this fear of reprisals... is not as effective... a means of defending civilians from air attack as fighter squadrons or anti-aircraft artillery, is to display either an ignorance of war or a lack of ability to grasp its underlying principles."

That is the case, in a nutshell. Does anyone suppose that if England and France had the definite superiority in the air, Adolf Hitler would ever launch the "horror" campaign he seems now to be the planning?


An Army Colonel Plays With High Explosives

Colonel Lindbergh said a great thing when, in effect, he demanded that England and France get completely out of this hemisphere. That amounts to a demand that England and France should turn over their island possessions to us. Of Canada he said explicitly:

"If their country is ever attacked our Navy will be defending their seas, our soldiers will fight on their battlefields, and our flyers will die in their skies.

"But have they the right to draw this hemisphere into a European war simple because they prefer the crown of England to American independence?"

There are several things to be said about this. First, how does Colonel Lindbergh propose that we go about acquiring the British and French Islands? There is not the slightest reason to suppose that they will ever give them up voluntarily, for they are very valuable to them for both trade and military purposes. And that leaves no other way to come by them save by forcible seizure. Is Colonel Lindbergh so tender of not getting into war with Germany that he is prepared to land us into one with Britain and France instead?

As for the utterance on Canada, it is very cunningly phrased to give the impression, (1) that Canada is trying to involve this hemisphere in war, (2) that our reason for extending protection to her is simply great-hearted generosity. There is no evidence for the former. If Canada is bound to ask our permission to go to war, she is simply our satellite and not a free people at all. And as for the second, the reason we extend one protection to Canada under the Monroe Doctrine is frank self-interest and nothing else. We have found that we can live with Britain in this hemisphere, we doubt that we could live with others and particularly Germany. And so we serve notice to Germany to keep out of this hemisphere. This is the flat truth of the case.

Ultimately this whole business comes to a demand that Canada shall withdraw from the British Empire to continue to enjoy this selfishly given protection. If the United States Government uttered such a demand, England would immediately have cause for making war on us. And it is to be observed that Colonel Lindbergh himself is not and cannot speak purely as a private person. He is a man whom millions still worship out of proportion to his capacity to pass on such subjects as these, and who, there is reason to believe, is being manipulated by a band of Republicans out to embarrass the President at any price. Furthermore, Lindbergh is a Colonel in the United States Army, only the other day on active service. And the invitation to Canada from a Colonel of the United States Army to retire from the British Empire is very serious business. England at this moment has cause for the most vigorous protest.


Framed Edition
[Return to Links-Page by Subject] [Return to Links-Page by Date] [Return to News--Framed Edition]
Links-Date -- Links-Subj.