Todd Hudson
-
The Basics
-
Todd on Patch
-
More Stuff
Comments
-
On the article Local Home Once Used as Civil War Base
-
On the article The Battle for Leo Frank
Todd Hudson
12:58 pm on Monday, September 12, 2011
ReplyOn a personal note: I pass the statue of Tom Watson in front of the capital building several times each week, and I must say that its presence there troubles me. While I do hold the view that people should be judged according to the standards of their time and not ours, Watson was a bigot and a troublemaker even for 1915. I am also of the opinion that monuments on government property should reflect who we are as a people today, not just who we were - and Tom Watson represents the worst of who we were. Perhaps a more suitable location for his statue could be found.
-
On the article The Troubling Case of Leo M. Frank
Todd Hudson
9:55 am on Sunday, September 4, 2011
ReplyRereading my own article, there is one point already that may seem inaccurate. I wrote that the murder notes said that "the night witch" had done this. In reality, a careful reading of the notes show that they mean to indicate another man, a "long tall negro," and not the night watchman. But the idiosyncratic wording makes the meaning of the notes difficult to decipher, and different theories of what the notes' author was trying to say continued to be bandied about even during the trial. But for my purposes, suffice to say that, for the responding policeman, the notes appeared to implicate the "night witch," hence the arrest of Newt Lee on suspicion.
-
On the article Lynching Anniversary and Other History
Todd Hudson
7:21 pm on Wednesday, August 17, 2011
ReplyIncidentally, if anyone has ever wondered why I have not written about the Frank case in the "Marietta History Files" column (I have written about Mary Phagan, but not about the trial of Leo Frank) it is because the subject is a hornets' nest, and it is a complicated one. It is nowhere near as cut-and-dried as people like to think. Also, there is a lot of powerful sentiment here in Cobb still. The Phagan family still has representatives living here. Many of the men who carried out the lynching have descendants living here, some of whom have denounced their ancestors' actions and some of whom hold that they were correct in principle if not in deed. There is also a substantial Jewish population here with understandably sensitive feelings about the case. It would have to be treated with a great deal of tact, and it would require much more space than my typical 600-1,000 word column. I may undertake it one day in consultation with others. In the mean time, I steer the reader toward Steve Oney's book.
-
On the article Lynching Anniversary and Other History
Todd Hudson
7:15 pm on Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Hi Michael. That question is far from proof that this is what happened in the Frank Case. He was not solely convicted on Conley's testimony, although Conley's testimony was the most damaging. There was plenty of reason to suspect Frank, and plenty of reason to indict him. There was a great deal of testimony against him from other parties as well. I do not believe Frank was guilty, however.
Bear in mind that his conviction was upheld on appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The most complete and thorough treatment of the Frank case that I know of is Steve Oney's book "And the Dead Shall Rise." Since the court transcripts have been lost (how convenient) Oney reconstructed the investigation and trial from newspaper accounts. Oney's book is a ponderous tome, and is very thorough and unbiased. In his research, he found no evidence of antisemitism during the investigation or the trial. The first to mention antisemitism was the defense counsel during closing statements. The antisemitic remarks didn't start flying until the appeals process and the media campaign. I highly recommend Oney's book to anyone who is interested in the Frank case.
-
On the article Lynching Anniversary and Other History
Todd Hudson
7:16 am on Wednesday, August 17, 2011
ReplyCorrection: Leo Frank's prosecution was not "rife with antisemitism." It was never a part of the investigation or prosecution.. Antisemitic speech against Frank did not start until after the conviction, when Frank's supporters began a media campaign to turn public opinion against the decision, and ultimately against the State of Georgia. The hate speech began as a reaction against the pro Frank movement, which was seen as an attempt by Northern Jews to undermine Georgia justice. The worst of the antisemitism came from the pages of "The Jeffersonian" under the pen of Tom Watson. He and others used antisemitic speech to fan the flames of anger that were already burning.
-
On the article A Stark and Blighted Landscape
Todd Hudson
11:59 am on Saturday, August 6, 2011
I will do my best to be there. Thanks for the invite!
-
On the article A Stark and Blighted Landscape
Todd Hudson
1:45 pm on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
ReplyI understood your comment, Pam. I was unemployed in 2008, as are so many people I know, and it has been a slow path to get back. I find it interesting the way certain themes (in this case financial loss, lack and a temptation to lose hope) seem to resonate so strongly with people who are experiencing similar conditions in their own lives, no matter what the degree of severity. This is the reason, for instance, that passages from certain biblical texts resonate differently with different people. Keep reading and keep commenting.
-
On the article Surace Embraces Southern Gothic
-
On the article July 4,1864
Todd Hudson
12:28 am on Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Thank you, Joe. The comment that you mentioned is one that I flagged as inappropriate. The individual in question was using my article as a platform for hate speech and bigotry, in this case anti-Catholicism and conspiracy theory. I have also had people post antisemitic comments to some of my writings in the past. I encourage comments and free expression, but I will not countenance that type of thing here.
I appreciate your readership, Joe.
Todd
Todd Hudson
6:13 pm on Thursday, January 5, 2012
Interesting! I would love to know more about what happened after they reported the discovery of the bones. Which agencies got involved, for instance. It is illegal in Georgia to unearth human remains, even if one owns the property, until one has gone through the correct channels. - usually the M.E. or the State Archaeologist.