Talk:Lewis Morrison

Wild speculations about his racial background should not be tagged on.

Mr. Morris identified himself as being of English and Spanish origin, and his picture does not show, despite the dark makeup as the famous devil, any sign of possible non-Caucasian admixture. Thus if we don't have any persuading evidence to think otherwise, idle speculations about his racial heritage, issued by some ethnocentric people, should not be allowed.

I appreciate the original contributor of the article for presenting an overall clearly-written summary in the midst of an awful lack of relevant info, but I'm afraid the way he mentioned the Louisiana Native Guards might produce some unnecessary misunderstanding of his racial background, especially when some afrocentrists have decided to abuse it for their cause.

The Louisiana Native Guards was not an all-black regiment from top to bottom. Majority of the regiment consisted of blacks but it does not automatically entail Mr. Morris was black himself. The truth is its high-ranking officers and liaison officers, who took charge of communicating with civilians or the rest of the Confederacy Army, were always Caucasians.

It is his later life as an actor where we could get more convincing evidence about his racial background. He gained great popularity nationwide and even overseas, by playing Mephistopheles in Faust. I can hardly assume that those lived back then had been that much liberal to allow a black male to play a major role in a theatrical adaptation of one of the finest European literary masterpieces. I don't believe either that a black male could have earned such reputation without a single occurrence of controversy over his racial origin. As far as I know, available newspaper articles concerning him did not mention such a thing as Mr. Morris became an object of attention with his ethnicity.

I'd like to also mention that Mr. Morris' racial identity does not seem to be the real concern for some Afrocentric people. He was a talented stage actor at his time but not so great to be called a legend and has been long forgotten. The real underlying cause for those Afrocentrists is that they desire to claim as their own group of people, his granddaughter Joan Bennett, one of the most beautiful legendary white actresses ever, and her no less glamorous sisters. You just visit IMDB and check out what I mean: this black woman, calling herself Mermaid77, is vandalizing Ms. Bennett's discussion board in a most un-mermaidlike way but still succeeds in getting people's attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EichendorffaufeinerBurg (talk • contribs) 13:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this some type of joke? You chide others for making "wild speculations about his racial background," and then spend the next several paragraphs doing precisely that! You wrote:

Mr. Morris identified himself as being of English and Spanish origin, and his picture does not show, despite the dark makeup as the famous devil, any sign of possible non-Caucasian admixture. Thus if we don't have any persuading evidence to think otherwise, idle speculations about his racial heritage, issued by some ethnocentric people, should not be allowed.

Mr. Morris also identified himself as being of African origin too. He wouldn't have voluntarily enlisted in a regiment primarily made up of people of European and African ancestry if he didn't. It's the idle speculation of some ethnocentric people to think otherwise. You wrote:

The Louisiana Native Guards was not an all-black regiment from top to bottom. Majority of the regiment consisted of blacks but it does not automatically entail Mr. Morris was black himself. The truth is its high-ranking officers and liaison officers, who took charge of communicating with civilians or the rest of the Confederacy Army, were always Caucasians.

The truth is that Morris wasn't a "high-ranking" officer, he was a lieutenant. NONE of the other officers of his rank in the Louisiana Native Guard were "white". ALL of them, like Lieutenant Andre Cailloux, had the same European and African ancestry as Morris. ALL the officers a rank above him, like Captain Louis A Snaer, Captain P.B.S. Pinchback, and Captain Armand Lanusse, had the same European and African ancestry. And at least one officer a rank above them, Major Francois Ernest Dumas, also had the same European and African ancestry. Your idle speculation would have us believe that Morris was the sole "white" man of his rank in the entire Louisiana Native Guard! Either you're privy to information that all Civil War historians aren't, or this is just idle speculation on your part. You end your rambling comment with even more idle speculation. You wrote:

I can hardly assume. . .

I don't believe. . .

As far as I know. . .

. . .does not seem. . .

You're puzzled that some people back then didn't make a stink over his African ancestry. But Morris was hardly alone in this regard. There were many individuals back then who, like Morris, were of European and African ancestry, and skirted racist notions of their proper place in society. People like Colonel John Wayles Jefferson, George Herriman, and Paul Sentell. Many people didn't make a stink about their African ancestry because either they didn't know or didn't care. Everyone back then didn't share your notion of "white" racial purity, ya know. Wikipedia is not the place for engaging in historical revisionism. So take this "white" purity nonesense somewhere else! Melwood19 (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I restored the sourced material removed by Lauracerffer. She didn't give a reason for removing it. However, in a deleted comment on the talk page of Joan Bennett, she took issue with the source that someone used before me that I restored. She wrote:

Having read Joan Bennett's autobiography 'The Bennett Playbill' and Brian Kellow's biography 'The Bennetts: An Acting Family', I have to question Phil Downey's Note 3, 'A Black Jewish officer in the Civil War', on the Joan Bennett article. There is, seemingly, no credibility to it. Joan Bennett wrote in 'The Bennett Playbill' that her grandfather, Morris W. Morris (aka Lewis Morrison), was of British ancestry on his paternal side and from two very wealthy Iberian families on his mother's side.

Why should we privilege what one descendant of Morris (Joan Bennett) says over another descendant (Philip Downey) concerning his ancestry? Perhaps a better question is why should we rely on either of them when his ancestry is well known among historians of the Civil War (see Ronald S. Coddington, African American Faces of the Civil War: An Album, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012)? She wrote:

Furthermore, the newer book about the Bennetts, 'The Bennetts: An Acting Family', does not claim, as Downey does, that Mr. Morris was a Black Jewish man.

From what I can recall, Kellow's book didn't mention Morris' Spanish or English ancestry either. In fact, it didn't mention his ancestry at all. Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence? She wrote:

Joan Bennett's daughter, Diana Anderson, left a wonderful review about Kellow's book on Amazon. (Diana Anderson is Miss Bennett's daughter through her marriage to John Marion Fox.) She recalled, in her Amazon review, author Brian Kellow's extensive interviews with Constance Bennett's son, Peter Plant. (Peter is Constance's son through her marriage to Philip Morgan Plant.) If Mr. Downey is, indeed, related to Diana and Peter...why does his family info deviate from theirs (and Joan Bennett's too)?

As I've pointed out, there's no mention of Morris' ancestry in Kellow's book. So how can what Phillip said "deviate" from what Diana and Peter said? And, again, if it did deviate, why should we privilege what one descendant says over another (especially when this information is available independent of all of them)? She wrote:

I've seen an alleged photo of Mr. Morris' black troop in the Louisiana Native Guard. As customary, Mr. Morris, who was a white lieutenant of a troop, was not seen photographed with his troop. (Meh, those were the times!)

There were no "white" lieutenants in the Louisiana Native Guard when Morris was enlisted. The lieutenants were, like Morris, of European and African ancestry (see my comment to EichendorffaufeinerBurg above this one). Melwood19 (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

In another deleted comment on Joan Bennett's talk page, Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) elaborated on why she thinks Phil Downey's claims about Morris' ancestry is dubious. She wrote:

Phil Downey's contribution is nothing than a letter of hearsay, suppostion and double talk.

Again, I note the irony of accusing someone of engaging in supposition, and then spending the next several paragraphs engaging in supposition. She wrote:

His great great great grandmother's maiden mane was Carvalho. A simple Google search of this surname proves that it is Spanish and Portuguese in origin. Downey says that through his understanding of oral family history, his great great grandfather Morris Morris was Jewish. Yet, no valid proof is given.

Are Spanish, Portuguese, and Jewish mutually exclusive categories? Do you know what the word Sephardic means? Do you know that a famous American Rabbi, Emanuel Nunes Carvalho, bears that surname? Is it really that much of a stretch that Morris could have been of Jewish ancestry? And what exactly would count as proof of his Jewish ancestry, in your opinion? Whatever shows up in a Google search? She wrote:

Downey also claims that Morris was part black. Again, no valid proof is given.

Isn't Morris' voluntary enlistment in a segregated regiment proof that he saw himself as part "black"? Is it really that much of a stretch that Morris could have been of African ancestry? And what exactly would count as proof of his "black" ancestry, in your opinion? Whatever shows up in a Google search? She wrote:

Certainly, Morris is a British surname (not Jewish).

Downey was referring to his first name, not his last name. On page 138, Joan Bennett says in her autobiography (since you seem to think her autobiography is the last word on all things related to Morris) that he changed his name from Moritz to Morris. Moritz is a Jewish name. Ancestry.com says that it is:

"German, Dutch, Danish and Jewish (Ashkenazic): from the personal name Moritz, a variant of Mauritz (see Morris). Among Jews it was sometimes assumed as a surname by bearers of the personal name Moses, as the two names have some phonetic similarity."

Jewishencyclopedia.com says, "Almost all the Moritzes are Jewish. . .". She wrote:

Downey lists a website dedicated to the Louisiana Native Guard and says that he believes that Morris Morris changed his name to Lewis Morrison for two reasons. First reason, to escape African heritage. Yet, Morris and Morrison are both British surnames. Why would someone change his surname from one British one to another to escape African ancesty?

If he was known as Morris W. Morris during his time in the segregated Louisiana Native Guard regiment, it makes sense that he would change his name to Lewis Morrison once he got out. People of African and European ancestry often changed their names in order to avoid discrimination against people of African ancestry. For example, Eston Hemings named his son John Wayles Hemings, but John later changed his name to John Wayles Jefferson. She wrote:

The second reason Downey believes Morris changed his name was to escape Jewish heritage. Again, Morris and Morrison are British surnames. They are not Jewish! He might have changed his name because Lewis Morrison looks better on a marquee than Morris Morris does.

"He might have changed his name because Lewis Morrison looks better on a marquee than Morris Morris does"? That sounds like a supposition to me! Anyway, Downey was referring to the change from Moritz to Morris, not Morris to Morrison. People of Jewish ancestry often changed their name for the same reason that people of African-European ancestry did. . . to avoid discrimination. For example, the actor Emanuel Goldenberg changed his name to Edward G. Robinson. She wrote:

Yet, is has always been well-known that Morris was a lieutenant for the Louisiana National Guard. Morris never hid this. One did not have to be black to be a lieutenant of black troops. Many lieutenants of black Civil War regiments were white due to the fact that after centuries of slavery, blacks just did not understand how to fight white (European) wars.

Many of the lieutenants of the "black" regiments were "white". . . except for the lieutenants (and higher ranking officers) of the Louisiana Native Guard. That's why people find this regiment so interesting. As for your comment about "blacks" not understanding how to fight "white" European wars, that's just ridiculous. Many of the partially "black" French Creoles in the Louisiana Native Guard were the sons of veterans of the Battle of New Orleans. Others, who immigrated from Saint-Domingue, were the descendants of veterans of the Haitian and French Revolutions (for example, Alexandre Dumas' father Thomas-Alexandre Dumas was a General in Napoleon's army). She wrote:

A Google search for websites of the Louisiana National Guard shows that the websites say they contain fraudulant identification of Civil War photogrpahs of the United States' colored troops. One photograph I've seen, said to be of Morris' regiment, does not even have Morris in the photo. It was the wont, at that time, for whites who were superior in rank, to not be photographed with black troops.

This sounds like another supposition to me! There's a picture purporting to be of The Confederate Louisiana Native Guard. It's actually a picture of some USCT. It was taken in Philadelphia, around 1864. The "white" officer on the left (you know, the ones who don't want to be photographed with "black" troops) has been cut out in many online versions of the picture. She wrote:

To be wealthy in Jamaica, at that time, you basically had to be of a white colonist background.

That sounds like another supposition to me!. It's similar to your supposition that you had to be "white" to be an officer in the Louisiana Native Guard. She wrote:

In Brian Kellows' 2004 book 'The Bennetts: An Acting Family', there is no mention of any of Phil Downey's claims.

Like I said, Kellows' book doesn't mention his ancestry (Spanish, Portuguese, Jewish, or African). She wrote:

Joan Bennett's daughter, Diana Anderson, and Constance Bennett's son, Peter Plant, contributed to Kellows' book.

That's kinda besides the point, because Kellows' book doesn't say anything about Morris' ancestry. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume it did. And let's assume it said that Morris was only of English and Spanish ancestry. Why should we give more weight to what some of Morris' descendants (Diana Anderson and Peter Plant) say over what other descendants say about his ancestry?

I believe removing sourced material about Morris' Jewish and African ancestry unjustified. Does anyone else have an opinion about this? Melwood19 (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion: TL;DR. I'm exaggerating, but could someone try to explain the issue in a concise and neutral way? (I won't hold my breath for the latter part.) In the meantime I think if a reliable source mentions Morris being Black then that information belongs in the article, however I'm not certain that the Phil Downey article currently referenced meets the standards of WP:RS. I'd also like to note that EichendorffaufeinerBurg's comments above regarding Afrocentrism sound to me rather like a dog whistle, which in combination with some other aspects of their post leaves me inclined to disregard their argument. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for offering a third opinion. It's basically a disagreement between Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) and I about Morris W Morris' ancestry. She believes that Morris is only of English and Spanish origin. I believe Morris is of English, Spanish and Jewish, African ancestry. She believes that claims about Morris' Jewish and African ancestry is speculative. I believe that her claim that Morris is only of English and Spanish ancestry is what's speculative. She thinks that because Morris' Jewish and African ancestry isn't mentioned in Joan Bennet's autobiography and a recent biography of the Bennett family that this part of his ancestry is speculative. I believe this is a faulty inference because there's a difference between not mentioning his Jewish and African ancestry and claiming that he was only of English and Spanish ancestry. Moreover, Morris' Jewish and African ancestry is mentioned in numerous reliable sources, not just Downey's article. For example, the following books mention his African ancestry (the first one was even published during his lifetime):

Joseph Thomas Wilson, The Black Phalanx: A History of the Negro Soldiers of the United States in the Wars of 1775–1812, 1861–'65, American Publishing Company, 1890, pg. 176

Ira Berlin, Joseph Patrick Reidy, Leslie S. Rowland, FREEDOM: A DOCUMENTAR HISTORY OF EMANCIPATION 1861 – 1867, SERIES II, THE BLACK MILITARY EXPERIENCE, Cambridge University Press ,1982, pg 310

Jonathan Sutherland, African Americans at War: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1, ABC-CLIO, 2004, pg. 177

Ronald S. Coddington, African American Faces of the Civil War: An Album, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012

I should point out that I don't subscribe to the One-drop rule, and I'm not saying that Morris was "black" or "African American". I just think that it would be inaccurate to mention his English and Spanish ancestry, but not his Jewish and African ancestry. The Wikipedia articles of people with similar backgrounds like Adah Isaacs Menken, Carol Channing, etc., reflect this. But the ones for Morris W. Morris, Joan Bennett, and Constance Bennett didn't. Melwood19 (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In light of Arms & Hearts observation concerning the Phil Downey's article, I've added a different source for Morris' ancestry. Melwood19 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a regular volunteer at the Third Opinion Project. Melwood19, would you please point out where the following requirement of the Third Opinion project has been satisfied?

Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill.

While most volunteers are willing to accept discussion at other places — such as user talk pages — as a substitute for discussion on the article talk page, I cannot find any discussion of this issue between you and Lauracerffer anywhere and all forms of content dispute resolution at Wikipedia require talk page discussion first. (And discussion merely in edit summaries will not suffice.) The Wikipedia model is built around discussion and collaboration and for dispute resolution to offer assistance before discussion takes place undermines that model. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to use the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle method to reach a consensus. WP:BRD says:

Being bold is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are. When in doubt, edit!

Initially, I made an edit to the Morris W. Morris article on May 8, 2013. I gave an explanation for my edit on the talk page (it's the second comment on this talk page above). WP:BRD says:

If your edit gets reverted, look at the article's talk page and its edit history for an explanation (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see).

Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) reverted my edit on May 10. She didn't give an explanation in the edit summary or the talk page. But I noticed that she had made an objection to the source that I had restored on the Joan Bennett talk page (which she later deleted):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joan_Bennett&oldid=538085552

The WP:BRD says:

If you have reason to disagree with the explanation given, or you don't see any explanation at all, start a new discussion (section) on the article's talk page to request an explanation for why your edit was reverted, or to present your argument. You may also wish to ask the editor directly on their user talk page. Discussion is a primary method for editors with different ideas to work out solutions.

I restored my edit on May 11 and tried to address her concerns about the source on the Morris W. Morris talk page (it's the third comment on this talk page above). I also left a comment on her talk page inviting her to discuss these edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lauracerffer#Morris_W._Morris_article

She reverted my edit on May 11. She didn't give any explanation in the edit summary or the talk page. I restored my edit on May 11 and invited her to discuss our edits on the talk page. She reverted my edit on May 12. She didn't give any explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page. I restored my edit on May 12. She reverted my edit on May 13. She didn't give any explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page. I restored my edit on May 13. She reverted my edit on May 14. This time, I noticed that she elaborated on her objections to the source that I used in a revised comment on the Joan Bennett talk page (which she later deleted):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joan_Bennett&oldid=555047714

I restored my edit on May 15 and tried to address her concerns about the source on the Morris W. Morris talk page (it's the fourth comment above). The WP:3 says:

Some disputes may involve both content issues as well as issues regarding the conduct of an editor. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue. For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as the administrators noticeboard or a request for comment on user conduct. If in doubt, post your request here at third opinion and a neutral editor will help out.

Our dispute involves content issues such as the ones that I mentioned in my previous comments above. But it also involves conduct issues such as the edit warring that I mentioned in this comment. The quote above said if you're in doubt, post your request at the third option. Well, I was in doubt, so I posted a request at the third option. Melwood19 (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that thorough explanation. I'll leave it for Arms & Hearts to consider and will butt out at this point. With your explanations above, plus the last two links to Lauracerffer's edits that you provided, that may well be enough to satisfy the discussion requirement. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)