“I will plan winning the war; and you plan a new world” -- an Easter chapter of "A Man or a Mother"

In June 1942, the war was going badly for the good guys. But resistance, rebirth, and a new world beckoned. Kate Walton and Marjorie Rawlings would fight for it; and fight each other to shape it.

I have been serializing a section from my book-in-progress — A Man or a Mother: Kate Walton, Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, and the fight for self-sovereignty in American Florida, one chapter at a time, on Sundays. The section is called “Self-sovereignty and invasion (1933-1942).”

Today is the 9th and final installment. See below the first eight chapters and a trailer of sorts for the book as a whole. (All of this is copyrighted, by the way; or so I declare.)

Trailer: Introducing A Man or a Mother

1. April 10, 1942: the sinking of the Gulfamerica

2. “Feme soles” in the time of coverture

3. The spider, the daughter, the maid, and the husband

4. "You might think it better to change some names, if they are real names"

5. “Could kill a [klans]man without a tremor” –of Kate Walton, Rep. Lex Green, and the New Deal

6. War zone good life during the Atlantic Pearl Harbor

7. The (small and betrayed) German invasion of the First Coast

8. “The rubbish of the dark ages”

Today, on Easter, we’ve come to the end of the run for my “Self-sovereignty and invasion” section. I didn’t do the math up front to plan for this to end on Easter; but I think this chapter, for reasons that will become obvious, hits well on this specific Easter.

As a personal aside, yesterday, my three-week-old first grandchild — Kate Walton’s first great, great, great nephew — met for the first time many of Kate’s many other nieces and nephews (of varying greats) who gathered for our annual egg-dying in sight of Kate Walton’s house and the St. Johns River. The joy of that connection and continuity across generations — just knowing it’s there — is hard for me to describe.

You’ll see in this chapter that I’ve quoted a letter from Marjorie in which she writes:

He was an aesthete, almost a sissy, but with such a receptive mind that he was finding Army life fascinating. He said that he had roamed over St. Augustine, alone, and said to himself, “Well this is worth fighting for.”

Yes, it is.

And honestly, I’ve had so much fun — and found this little project so contemporarily relevant — that I’m just going to keep publishing chapters. I can’t commit to one a week; but as they become available, I’ll share them. (I have a few more ready to go.) I think Kate Walton and Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings Baskin and all the other combatants of this era have much to say to our own. So I plan to keep them talking.

Here’s today’s chapter.

---

Cross Creek shared Book-of-the-Month for April 1942 with John Steinbeck’s The Moon is Down – a marvelously-timed fact for my narrative.

The Moon is Down opens like this:

By ten-forty-five it was all over. The town was occupied, the defenders defeated, and the war finished. The invader had prepared for this campaign as carefully as he had for larger ones. On this Sunday morning the postman and the policeman had gone fishing in the boat of Mr. Corell, the popular storekeeper. He had lent them his trim sailboat for the day. The postman and the policeman were several miles at sea when they saw the small dark transport, loaded with soldiers, go quietly past them.

The novel becomes a taut, vaguely otherworldly, 105-page chronicle of community resistance to occupation and domination — which is the extension of invasion. The dialogue among occupied and occupiers has a vaguely Beckett-like, almost comically absurd rhythm to it. But it builds to extraordinarily moving self-revelation for the main characters. It’s not surprising Beckett adapted The Moon is Down for the stage. It also became a wartime propaganda movie in 1943. Check out the credits. They’ll make you want to grab a gun.

In the book, the invading enemy is never identified; the little coal mining town never named; and the names used for both betray no ethnicity. But it’s clearly a frigid Scandinavian town, where some of the occupied managed to escape to England with great story effect.

The Moon is Down is an anti-epic – with the intensity building intimately as the impossibility of domination without cruel violence works its logic through the individual minds — of both invaders and occupied — within community under unwanted domination.

I think it shares emotional and artistic DNA with Camus’ The Plague, which would come years later. Camus’ doctor and Steinbeck’s mayor are spiritual kin.

Steinbeck scholars trace the story genesis to Narvik, a Norwegian town that saw defeat, reconquest, and then defeat again in the early days of the war, before the fall of France. (There’s a pretty good modern Netflix movie about the battles of Narvik, called Narvik.)

But The Moon is Down, as a book, is not a work of propaganda — nor is it historical or journalistic fiction. It’s a universal story and meant to be, although the Scandanavian sense of place and vibe does come through clearly. Its believable humanity, even for the invaders, makes it more effective than pure propaganda.

In 1945, Steinbeck received the King Haakon VII Freedom Cross for his literary contributions to the Norwegian resistance movement. Resistance movements across Europe printed translations of The Moon is Down surreptitiously.

***

In another fortuitous coincidence for my narrative, sometime in late March or early April of 1942, Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings Baskin hosted Nobel Prize-winning Norwegian author Sigrid Undset at Cross Creek for a week.

Sigrid Undset

This happened within days or weeks of the sinking of the Gulfamerica and release of Cross Creek/Moon is Down as co-“Book of the Month” selections,

Undset’s visit shows the social and commercial force within the literary world that Marjorie had become by 1942.

Here’s how she described Undset’s visit in a letter to surrogate daughter Julia Scribner dated April 7^th, but post-marked April 19^th. Quite a bit happened during that unexplained gap, including the Gulfamerica and Marjorie’s ill-fated visit to Zelma in St. Augustine. Note the bold.

I had a terrific delight that I wished I might have shared with you. Sigrid Undset spent almost a week with me. There is a woman. I felt like a small wave washing against a piece of medieval architecture. At first she seemed like one drained of all emotion but a cold hate, and the empty shell frozen. What she has been through is incredible, and when a rich bitch in Norton's hotel moans about leaving behind her personal treasures in Paris, I wish I could take the creature by the scruff of the neck and hold her in front of Undset just to be looked at.

Undset had two sons. The elder was killed in the first two weeks of fighting. The younger escaped to America with her, but is now back with the Norwegian forces, wherever they are, waiting for the return attack, and his chances are not bright. She was the first Norwegian writer banned by the Nazis. She said she had “that honor.” It was desirable for her to get out, for the Germans used prominent people as hostages and held them over the heads of others to get things done to suit them. She had twenty minutes to get out of her home, and must have escaped with no more than the clothes on her back. The Germans are in her home—it dates back to 1000, and is furnished with Scandinavian and Norse antiques older than the house. She says that if and when the Germans are driven out, they will burn everything behind them. She lives alone in a small one room apartment in Brooklyn and cooks her own breakfast and supper.

After she got over her first terrific reserve, she proved to be one of the warmest most lovable people I have ever known in my life. She has a beautiful deep rich speaking voice. I felt I had won a major battle when I got a hearty laugh out of her, and another, when after a grand day spent in the scrub, lunch by the edge of the sinkhole, a trip on Orange Lake at sunset to see the birds, we had high balls when we came in and both got rather high, mostly from fatigue and excitement. She laughed that rich laugh and said, “I feel so goot!” When I see you, I'll tell you some of the wonderful Norwegian folk tales she told me.

(Personal aside: I have sat on the edge of that Big Scrub sinkhole with my daughter and youngest son. We hiked to it a few Christmases ago.)

Although it hardly matters, The Moon is Down, which describes a small-scale invasion of a largely defenseless village, sounds more consistent with the story Undset told Marjorie about events in her town of Lillehammer (which later held a Winter Olympics in 1994) than it does Narvik.

To my knowledge, Marjorie never mentioned The Moon is Down in any of her letters. I find that odd. It literally shared Book-of-the-Month with Cross Creek, which was proving an unlikely hit with servicemen joining the war effort – despite never even acknowledging the war within its pages. And The Moon is Down fit perfectly into her early wartime headspace – particularly her admiration for and intimacy with Undset.

Marjorie wrote the following to Max Perkins on July 23, 1942, while trying to work through her obligations as a famous American writer to patriotism and propaganda. Note the bold:

I have suffered over the requests of the Treasury Board and the War Writers’ board, on which I agreed to become a member, and tried to write things, but have decided two things: the forced Americanism is both disgusting and unnecessary (the simplest people are aware of the danger and the need for concerted action parentheses)

And I can do no more than write as I always do. A basic Americanism is implicit in what I write and the inferred is always more effective than the obvious. An astonishing percentage of my letters about “Cross Creek” is from men in the service. I may have written you what one man in the army said: “You are writing about the simple things for which we in the army are fighting.” A flier wrote from Cairo that space was at a premium in his duffel bag in leaving Egypt, and he was tempted to leave “Cross Creek” behind, but did not, as it meant something valuable to him that he wanted to hang on to. I cannot turn out the sort of thing that Wrigley's chewing gum and Pepsi cola use on the radio for “morale”.

A week or so ago I had a call from a private with the Texas division a young chap who had been a clerk in a large book-store. He was an aesthete, almost a sissy, but with such a receptive mind that he was finding Army life fascinating. He said that he had roamed over St. Augustine, alone, and said to himself, “Well this is worth fighting for.” You don't need “propaganda” when people feel that way. And the other day when Norton and I were doing our airplane spotting, a very tough and drunken soldier borrowed our binoculars and talked with us. He said, “I'm raring to go. I'm ready to shed my life's blood.” Now that sort of thing could be worked up into a radio skit or bit of newspaper propaganda dash—but it shouldn't and needn’t be.

Those three paragraphs contain so much of what made Marjorie Marjorie – both what landed her in court and helped her win at trial. I find her resistance to the eye-rolling fakery of “forced Americanism” admirable – and one of the areas where I most personally connect with her. I definitely relate to this:

And I can do no more than write as I always do. A basic Americanism is implicit in what I write and the inferred is always more effective than the obvious.

Cross Creek’s real popularity among soldiers – and her real dedication to answering their letters about it – became a potent weapon of well-earned sympathy for Marjorie during the trial. It came up often as counterbalance to the victimization that Zelma presented. Marjorie’s lawyer Phil May never explicitly called Zelma’s suit unpatriotic; but a certain sense of this book comforted and motivated our boys and this angry, selfish lady should just get over herself pervades questioning and argument.

And unlike much of Marjorie’s presentation of herself, I find her complex patriotism sincere and honest and deeply felt. It’s also where she and Kate Walton most clearly intersect.

***

It would not have taken a radical leap of imagination for a Florida reader to put coastal St. Augustine or even Cross Creek – with their indelible senses of place, which had already been “invaded” by U-boats and saboteurs – into The Moon is Down.

Indeed, despite Midway, the war wasn’t going well on the German part of the Axis on June 24, 1942, in part because of the submarine warfare just off the Florida shore. The real possibility of losing lurked in the correspondence at the time between Harold Henderson and Kate Walton, of which I only have Henderson’s side.

(As discussed in previous chapters, Henderson was a St. Augustine labor lawyer, who considered J.V. Walton his “best friend,” and who adored, admired, and mentored Kate Walton. Henderson eventually secured an appointment as an anti-trust lawyer in the war-time Justice Department. His deeply entertaining, never-before published letters to Kate Walton chronicling the war and the Ex Parte Quirin case on military tribunal for the Nazi saboteurs are historical gold. Previous chapters in this sneak preview showcase other letters.)

On June 24, just a few weeks before Marjorie’s letter to Max Perkins about patriotic writing, Henderson wrote a long letter back to Kate Walton. It opens like this:

Dear Katie:

Your very fine letter was joyously appreciated. An honest confession compels me to say I do not know exactly how to answer it. As a whole my views of the war have not changed, and not much modified. Tobruk has fallen and I presume Rommel will follow it up by trying to take Egypt and perhaps Sebastopol will fall soon. However there is one brilliant cloud in the silver lining, --- the Germans reported the capture of six British Generals. I feel Katie they were utterly useless to us and they have them to feed instead of us. Maybe if they had captured all the British we would have been better off. I am sure if Stonewell Jackson had been in command of the British Lybian campaign, he would have taken the pants off of Rommel. I have never heard of great British general. Oh, they blow off a great deal about old Marlborough, Wellington and a lot of old owlish stuffed shirts, but England’s greatness does not descend from her generals. In the last war when the chips got down they grudgingly assented to Marshal Foch being the generalissimo.

I wish I knew what Kate posited or asked Henderson that led him to respond: “an honest confession compels me to say I do not know how exactly how to answer it.”

But he laid out a predictive vision of the war to come that would prove almost exactly correct. Was this meant to comfort Kate (who wasn’t really one to need or accept comforting) or validate her own point-of-view? I don’t know. But it does seem that Henderson aimed to ease some level of anxiety about the course of the war, even though he never said anything like “this should make you feel better.”

Henderson correctly predicted that American production and Russian manpower and collective sacrifice would grind down the Germans over time.

But what I find particularly fascinating about this letter is how Henderson builds Civil War history and Confederate military mythology into his narrative. This is not to say that Stonewall Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forrest were not effective military commanders: they were. But they also maintained a far outsized place in the American southerner’s morale and sense of themselves in the mid 20^th Century, almost 100 years after their exploits.

Henderson invoked the Confederate legends a bit like Churchill invoked Henry V and St. Crispin’s Day and Shakespeare. He mobilized Confederates and Klansmen against Nazis and Nathan Bedford Forrest against Hitler. That juxtaposition was unremarkable in 1942. Today, it’s a jarring. Beyond that, the letter itself is just a beautiful and prescient marker in time.

This paragraph, near the end, comes closer to quoting Kate Walton than any other. I find it particularly moving, today, on this Easter, as I get older and watch the world I’ve known splinter somewhat. Note the bold.

You mention about having ideas of what to do after the war. I am glad of it. It is going to be folks like you, John Henderson and your generation to carry on. They won’t pay any attention to your father and me and I am getting to the point that is O.K. with me, and maybe it will be better if you youngsters don’t bother with us in the reconstruction. I have never heard of a reconstruction that was not a mess. Your generation can’t do worse than has been done in the past. Reconstruction is a pattern of reform. I am not a reformer and am too old to learn new tricks. Katie let’s make deal. I will plan winning the war and you plan a new world. Is it a deal? I believe my part is the easier of the two. But I am old enough to begin looking for the softer jobs. Let your father read this futile dissertation. Perhaps he will think me nuts. That is O.K. too.

Here is the letter in full:

June 24, 1942

Dear Katie:

Your very fine letter was joyously appreciated. An honest confession compels me to say I do not know exactly how to answer it. As a whole my views of the war have not changed, and not much modified. Tobruk has fallen and I presume Rommel will follow it up by trying to take Egypt and perhaps Sebastopol will fall soon. However there is one brilliant cloud in the silver lining, --- the Germans reported the capture of six British Generals. I feel Katie they were utterly useless to us and they have them to feed instead of us. Maybe if they had captured all the British we would have been better off. I am sure if Stonewell Jackson had been in command of the British Lybian campaign, he would have taken the pants off of Rommel. I have never heard of great British general. Oh, they blow off a great deal about old Marlborough, Wellington and a lot of old owlish stuffed shirts, but England’s greatness does not descend from her generals. In the last war when the chips got down they grudgingly assented to Marshal Foch being the generalissimo.

But Katie try and remember all great military geniuses have been bedeviled by mediocre minded underlings. They nearly drove Napolean nuts and General Lee never could quite click after Stonewall Jackson’s death. All wars seem to bring out the chief inefficiencies of mankind. The confederates after the first battle of Bull Run could have captured Washington (a fact realized by Lincoln and evidently not by his generals) but they stopped to celebrate and get drunk and jubilate over their great victory. Lincoln during the War between the States was continually afflicted with this incompetent general and that. He finally found Grant and Sherman in his western armies, and Jefferson Davis was lucky enough to have Lee and Jackson in the Army of Virginia, but what headaches he had over his generals in the west. It seems like it is hard to find a general who will fight and if you do find one who does, he is apt to be a fighting fool who has not intelligence. They howled at President Davis to put Fighting Joe Hood in command. Well Joe was a fighting fool and he had his army destroyed by [Union Gen. George “Rock of Chickamauga; Hammer of Nashville”] Thomas in just one campaign and the Confederacy found itself with only the Army of Virginia, General Lee, but minus Stonewall Jackson.

So as armed chair strategist, I claim to be on at least par with a lot of generals. Katie, all you and I really know about the thing is what we read and hear combined with a certain amount logical deduction. Neither you nor I have a course in military training, ----- neither did Bedford Forrest, who incidentally if he had been in command in Lybia, I believe could have matched wits with Rommell with being there “fustest with the mostest men”.

Please get the July Redbook magazine and read Max Werner’s article. I think Werner is as good a newspaper warrior as anay I have fond. I still have base my powers of deduction on one simple fact, viz; Hitler can never destroy the Red Army. If he cannot do this he cannot win. Always I have felt that the war is going to be won or lost primarily on what happens in Russia. They can lose all European Russia and retire back of the Urals an still Hitler cannot conquer Russia. The Russians have a sense of sacrifice which occidentals usually cannot comprehend. The Lee and Jackson of the Red Army are Timoshenko and Zhukov and they may lose many battles yet, but their strategy is that of Grant, -- a war of attrition. Like Grant they have the materials and men to afford the luxury of that kind of war. Oh it is terrible to contemplate but that is how we won World War I. Attrition is likely to be the great contributing factor of World War No 2. I doubt if Germay can stand another winter in Russia and I doubt if they ever reach the oil of the Caucausas. But if they do they will never destroy the Red Army, something they have to in order to win.

Personally, even allowing for mistakes of generals and admirals, I believe that time and mathematics will win. Donald Nelson says we are now producing five thousand fighting planes per month and it will be ten thousand by the end of the year. Katie, the Axis simply cannot withstand this overwhelming preponderance. Japan may strike Siberia soon and if she does within the year we should be able to about exterminate her right at home by bombings. She has already extended beyond the limits of safety for herself. I have always regarded her as a pest and a nuisance more than a formidable opponent. She succeeded beyond her real worth and as a result of the European war. She after all is in the lightweight class and they don’t whip the heavyweights in the long run. Katie, we have two fighting partners and of course we are pardonably biased towards our old kinsman Johnny Bull, but he is showing signs of old age and he can’t take it so well as he used to. After all he has been pretty lucky in having other people like the Sepoys, the Colonials, the Hessians etc., to do his fighting for him. Lately he is having his children and cousins help him in his scrapes. He after all is kin and has some very lovable traits. Our other fighting partner is personally very repulsive. We don’t like his manners, breeding, or background, but our Russian partner is really a tough fighter. Inasmch as fighting now appears to be our chief occupation, we have hardly any recourse except to give our fighting partner all the help we can. After we win we can still have a cup of tea with Johnny Bull, but if we lose there will be no Johnny Bull to entertain.

Am now going to tell you something very confidential and “off the record”. You know how economists get in my hair. Well, I apologized to a group of them yesterday. F.D.R. organized the Board of Economic Warfare, and got the best Antitrust lawyer we had. He put the whole crew of Antitrust economists to work making a survey of the bottlenecks of Germany’s industrial machine. Their job is to figure out how much they need of this and that etc.. If there is some vital thing our economists are to find where the factories are situated, the output of the factory and then the Intelligence Service is to find out where these factories are located, and then the bombers are instructed to go out and get ‘em. Personally I don’t know whether our economists are finding out anything worth a tinker’s dam or not. In fact I have my doubts. They say they are. Anyway keep what I said in your family, because I don’t wish to land in jail. One chap says he saw a blown up photo of a German factory on the list. I hope he is not lying about it. Another thing, they have found some sand in an airplane engine pretty close to where we both live and I have just rendered an opinion for General Biddle to advise J. Edgar Hoover on his jurisdiction to investigate it. Find enclosed a copy. I am trusting you. I got a compliment on my opinion, and when I get compliments in the Department, I beginning to think they must be getting ready to fire me.

The best book I have read on Russia is by Maurice Hindus. The title is “Hitler cannot conquer Russia.” I have loaned my copy and when it gets returned I shall lend it to you. For twenty years I read everything available which Walter Duranty wrote while we was for 20 years the New York Times foreign correspondent in Russia. Walter is no socialist, is tough minded and realistic. I have read several of his books. Hindus has just written another book on the coming Russo Japanese war and the industrial and military information about Siberia was an eye opener to me. I shall send that to you also. He was born in Russia and is living in this country now. I am sure Hitler will never destroy the Red Army. My inflexible opinion is that he will have to do this in order to win. And Katie, while I don’t like him, Joe Stalin has had Hitler’s number better than any other statesman and generally so far has outsmarted him. Joe is not dumb by any means.

Another axiom is that we are going to have to take come chances and we are going to lose lots of blood. Both Stonewall and Andy Jackson took chances didn’t they? And military experts would have opined that Andy did not have a chance at New Orleans against Packenham’s trained British regulars, but Andy did take a chance and won. Personally Lord Beaverbrook has me about convinced that we ought to open up a new Western Front, but I am going to leave that with General George Marshall, whom I believe in more than any man other man when it comes to deciding what to do. I hope if they do that it won’t be lead by some Col. Blimp who wears a monocle and sports a swagger stick. But Katie, I simply cannot manage everything. You and your father will have to help me.

Are you in favor of some broken down Sir so and so as the generalissimo of our army when they invade France?

You mention about having ideas of what to do after the war. I am glad of it. It is going to be folks like you, John Henderson and your generation to carry on. They won’t pay any attention to your father and me and I am getting to the point that is O.K. with me, and maybe it will be better if you youngsters don’t bother with us in the reconstruction. I have never heard of a reconstruction that was not a mess. Your generation can’t do worse than has been done in the past. Reconstruction is a pattern of reform. I am not a reformer and am too old to learn new tricks. Katie let’s make deal. I will plan winning the war and you plan a new world. Is it a deal? I believe my part is the easier of the two. But I am old enough to begin looking for the softer jobs. Let your father read this futile dissertation. Perhaps he will think me nuts. That is O.K. too.

But remember, if only four years ago, while we were playing “set back” and I would have predicted to you, your father, Major Vertrees and John Henderson that within four years time we would all be the military partners of Russia and were depending on the Red Army to save our skins, all of you would have been justified in declaring me crazy and you should have had me committed for being plain luney [cq]. I would have been plain luney, but I would have been right too. Nobody can correctly predict the future. There are too many unknown factors and I believe no finite mind could do it if it knew them all.

Give my regards to all the family,

Sincerely Yours,

Harold A. Henderson.

And what would Kate’s new world value? Self-sovereignty, no matter one’s identity or status. That, of course, would have been anathema to Stonewall Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Jeremiah Black.

And yet, they could still be summoned in its interest, in an alliance of sorts with Jewish liberal Louis Brandeis. I find that fascinating.

Kate’s winning written arguments in the Cross Creek case explicitly tied the purpose of the war to the protection of the individual from invasion of “privacy,” which she defined far more broadly than Brandeis and Warren in their privacy paper.

Her concept of self-sovereignty concerned the individual’s relationship to power, not just to unwanted publicity or notoriety. As she wrote in one of her final briefs in the Cross Creek case:

The assumption that a famous writer may commit an actionable tort with impunity: this is, of course, inconsistent with the fundamental constitutional guarantees that “all men are equal before the law” and that all courts in this state shall be open so that “every person” shall have remedy “any injury done him” by due course of law and the fundamental concept that the courts shall not respect persons in judgement.

The impunity of the powerful, far more than unwanted publicity, is what Kate Walton wanted to fight.

And as in 1933, when one looks at the how 1942 unspooled, one can see the epic forces of the times working in tandem with the experiences of the players in the Cross Creek case. Consider this timeline:

• March 16: Cross Creek published.

• March 20: Released as co-“Book-of-the-Month” for April with Steinbeck’s The Moon is Down.

• Sometime in April: Marjorie brings a copy of Cross Creek to Zelma in St. Augustine, who reacts badly. “Well, you have made a hussy out of me and a lady out of a hussy. I don’t appreciate the way you wrote about me.”

• April 10: Gulfamerica torpedoed in sight of the Jacksonville Beach pier.

• June 4-7: The Battle of Midway turns the tide of the war with the Japanese.

• June 12: First four-man team of Operation Pastorius German saboteur operation lands via U-Boat in Amagansett, New York.

• June 16: Second four-man Operation Pastorius German saboteur team lands in Ponte Vedra Beach, just south of Jacksonville.

• June 17: Harold Henderson sends Kate a copy of a legal brief he wrote for J. Edgar Hoover claiming the FBI (then just the BI) had authority to investigate airplane sabotage as a federal crime.

• June 19: Leader of the New York group of saboteurs walks into FBI headquarters in Washington D.C. to betray the operation. Over the next two weeks, the FBI would round up the saboteurs.

• June 24: Henderson writes Kate a letter saying: “Katie, let’s make a deal. I will plan winning the war and you plan a new world. Is that a deal? I believe my part is the easier of the two.”

• July 2: Roosevelt issues declaration establishing a military commission for the German saboteurs.

• July 8: Military commission trial of saboteurs begins on 5^th floor of DOJ building.

• July 11: Henderson sends Ex parte Milligan letter to Kate Walton.

• July 29: U.S. Supreme Court hears Ex parte Quirin arguments over legality of military tribunals, with lawyers arguing to transfer the saboteur cases to civilian court.

• July 31: Supreme Court upholds military tribunal for the saboteurs.

• August 2: Saboteurs found guilty.

• August 7: Guadalcanal campaign begins.

• August 8: Six of the saboteurs are executed.

• August 23: The Battle for Stalingrad begins.

• Oct. 29, 1942: Supreme Court issues full Ex parte Quirin opinion.

• November 19: Russians launch counterattack at Stalingrad that would lead to crushing, strategic German defeat.

• December 4 or 11: Zelma Cason visits Walton law office.

• December 9: Kate Walton writes to Harvard Law School asking for a copy of “The Right to Privacy” by Brandeis and Samuel D. Warren.

Then, on December 18, 1942, as that momentous year was ending, Kate Walton wrote to Zelma to confirm representation and set a compensation structure — a 40 percent contingency fee.

It is first time we see Kate Walton narrating her own role in the Cross Creek case and our larger story.

Since your visit to our office last Friday, I have talked with my father and he and I are willing to represent you as attorneys in an effort to recover from Mrs. Marjorie Kinnan Bascom [CQ], who writes under the name of Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, damages suffered by you growing out of the writing and publication by her of the book “Cross Creek.” We confirm the terms of our employment which I discussed with you as follows:

Any court costs are to be paid by you but any personal expenses incurred by us are to be borne by us, and an event of recovery we are to receive in full for our professional services an amount equal to 40 percent of any amount or amounts actually received by you through or growing out of our representation of you in this behalf.

Please advise us that this accords with your understanding and the premises and that it is also your understanding that we are to institute suit in due course without further direction from you. Because we think it proper my father is joining me in signing this letter.

Yours respectfully,

Kate L. Walton

J.V. Walton

The Cross Creek case was officially on.

And from this point forward, Kate Walton’s narrative voice would define the case – except in trial, when custom – and her father – silenced it.