Charlotte, NC's Great 1997 Arts War

Cover from The Leader  - Newsmakers of the Year for 1997 ('The Gang of 5') L to R (Tom Bush, George Higgins, Hoyle Martin, Bill James (in side car), Joel Carter) Click cover to read full Newsmaker of the Year cover story

During 1996 the Charlotte Rep. Theatre decided to put on a play called "Angels in America, a gay fantasia on National Themes".  The resulting debate and de-funding of Charlotte's local arts administration organization is now the most recognized and heated political event since the Schools Desegregation battles of the early 1970's. This summary is provided on-line along with a list of editorial cartoons from that period and a series of articles for those that wish to review this significant event in Charlotte's history.

THE CITY COUNCIL DEBATES FIRST

During 1996 various members of the Charlotte City Council objected to the taxpayer subsidy used to put this play on. Those objecting were Councilmember Tim Sellers and Councilmember Don Reid.  

Since "Angels" was shown in a government owned and subsidized theatre and the production company's operations (The Charlotte Rep. Theatre) were subsidized significantly by tax dollars each year the central question was whether "taxpayers" should subsidize art that was offensive to the majority. This particular play also created division in other communities as well but in Charlotte it reached mammoth proportions.

Charlotte City Council members objections to the play were numerous. Here are a few of the reasons provided at the time:

The play using the "F" word over 500 times,

The play depicted illegal homosexual sex on stage with entities purporting to be both Angels of God and men,

It contained nudity,

It contained significant profanity (over and above the "F" word),

It contained consistent demeaning references to those whose faith and values disagreed with the premise that homosexual conduct was healthy and acceptable. It ridiculed and demeaned those that objected to homosexual conduct on the basis of faith using Angels of God in what some felt was a sacrilegious fashion.

It ridiculed one political party (Republicans) and specific politicians (Newt Gingrich), and a specific ideology (conservatism) with tax dollars. Wonder if the Democrats would have been tolerant of arts groups that took Federal, State and Local tax money and blasted a sitting Democrat president, a Democrat congress or specific Democrat elected officials? Would a play about Rep. Barney Frank's homosexual escapades over the years and his hiring of a male homosexual prostitute be appropriate subject matter with tax dollars?

Had the play been privately funded, the controversy would have died there. Because the play was financed and subsidized by City and County money through a property tax contribution, everyone's tax dollars were being used to finance this pornography and this sparked and ignited the debate. A play that taxes tax dollars and demeans one political, religious, or racial group is unacceptable.

Copies of the play's dialog were passed around by the Charlotte City Council's members and also those that were running for County Commission in 1996 (There were copies in Charlotte-Mecklenburg's Public Library for people to inspect). During 1996 the City Council was asked to significantly reduce funding because of the Angels incident. This motion failed garnering only 2 votes. During the ASC's next grant allocation process (post-angels), all "affiliates" of the ASC received nice increases EXCEPT for the Charlotte Rep. Theatre - the offending "affiliate" that had caused the ruckus in the first place. This was corporate Charlotte's attempt to take the Charlotte Rep. Theatre to the woodshed for what had occurred. The elitist unelected leadership in Charlotte, were as unhappy with the leadership of the Charlotte Reparatory Theatre as they were with the conservatives.

THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE WHITEWASH

Charlotte's local Arts and Science Council (ASC) set up a blue ribbon committee to evaluate how to avoid the public outcry raised by performing the play. The Committee's work product was essentially a corporate white-wash that said that the ASC would "follow the law" (the US and NC Constitutions) in determining how to spend the tax money it gets from the City and County.  It was purposely vague on what that meant or how that would be enforced. At this time the US Supreme Court had not ruled in the Finley case (see below) and arts leaders were claiming that you couldn't establish "community standards".

Since nudity on a public stage was illegal under NC law (and still is) and since homosexual sex is a criminal act in NC and some 16 other states (NCGS 14-177) this provision in the report was seen as a way for "corporate Charlotte" to tell the public that "it would not happen again" while trying to appease national arts groups who objected to any controls. It was also designed to give cover to politicians who did not want to support "Angels" but did want to support the ASC.

In October 1996, just before the County elections and before the issuance of Blue Ribbon report, the Observer conducted a statistical poll and found that 70% of the public thought "community standards" were important. The public was unsure "how" this should be implemented and they were in favor of public funding of art but it was clear that "tolerance" for homosexuality was not favored by the public and that Angels was a bad place for arts liberals to take a stand regarding so called "censorship".

A number of the "liberal" members of this Blue Ribbon committee were upset by the references to homosexual acts as being "illegal". They attempted to water down the language. Even so, it was clear that the GOAL of the committee was to save the ASC not to promote or advocate for homosexual conduct (though that was the spark that started the initial Angels debate). This was the way corporate Charlotte dealt with the arts issue, talk soothingly of "diversity" and "tolerance" while quietly imposing under the table standards on arts groups who might "push the envelope".

THE 1996 COUNTY COMMISSION

During the 1996 elections very little was said about the "Angels" controversy because the report was being drafted and finalized during most of that year. At the end of the year, around the November elections, the report was presented to the Charlotte City Council and the County Commission and was accepted by both with some reservations from BOTH the left and right.

In December of 1996 the new County Commission was sworn in and included the following new members:

Joel Carter (R)

Hoyle Martin (D)

Bill James (R)

These three new members added to two existing conservatives, Tom Bush (R) and George Higgins (R). The Commission was controlled by the Democrat's 5 votes to 4 votes. One new Democrat (Becky Carney) was elected as well. 

During the first month of office, Commissioner James introduced a proposal to insure that parents were notified before County counselors advised children on sexual matters. This proposal was initially supported by the Republicans and by Commissioner Martin who indicated he would vote for the proposal. After some arm twisting by then Chairman Parks Helms, Commissioner Martin backed down from the "Parents Rights" proposal saying that he would vote no because it "went to far". For more info on this see:

The Parents Right's proposal was the "start" of the County Commission's discussions about the issue of "Sexuality" and what was proper. The reason for Commissioner James' "Parents rights" proposal was that a local taxpayer funded group MCAP (Mecklenburg Council on Adolescent Pregnancy) has issued a brochure and was advocating for "Comprehensive Sexuality Education" for Children regardless of whether their parents approved of the specifics. Since Commissioner James believes that PARENTS should made decisions about moral direction for children he asked MCAP to stop. They refused and the proposal was presented. While it was defeated on December 16, 1996 it was later incorporated into a separate Parents Rights set of rules that were adopted by the County Commission after refinement and was part of the April 1st arts resolution.

SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION AND HOYLE MARTIN

After voting down the initial "Parents Rights" proposal, Commissioner Martin promised to revisit the issue again. A Catalyst in bringing the issue of taxpayer funding for arts programs up again was the play "Six Degrees of Separation". Commissioner Martin (who is African-American) had discussed this play with arts and civic leaders in Charlotte expressing concerns about the portrayal of the Black lead as a homosexual. Discussions with him at the time indicated that he was offended by both the content of the play and what he viewed were "racist stereotypes" that perpetrated age-old views of Black males as sexual predators. There was one scene in which this character (in the movie played by Will Smith) had a bedroom scene with another man. This movie version of this play was passed around to various elected officials.

After repeated requests from Commissioner Martin for the ASC to fix the problem, the ASC agreed to delete the nude scene and clothe the actors.

This did not solve the problem from Commissioner Martin's perspective and in March of 1997,  he introduced a resolution calling for a cut off of funds to the ASC. This was the "official" start of the Great Arts War of 1997.

THE MINT MUSEUM AND THE GAY FILM FESTIVAL

At about that same time, Commissioner Martin and Commissioner James were debating the issue of the Mint Museum's sponsorship of the Gay and Lesbian Film Festival. This festival took place on government subsidized property. One film "It's Elementary" was designed to indoctrinate young school children that homosexuality was "acceptable" regardless of whether their parents felt that way or not.  This debate (including some letters between the CEO of the Mint and Commissioner James) was really a sub-debate on the subject of the "acceptability" of homosexuality in society and its "endorsement" by government.

LOOKING FOR COMPROMISE IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES

The disclosure of Commissioner Martins resolution condemning homosexuals created a firestorm on the left and right. Pastors and business leaders picked sides. Political leaders mostly ran for cover. The debate moved to the County Commission chamber and the 5 members of the County Commission who had serious reservations about how the ASC handed out taxpayer money.

Because the Chair of the County Commission was Democrat Parks Helms  - attempts at reconciliation fell to Commissioner Martin (d) and Commissioner Tom Bush (r) who had created an unofficial bipartisan working majority.

Commissioner Bush called various meetings with arts and business leaders to see if a compromise could be worked out.  Several of these meetings occurred and were documented in the media. Some of them were "secret" and were not documented at all.  One was said to be in Hugh McColl's office and was purported to squeeze Commissioner Bush by offering him campaign contributions if he would agree to vote NO.  In that meeting were said to be Mr. McColl, Mr. Marsicano (head of the ASC)and various political types.

In the end, the business community would not agree (and they controlled the ASC through its board members) to any significant "public" changes. Privately, the business community was willing to agree that they would make sure "it didn't happen again". Publicly they supported 'diversity', privately, they were willing to throw homosexual rights under the bus to fix this problem.

THE LOCAL GOP SUPPORT DE-FUNDING:

At the time of the vote, the Republican Party of Mecklenburg County was meeting for its bi-annual 1997 convention. At that convention a resolution was introduced and passed overwhelmingly to support de-funding of the ASC.  Here is the article from the Observer dated March 23, 1997:

THE HOMOSEXUAL QUESTION: 

The local paper (The Charlotte Observer) ran a series of stories on the issue of homosexuality. A number of the statistical polls asked about Charlotte's views of homosexuality (March & April 1997):

Observer 3-29-1997 statistical poll	Observer -NBC 6 4-13-1997 statistical poll
	Observer -NBC 6 4-13-1997 statistical poll

He was right that the public has no "tolerance" for homosexual behavior (even the Democrats on the County Commission acknowledged that - except Commissioner Scher). The public did not necessarily agree with Marsicano that controlling tax dollars was "censorship".

Through March of 1997 the debate grew more intense. Christ Covenant Church's Senior Minister, Harry Reeder led the effort to ask that the ASC be "de-funded" (Dr. Reeder is now the pastor of a large Presbyterian church in Birmingham, Alabama called Briarwood) He was backed by hundreds of evangelical churches in Mecklenburg. Conversely, mainline churches in inner-city Charlotte joined with liberals to claim that the ASC should be allowed to keep their funding. Rev. Reeder's article on the subject can be found below:

At the time this was going on, NationsBank was discussing merger talks with Bank of America in San Francisco a hot-bed of liberalism and the west-coast center for homosexual activity. When the April 1, 1997 vote was taken, Charlotte's corporate community (sometimes referred to as the "uptown elite" or ruling junta in media articles) determined to remove those that voted to de-fund the ASC at any cost. 

Some people believe that NationsBank's push to publicly repudiate the vote (and attempt to buy the 1998 elections) was a ploy to avoid having the issue damage the on-going merger discussions with banks on the left coast. A day after the vote Mr. McColl was on the front of the Observer consoling a homosexual employee who had hung his US Flag "upside down" in protest. While no one knows NationsBank's true motives, it is reasonable to conclude that their concern over San Francisco and the Bank of America deal  was a factor in their public positions since he and other junta leaders were prepared to cave on the homosexual question in order to keep ASC funding. What better way to defuse a situation than to promise to buy the next round of local political elections?

THE VOTE

On April 1, 1997 the meeting was called to order by Parks Helms. Homosexual activists had come in the back way to the meeting chamber and taken most of the prime TV seats. There was an overflow crowd and spilled into the central atrium and even onto the 2nd floor meeting rooms. The vote was taken in the early morning hours of April 2, 1997 and was (as predicted) 5 -4. The audience was lively and intense. Lesbians in dog collars and on leashes and flaming drag queens sitting next to bankers and evangelical preachers.

The text of the adopted resolution is as follows (from the Charlotte Observer):

To see the Leader's paper of April 4, 1997 that outlined the vote, see:

To read Commissioner James' speech (published 2 days later in the Observer, click here:

As a result of the vote, several communities passed resolutions and debated the same issues. See article in the Leader by clicking here:

THE "PLAN" TO BUY ELECTIONS

Several days after the April 1st arts vote, NationsBank's executives and other business leaders announced that they would raise huge sums of money to insure that the 5 were removed from office. The announcement was with the "big 3" (NationsBank, First Union, Duke) and the Urban League added in for good measure to insure that the Black community didn't think that they were ganging up on a district African-American representative (Hoyle Martin). Rolf Neil the publisher of the Charlotte Observer was also a part of this and used his paper to do one story after another (usually without journalistic ethics) to help out the uptown crowd.

The urban league's involvement quickly evaporated because they were a tax-exempt organization precluded from participating in political activities. It seems that in their haste to organize uptown opposition they forgot the federal and state tax code.

Commissioner James said to the Observer at that time (April 9, 1997):

As a result of over-reaction by these business leaders and their brazen attempt to buy political seats, NationsBank lost several significant depositors who objected to their involvement in the political process (Reported in the Business Journal and by Commissioner James in discussions with Joe Martin). One depositor with $60 million in NationsBank left the bank over Hugh McColl's handling of the issue. News of the event (and of the plan to buy elections) reverberated around the Country and was in every significant media outlet. Commissioner James was interviewed on National Public Radio, The Los Angles Times among others. In San Francisco, some writers wondered if this was really a good idea, having wealthy individuals dictate who leads a democratic society.

WHAT UPTOWN FEARS THE MOST:

In order to be in politics you have to know 'thy enemy'. Teddy Roosevelt said that being in politics is very much like being in a battle, expect to get politically bloody in the process. In this case what Hugh McColl and the uptown junta feared more than arts defunding was the embarrassment to them in places like San Francisco and New York City. As James Carville (one of Clinton's advisors) used to say "Charlotte is just Mayberry with a big airport".

When you know what your opponent fears the most, you can use that to drive home the point that they change their position or what they fear most will become reality. In this case, reality was a national discussion about Charlotte, its conservative views using issues (homosexuality) they didn't want to discuss. Charlotte's elite know that Charlotte is more conservative that they would like but they controlled that by controlling elections. Having to discuss this with their peers in other large cities was profoundly unsettling to them (and embarrassing). When these elitists refused to rein in the Charlotte Rep and fix the problem, those of us in elected office that were bullied with political extinction responded by giving the national media what the elites feared the most. We (and in particular me) showcased the 'Bible Belt' part of Charlotte and how much Charlottean's did not approve of or even want to 'tolerate' homosexuality. This played into the national media's views of the South and drove the Chamber and the uptown elitists nuts.

Since offers of campaign cash didn't work and threats of removal didn't work, they quietly cracked down on the arts to avoid any more 'incidents'. Knowing their fear of publicity led to reforms including the cancelling of plays and self censorship as noted below.

THE COUP THAT ROCKED UPTOWN CHARLOTTE

As 1997 wore on, Charlotte's business and elite went into a frenzy calling the County Commissioners names (they were the "Gang of 5") and vowing revenge at all cost.

Since filing for County Commission seats did not open until January 1998 they were busy making plans for their victory celebration and denegrating County Commission members in news and op-ed's in the Observer.

In December of 1997, Hugh McColl the chairman of NationsBank attended the County Commission meeting to watch his associate and good friend, Joe Martin (brother of the former Governor of North Carolina) receive the "Order of the Hornet". Joe had ALS and on the evening of the vote had given a rousing speech.

Unknown to these business titans, Commissioner Joel Carter had previously visited the home of Commissioner Martin to discuss replacing Parks Helms as Chairman. The annual election of a chairman is routinely held each year at the first meeting in December and is perfuctory.

Chairman Helms had further angered Commissioner Martin (a fellow Democrat) by encouraging a homosexual activist (Andrew Reyes) to run against Hoyle at-large on the Democratic ticket. Helms was also said to be behind the abortive attempt to get the Urban League involved to take "race" out of the equation in kicking Commissioner Martin out of office. When Commissioner Martin heard about this plot and attempts by Mr. Helms to discredit him within the Black community he determined to support Tom Bush as Chairman.

The entire process was keep "secret". No one said a thing. The stage was set. Hugh McColl was in the audience. Joe Martin near the dais in his wheelchair was prepared to give his speech and to "thank Chairman Helms".

The vote was taken on a new chair and - BAMMM!  - Helms was out - Bush was in - a recess was called and the Democrats were hot-hot-hot. It was hilarious.

At this meeting, Hugh McColl left more than mad and was overheard saying:

Stiff or not (and given the homosexual overtones of the discussion who could miss that double meaning) - his resolve was just another profound embarrassment that Charlotte's elite did not "totally" control the political landscape as they once had. The days where a few "white guys from Covenant or Myers Park Presbyterian" ran Charlotte were over.

This was reflected in a Raleigh News and Observer article as well. See:

And it was also reflected in a April 23, 1997 Wall Street Journal article talking about how Charlotte's power brokers had lost their power. See

Hoyle received the lion's share of the "blame" from Democrats who were upset about the "coup" as can be seen in this cartoon. As a result of the Coup, Democrats met with the then elections Director Bill Culp (a party loyalist) to plot their revenge. Part of that plot was to get Bill Culp to use the elections office as a tool of the Democratic Party which he did until challenged by Commissioner Carter and myself. Later Culp was found to be a crook and was sent to "club fed" in disgrace for taking bribes. One of Culp's accomplishments was to set up the process of stopping Hoyle Martin's independent write-in campaign. Culp succeeded in disallowing the signatures of thousands of voters who had signed Martin's petition drive to appear on the 1998 ballot as a independent. While the uptown elite could not stop the vote, they did use the Board of elections to keep a good man off the ballot after he had legitimately had raised enough signatures to qualify. See the following link for this part of the scandal:

THE ELITE ATTEMPT TO BUY THE 1998 ELECTIONS

After the vote and the "Coup", leaders of NationsBank (now Bank of America), First Union (now Wachovia - Wells Fargo), and Duke Energy vowed to raise money and remove from office those voting for the motion.  In total they raised over $350,000 to defeat the "Gang of 5". The money raised was funneled through a new political action committee called the ABC (Alliance for a Better Charlotte). It skirted campaign laws and stayed legal by laundering money between PAC's. For example, Commissioner James' opponent raised around $60,000. Of that, most were in the form of $4,000 checks (the maximum allowed by law). His opponent received a $4,000 check from the NationsBank PAC, a $4,000 check from the First Union PAC, a $4,000 check from Hugh McColl personally, a $4,000 check from Ed Crutchfield personally and a $4,000 check from the ABC (which got its money of course from the aforementioned companies and individuals as well). A nice tidy money laundering operation that was completely legitimate.  Commissioner James conversely had some 300 contributors with an average contribution of about $100 each (most of whom lived in his district).

As in 1997, Commissioner James was asked about these large sums of money and money laundering two weeks before the May elections saying (April 18, 1998 Charlotte Observer):

THE ELECTIONS ARE NOT WHAT THEY HOPED FOR

The May 1998 Primaries were not what Charlotte's elite had hoped for. Only "one" of the individuals who voted against the ASC had lost, though all had been significantly targeted with large war-chests. James was challenged by a Democrat turn Republican liberal Lutheran ex-minister. Carter was challenged by a former County Commissioner from his area, Bush by an arts professor. Higgins (whose district included uptown) was the only one to actually "lose" and he lost to a guy who claimed he wasn't actually running "against Higgins" but said he was running because Higgins had said he wasn't going to run.

(Commissioner Joel Carter and Commissioner Bill James "slapping hands" after their primary victory in May of 1998 at the Grady Cole Center in Charlotte - On the cover of the Charlotte Observer local section)

Turnout was around 15% - average for a May primary but not explosively high and evidence that the public was not as worried about the issue as Mr. McColl and other business elite had indicated.

THE US SUPREME COURT (2 MONTHS LATER) SAYS GOVERNMENT CAN USE DECENCY

One month after the May 1998 Primary victories,  the US Supreme Court ruled that government did have the right to define decency standards. The case involved the US Government's attempt to stop smut like the Mapplethorpe exhibits and others.  The arts community reacted with both dismay and alarm but some (including the ASC's chief) said that it was "still unclear" whether government can say what is done with taxpayer dollars. The following is directly from Federal law regarding arts grants which was upheld by the US Supreme Court in NEA V Finley (No. 97-371. Argued March 31, 1998 - Decided June 25, 1998)

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [Laws in effect as of January 1, 1994] [CITE: 20USC954] TITLE 20--EDUCATION CHAPTER 26--SUPPORT AND SCHOLARSHIP IN HUMANITIES AND ARTS; MUSEUM SERVICES SUBCHAPTER I--NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Sec. 954. National Endowment for the Arts (d) Application for payment; regulations and procedures     No payment shall be made under this section except upon application therefore which is submitted to the National Endowment for the Arts in accordance with regulations issued and procedures established by the Chairperson. In establishing such regulations and procedures, the Chairperson shall ensure that--         (1) artistic excellence and artistic merit are the criteria by     which applications are judged, taking into consideration general     standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values     of the American public; and         (2) applications are consistent with the purposes of this     section. Such regulations and procedures shall clearly indicate that     obscenity is without artistic merit, is not protected speech, and     shall not be funded. Projects, productions, workshops, and programs     that are determined to be obscene are prohibited from receiving     financial assistance under this subchapter from the National     Endowment for the Arts. The disapproval or approval of an application by the Chairperson shall not be construed to mean, and shall not be considered as evidence that, the project, production, workshop, or program for which the applicant requested financial assistance is or is not obscene.

THE ASC POLICE CLEAN UP THEIR OWN HOUSE

While the business community was relived that in the General election all but one of the former commissioners were gone (for reasons unrelated to arts or that vote), they took upon themselves to clean up their own house and in Charlotte fashion, do so, quietly. Of course, the ASC does not want to "admit" that it is self-censoring its productions or telling its "affiliates" what they can or can not do - they are. Their application forms REQUIRE that the affiliate notify the ASC regarding any violations of law or controversial matters (a slap at the Charlotte Rep.Theatre).

Over the last several years the ASC (Corporate Charlotte) has "self-censored" the art it produced in the following ways since the April 1st 1997 vote:

They have agreed (the ASC) to not allow their affiliates to violate NC law regarding nudity and such.

They have refused to fund (banned) affiliate productions considered to contain vulgar or prurient language ("Dreams of a Common Language" for example). As a result, the affiliate (Actor's Theatre) dropped the production instead of risking a loss of funds.

They have not allowed Samantha Geller's play about childhood lesbianism to be produced in a taxpayer facility (A Children's Theatre ASC funded decision).

They have cut inappropriate scenes from plays such as "6 degrees of separation" (scene cut was of two homosexuals in bed together plus eliminated the nudity).

The Mint has cancelled their sponsorship of the Gay-Lesbian Film Festival over the objections of homosexual activists.

They have established a rating system (of a sort) that requires patrons to be notified and offered refunds for plays that might be considered prurient and/or vulgar (the play "rent" was one such play and resulted in 500 season ticket holders asking for their money back in advance). Children were not allowed.

Follow up notes since 2001:

Note 1: About 7 years after the great arts war, the instigator of the event, the Charlotte Reparatory Theatre (Charlotte's only full-time professional theatre group) failed and is no longer in business. I for one was glad to see that. There was a price to pay for arrogance and promotion of perversity as diversity. Charlotte's elites and the arts 'management' folks didn't seem all that sad to see them go either. They had tried to rein in the Charlotte Rep at the time and failed. Behind closed doors, the arts and business folks blamed the Charlotte Rep for causing the great arts war by refusing to work towards compromise. Killing of the Charlotte Rep. by the ASC was the price paid for their decision to stir the pot in Charlotte.

Note 2: About 10 years after the great arts war, one of the groups that tried to buy elections (First Union/Wachovia) went bankrupt and was taken over by Wells Fargo.

Note 3: Some liberals indicate that "Lawrence V Texas" (a US Supreme Court decision) invalidated NC's sodomy laws. This is untrue as over the last three years (2006, 2007 and 2008) approximately 250 homosexuals were arrested in Mecklenburg County each year (total of about 750 arrests) for either a 'crime against nature' or 'soliciting a crime against nature'. Clearly, if Lawrence outlawed sodomy there would not be no arrests. In NC, homosexual conduct is still illegal and still prosecuted. The Democrats who control the NC Legislature refuse to change the law.

Note 4: In 2008, Actor's Theatre in Charlotte (a semi-professional theatre group) decided to do a spoof of the Angel's saga. Unlike the now dead Charlotte Rep, the play was financed by private dollars in order to avoid angering conservative elected officials in Charlotte. It would seem that the arts management folks in Charlotte seemed to 'learn their lesson' from the Great Arts War and had a private party pay for the play and put it on.