1860 Presidential Election Essay Example for Free

1860 Presidential Election Essay Every four years, each presidential candidate proclaims that the problems facing the nation this year is graver and more important than any other time in American history. The 1860 Presidential election stands alone as the most important presidential election in American history because this actually was the case. There have been other elections that have been important. If Wendell Wilkie had beaten Franklin Roosevelt in the 1940 election or if Al Gore had beaten George W. Bush in the 2000 election, this world may have been very different. But that probability was brought to the light months or years after the election was over. The chief difference with the 1860 election was that the country knew that the nomination of each candidate along with who would be elected would have immediate and then long term results for the country. The 1860 presidential election saw four distinct candidates, all trying for the most important office in the land at our most important time. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican from Illinois, his rival for the 1856 senate race, Stephen A. Douglas representing the Northern Democrats and also from Illinois, John Bell, a Constitutional Unionist and John Breckenridge a Southern Democrat were all in the race. The fact that the Democrats had split over the issue of slavery, forcing members to walk out of two Democrat conventions forced the party to have to send two different candidates and thus, increase the chances that the election would go to Lincoln.   The nomination of Abraham Lincoln for the Republican ticket was unsure from the start and even Lincoln assured himself that he would lose. In the bestselling book Team of Rivals, Doris Kearns Goodwin details in fascinating fashion, the list of more qualified, more educated and possessing more resources, fought for their nomination for president. But Lincoln was chosen because he was a moderate on the number one issue of the day: slavery.† I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists, said Lincoln early in the conflict.[1] Seward and Chase, two of the others who brought competition to the field, were seen as either too radical or apathetic towards the issue of slavery and made their displeasure known. While Seward was taking a European tour, Lincoln was meeting and greeting the people. His attendance and speech at New York’s Cooper Union in 1860, solidified him as a man of the people. The Democratic Nomination was complicated as well. The Democratic Party was split over the issue of slavery in the same way the country was. At their convention in April of 1860, fifty Democrats walked out to form their own faction of the party.[2] John Breckenridge was nominated by the Southern Democrats and Stephen A. Douglass was nominated by the Northern Democrats. The Democrats met again on June 18 and this time 100 delegates walked out and would not adopt a resolution supporting slavery in the territories. The Northern Democrats nominated for their candidate Stephen A. Douglass, Senator from Illinois. Douglass had been involved in the famous Lincoln Douglass Debates for the senate. In this senate race, Douglass won but in the process, alienated the South by saying that popular sovereignty could prevent slavery from being enacted in the new territories. The South remembered this and would make sure that his answer would come back to haunt him in the election. This was a chief motivating factor which caused the split within the Democratic Party, thus giving an advantage to the Republican Party which took advantage of such factions. For years, Democrats had united behind the doctrine of popular sovereignty. It was this fact which helped Douglas get elected to the senate in the 1858 debates with Abraham Lincoln. The idea behind this was that slavery within a new territory was up the majority of people within that state. Popular Sovereignty also promised to keep the future of slavery out of the hands of the politicians in Washington as they were distrusted for the most part by the people within the slave states. On the surface, the idea seemed to be a sound and practical compromise to the threat of a civil war. Most Northern Democrats assumed that slavery would not be allowed to spread into the West due to natural impediments. The climate, terrain and the swift movement of Free State settlers into the West would discourage slaveholders from entering the territories. While Southerners demanded that the Democratic Party come out with a platform that defended slavery, Douglas and his supporters could not agree. Despite the fact that the convention went through 54 ballots, Douglas failed to achieve the needed 2/3 vote to receive the nomination of a single Democratic party. However, once the Southern Democrats walked out of the convention, Douglas did receive the needed 2/3 vote from the delegates that were present.[3] Only then was did he receive the nomination of the Northern Democrats. It was a hollow victory. However, his nomination resulted in the splitting of his party and another candidate would only help to confuse the issue as well as spread out the limited number of electoral votes available. The Republicans, after seeing the problems that had been caused within the Democrats, saw this as an opportunity that they could use to their advantage. They were confident, going into their convention in Chicago, that they had a real chance of winning.   The only question was who was going to be nominated. William Seward was considered the front runner.   He was more established, had a classical education, the money and proper connections that prompted the party bosses, at first, to consider him a viable candidate for the nomination. But this all changed at the convention. Alienated factions seemed to arise and served as an unmistakable impediment for Seward and his hopes of becoming the Republican nomination for the 1860 Presidential election: an occurrence which seemed like a foregone conclusion just six months earlier. Delegates were concerned that Seward was too closely identified with the radical wing of the party. Also, Seward, being deeply religious, saw the issue of slavery as an issue that was above that of the Constitution as he called for a higher law to dictate the end of slavery. 19th century America was a deeply religious age but such beliefs seemed to pull him to the right of center in this regard. â€Å"Over the years, his angry phrases calling upon a ‘higher law’ than that of the Constitution that had come from men of freedom†¦ had alarmed Republicans moderates in the West. This only proved that Lincoln was the man to elect.†[4]Compared to Seward, Lincoln had more of a chance to help avoid a civil war as he was seen as more of a moderate within the Republican Party on many issues that were troubling the country and the Southern states at this time. But this did not being much comfort to the Southern States because the main position that the Republican Party he ld on slavery was not in doubt. The key to the success of the Republican Party was its position on slavery as well as the fact that the Democrats were now split. The Republican Party opposed the expansion of slavery and many within the party condemned it as an immoral institution. Republicans thought that by limiting its expansion would put slavery on the road to eventual extinction. Even though this stance was made public, the Republican base rejected a more radical stance that would have Southerners associate them with the abolitionist cause. So in this fact, Republicans upheld slavery within the states where it already existed. Also, there was a faction of the party which included Lincoln, which was willing to support a Constitutional amendment that would guarantee slavery forever in the hope that a civil war would be avoided. In this fact, Lincoln’s announcement in September 1862, that he would be issuing an Emancipation Proclamation, came to the shock of his cabinet because it was contrary to what the platform of the Republican Party during the 1860 election.[5] Republicans would be willing to compromise a great deal with regard to the issue of slavery in order to avoid a civil war and in the process, distance themselves from the abolitionists who were seen as too radical from both the South and even parts of the North. However, as long as the strong Republican base and their beliefs on slavery served as an impediment and a threat to the South and their protection of slavery, either Lincoln or Seward would have garnished a negative response from the Southern States. Since it was essential to carry the West and because Lincoln had a national reputation from his debates and speeches, most notably, the 1858 debates with Stephen A. Douglass, Lincoln won the party’s nomination. This is true also because Lincoln was seen as a moderate on the issue of slavery. It would not be until the Civil War was well under way when Lincoln became more certain that slavery must not continue. But at this time, Lincoln had said that he would leave slavery alone if it meant that the Union would be saved and a civil war would be avoided. The party platform states that slavery would not be allowed to spread any further. This was heavily unpopular in the South but it was in line with what Lincoln believed. The containment of slavery was the best that the moderates within the Republican Party could hope for while at the same time, avoiding a civil war. Doris Kearns Goodwin, in her book Team of Rivals, spoke to the appeal that Lincoln had among the people and the cha racteristics that helped Lincoln, an unlikely candidate in many ways, secure the nomination. â€Å"Lincoln was aware that being a man of the people was an advantage, especially in the raw Western states critical to the election of a Republican candidate Lincoln was astute enough to capitalize upon this invaluable political asset.†[6]   It was also seen that Lincoln was more of a candidate for the people and on the surface, it did not seem that he was as hungry for the office as the others and therefore, would remain true to his own self instead of saying and doing only what was needed in order to get elected. â€Å"Though Lincoln desired success as fiercely as any of his rivals, he did not allow his quest for office to consume the kindness and open heartedness with which he treated supports and rivals alike, nor alter his steady commitment to the antislavery cause.†[7] These are the characteristics that helped endeared Lincoln as a man of the people. The campaign was an interesting one that garnished a great deal of interest among the country. The turnout from the 1860 election would be one of the highest in history as the country knew all too well, that the results may lead to a civil war. Stephen A. Douglas became the first presidential candidate in history to undertake a nationwide speaking tour; something that is now seen as essential in order to win within contemporary candidates. Douglas traveled to the South even though he did not expect to win many votes. He spoke for the maintenance of the Union and would so until the official start of the Civil War. The 1860 Campaign, despite the presence of four separate candidates was more organized than the 1856 campaign. In 1856, John C. Freemont, the first Republican candidate,   crusaded zealously against slavery and these efforts were then countered with the warnings of civil war. As a result, James Buchanan was elected and did absolutely nothing to either speed up or curtail the threats towards a civil war. What also helped the chances of the Republicans was the 1857 Supreme Court Decision regarding the Dred Scott Case. This resulted in a clear advantage in the 1858 general election which gave a commanding lead to the Republicans. By 1860, every observer could see that the Republicans had an almost unbeatable advantage in the Electoral College as well since they dominated every Northern state. This would come to fruition as the number of popular votes that Douglas got in relation to the number of electoral votes he received was far below that of Lincoln’s. The election was held on November 6, 1860. The notable difference was the exaggerated sectionalism of the vote. In nine southern states, Lincoln’s name did not even appear on any of the ballots. Also, the importance of the Electoral College would be as important as any other election history, second only to the 2000 election. Due to the fact that there were four candidates, it would be unlikely that any one candidate would receive the popular majority. While Lincoln only captured 40% of the vote, the division of the Electoral College allowed him to capture 17 states plus four electoral votes from the state of New Jersey to receive a total of 180 electoral votes and the win. Although the three-way split among the non Republicans complicated the issue, Lincoln would have still won the election because he won the majority of the electoral vote. Lincoln also won a popular majority in every state that cast its electoral votes for Lincoln. He finished the campaign with 1,865,908 vot es. Douglas finished second with 1,380,202 votes but because of the split in the electoral votes throughout the country, he only received twelve electoral votes, far short of the 152 needed to win.[8] He received nine electoral votes from Missouri and three of the seven electoral votes from New Jersey. Bell won Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia while Breckenridge won every slave state except for Missouri. The result of the 1860 election was almost an immediate one. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina voted to succeed from the country.   The southern states had been waiting for an excuse to break away from the country and the election of Lincoln fit the bill. Stephen A. Douglas threw his support behind Abraham Lincoln and went on a speaking tour to try to stop a civil war from coming. He died in this process in April of 1861 and neither his efforts, nor the efforts of any single man, could stop what the country knew was about to come. With the succession of South Carolina in December 1860. â€Å"Not surprisingly, South Carolina acted first. There is nothing in all the dark caves of human passion so cruel and deadly as the hatred the   South Carolinians profess for the Yankees,[9] With the following of twelve more states, the Civil War had become a foregone conclusion. With the attack on Fort Sumter in April of 1865, despite the only casualty being a Union horse, the Civil War had started and only after four years and 620,000 casualties, did the war finally come to and end as did the institution of slavery within the country forever. The end of the Civil War also led to the assassination of President Lincoln and his Vice President, Andrew Johnson serving as an impediment to the Reconstruction of the South. The 1860 Presidential Election was one of the most important elections in the country’s history. The main difference with this election over others, was that the entire country knew that the outcome of the election had a direct impact on whether or not there would be a civil war, how the civil war would play out and what would be included in peace. Abraham Lincoln, right before the end of the Civil War, said: ‘With malice towards none and charity for all,†[10] in talking about the need for the North and South to come together as one people again. History knows that the people made the right choice that November day in 1860. And all those that are motivated by his speeches and actions are the benefactors of such wisdom and future generations will continue to do the same. WORKS CITED Burns, Ken. 1989.   The Civil War. Boston: PBS Video. Burns, Ken. 1992. The Civil War Companion Book.   Boston: Alfred Knoff Publishers Goodwin, Doris Kearns. 2006. Team of Rivals. New York: Harper Collins McPherson, James. 1998. Battle Cry of Freedom. London: Oxford University Press. [1] McPherson, James. 1998. Battle Cry of Freedom. London: Oxford University Press. [2] Goodwin, Doris Kearns. 2006. Team of Rivals. New York: Harper Collins p. 142. [3] Goodwin, Doris Kearns. 2006. Team of Rivals. New York: Harper Collins p. 167 [4] Goodwin, Doris Kearns. 2006. Team of Rivals. New York: Harper Collins [5] Burns, Ken. 1989.   The Civil War. Boston: PBS Video. [6] Goodwin, Doris Kearns. 2006. Team of Rivals. New York: Harper Collins [7] Goodwin, Doris Kearns. 2006. Team of Rivals. New York: Harper Collins p. 178. [8] Burns, Ken. 1992. The Civil War Companion Book.   New York: Alfred Knoff Publishers [9] McPherson, James. 1998. Battle Cry of Freedom. London: Oxford University Press. P.641 [10] Burns, Ken. 1992. The Civil War Companion Book.   Boston: Alfred Knoff Publishers p. 321

Body Image Essay -- essays research papers

Everyone who brings home a bad report card knows that with a little effort they can better their grades. Yet there are some things in life that you cant change and the way you look is one of them. In today’s society teenage girls face an ongoing battle to attain the perfect body image. The following paper discusses the definition of perfect, why we strive to attain this impossible ideal, why we don’t fight to change the image, and the consequences that can result from this battle to please. A dictionary definition of perfect is: 1. complete, having all its essential qualities 2. faultless, excellent 3. exact, precise 4. entire, total(1). Now does this seem like a reasonable goal to strive for? Absolutely not, it is impossible, yet so many teenage girls feel that perfection is within their reach. Society plays a massive role in influencing our lives and our judgment. The emphasis placed on looking good in our society clouds our vision of what is truly important. Western culture portrays certain morals and ideals that girls feel they must live up to. Society’s ideals themselves are largely influenced by those of the media, which in return puts added stress on the image problems that teenage girls face. Every time they look around themselves. "[They] loose [their] sense of self, individuality and fall victim to narrow definitions of beauty defined by the media. The media acts as a propaganda machine determined to shake our confidence, remind us we aren’t good enough, we haven’t made it, that we just simply don’t measure up."(2) All we see in the media these days are tall, thin, beautiful girls with great skin and even better figures. The media sends out the message that the ideal body should resemble that of a Barbie doll. Girls are supposed to try and look like this, so they will "fit in." Girls feel that with an "ideal" body comes power in society, and they are shown this starting at a very young age; She will be a woman like all the women in the thousand of ads and movies and television programs she has seen since she was very little.(3) The media is sending out negative messages to millions of vulnerable teenage girls striving to be accepted in today’s society and this is causing extreme problems. The media image is only going to become more and more destructive because, while the media ideal female is getting smaller, the ... ...ns when this battle for the impossible goes too far. These girls need to start fighting for change. Women need to be committed to changing the present body image ideal to a new one that is tolerant of varied size and weight. They must form a new social group whose rules and codes for a body image ideal allow all women to be beautiful in her own way. (22) These women need to learn to accept who they are inside and out. If they can’t do this on their own, then they need to seek professional help in order to get to the root of the problem. The most important thing is that they realize that they need help, and seek it as soon as possible. They should see someone who can help them make a healthy eating and work out plan to follow. And if they don’t feel comfortable talking to a professional, than they can talk to someone they trust. Another option that can help one get their life back on track is becoming involved in sports. Sports can help you make new friends and get into better physical shape, which will in turn brighten your mood and increase your self esteem. With increased self- esteem comes increased confidence, and that is key to accepting yourself mirror reflection included.

‘Fortunate to survive so many enemies for so long’ – discuss this verdict of the Weimar, 1919-24

In November 1918, following the calamity of World War One, the authoritarian German Kaiser Wilhelm II was forced to abdicate. Two months later the Weimar was established. This new authority promised to rule more liberally, and brought hope of freedom and prosperity to the German people. However, from its birth in 1919 to its collapse, the Weimar Republic was to face many problems. Thus, the verdict that the Weimar was fortunate to survive would seem correct. The Weimar began its rule over a country in unfavourable circumstances with considerable deep-routed problems. These dated back to Imperial Germany, and were obvious even before the war. Germany had only been united since 1871. Social tensions had been created by rapid industrialisation that led to changes within the class system, as agriculturists were suspicious of industrial workers taking their place. Also, Germany's economy was behind; Britain had a larger navy, and colonial policy in Africa was not successful. This led to doubt concerning national efficiency. To make matters worse, Germany was run by a narrow elite who was unsympathetic to the hardships his people faced. Less that half a century later, the First World War further devastated Germany. The country encountered continual military defeats, army mutiny, low morale, poor living and working conditions, food shortages, a lack of consumer goods, inflation and much more. As a result of these pressing problems, the Weimar had little choice but to accept the terms of the ‘Treaty of Versailles'. This had devastating consequences for Germany. Weakening the country economically, Germany was compelled to give up much of its land including industrial regions such as Alsace Lorraine, surrender all of its colonies, dematerialise the Rhineland, disarm its army and eliminate its airforce, and pay reparations of i6,600 million. These things brought further hardship for the German people, as the country was continually drained of its wealth and resources. Socially stunting, Germany was forced to accept all responsibility for starting the war, and to accept article 231; the ‘War Guilt Clause'. This led to an overwhelmingly low morale. Politically, Germany was to have an Ally-friendly liberal government. This was a main cause of the introduction of a new constitution, and heavily influenced the style of the Weimar. The set-up of this new democratic government itself brought problems for Germany. The Weimar adopted a policy of proportional representation. This system worked effectively as long as the politicians were prepared to support the constitution. However, the President was given powers under article 48 which could, in times of ‘national emergency', be used to undermine the democratic constitution. This was often abused, and led to dictator-like rulers. Also, the new constitution meant that the Republic consisted of many small parties that had to work together in coalition governments with a proportional representation system. This did not work as the parties had very different political views, and so often couldn't agree on issues. As well as this, many parties within the Weimar actually disagreed with its existence. Leaders of the army, civil service and legal system disliked the new constitution. This lead to certain figures deliberately working against the Republic and stirred trouble in hope that it might fail. The most significant threat came from the President of the Republic from 1925, Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg. Thus, the Weimar itself led to further weakness in Germany. As well as internal enemies, the Weimar also faced a vast number of outer opposition groups. On the left of German politics, communists such as the Spartacists in 1919, attempted to overthrow the government. On the other extreme, monarchists like Wolfgang Kapp in 1920, or extreme nationalists attempted to destroy democracy in Germany. These revolutions undermined the Weimar, and rallied much opposition from the German people. The opposition also led to other flaws in the Weimar. For example, the Spartacist revolution resulted in the Eber-Groner pact, which was designed to protect Germany from Communism. However, this agreement represented a huge mistake made by Ebert and his SPD colleges in believing that the threat to the Republic came primarily from the left, when later the army wouldn't help protect the government against Hitler as he was right wing. Also, the very fact that the pact was needed showed that the Weimar was weak. The sum of these factors led to an overall weakness in the Weimar, though some are much more vital that others. Perhaps the most important was Treaty of Versailles, which led to social, economic, and most crucially political unrest as it also contributed to the success of the Weimar's opponents i. e. the slogan of the ‘November criminals', or the ‘War guilt clause' gave the Nazis a useful source of propaganda. Another vital weakness was constitution itself, which allowed both internal and external opponents to attack its weaknesses, such as proportional representation, or Article 48 which Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg used to undermine the Constituency. Also, many of the factors that led to the Weimar's weaknesses inter-link with one another, for example the lack of German unity partly resulted due to previous deep-routed problems of Imperial Germany, or the Spartacist revolt that resulted in the unsuccessful Eber-Groner pact. Yet, despite all of these varied problems, the Weimar remained, supporting the statement that it was ‘Fortunate to survive so many enemies for so long'. Yet, there were some factors that worked in favour of the Weimar i. e. many people were simply relieved to have change, and pleased that the soldiers were able to return home. Another helpful act is that in 1926 reparations were reduced, and assistance was given to Germany to help with re-building. Therefore, as well as simply withstanding defeat, the Weimar managed several accomplishments which led to an improvement the German people' way of life, for example the Constitution solved hyperinflation in 1923, and also improved foreign relations. Plus, after 1924 further improvements were made i. e. Dawes plan by Stresseman. Yet, overall the Weimar's weaknesses seem to out-weigh its strengths, and hence the statement seems to be an accurate interpretation.

Academy Awards Trivia and Interesting Facts

Whether youre a classic movie buff or a blockbuster film fanatic, the yearly Academy Awards is likely to be a big deal for you and your friends. At your next Oscars party, test everyones knowledge with trivia questions on the award ceremonys history and fun, little-known facts. The Very First Oscar Winner The first person to receive an Academy Award did not even attend the first Academy Awards ceremony. Emil Jannings, the winner for Best Actor in the 1927-28 Academy Awards, had decided to go back to his home in Germany before the ceremony. But before he left for his trip, Jannings was handed the very first Academy Award. The Only Oscar to Win an Oscar Oscar Hammerstein II won the Oscar for his song, The Last Time I Saw Paris, in the movie Lady Be Good (1941). X-Rated Winner Midnight Cowboy (1969), the winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture, is the only X-rated movie to win an Oscar. Sibling Rivalry Ethel and Lionel Barrymore are the only brother and sister to ever win Academy Awards for acting. Lionel Barrymore won an Oscar for Best Actor in A Free Soul (1931). Ethel Barrymore won an Oscar for Best Actress in None But the Lonely Heart (1944). The First Color Movie to Win Best Picture Gone With the Wind (1939) was the first movie filmed in color to win the Best Picture award. Posthumous Nominations There have been a number of people nominated for Academy Awards after their death. However, the first person to be nominated posthumously and actually win was screenwriter Sidney Howard for Gone With the Wind (1939). James Dean, on the other hand, has been the only actor to be nominated twice after death; once for Best Actor in East of Eden (1955) and again the following year for Best Actor in Giant (1956). Winners Who Didnt Speak on Camera Three actors have won Academy Awards for playing characters that did not utter a single word throughout the entire film. Jane Wyman won the Best Actress award for her portrayal of Belinda, a deaf mute, in   Johnny Belinda (1948). Sir John Mills played the mute village idiot in Ryans Daughter (1970), for which he won the Best Supporting Actor award. Most recently, Holly Hunter won the Best Actress award for her portrayal of the mute Ada McGrath in The Piano (1993). The Most Frequent Hosts The list of hosts for the Academy Awards ceremony is dotted with prestigious names such as Will Rogers, Frank Capra, Jack Benny, Fred Astaire, Jack Lemmon and David Letterman. However, one man has dominated Academy Award history; Bob Hope hosted a whopping 18 Academy Award ceremonies. Billy Crystal, who has hosted the ceremonies 8 times, ranks second as the host with the most. Johnny Carson comes in third after hosting 5 Academy Award ceremonies. How the Oscar Name Came About The Oscar statuettes official name is the Academy Award of Merit. The name Oscar is actually a nickname that has been around for decades with unclear beginnings. Though there are several different stories that claim to tell the origin of the nickname Oscar, the most common attributes the nickname to a comment made by Margaret Herrick. Herrick, as the story goes, worked as a librarian at the Academy and upon first seeing the statuette, commented that the statuette looked like her Uncle Oscar. No matter how the nickname started, it became increasingly used to describe the statuette in the 1930s and was officially used by the Academy beginning in 1939. A Winner Who Was Never Nominated The only Academy Award winner who won but was never officially nominated was Hal Mohr for Best Cinematography for   A Midsummer Nights Dream (1935). Mohr was the first and only person to win via a write-in vote. When the Phrase And the winner is... Was Discontinued At the 61st Academy Awards, held in 1989, the Academy decided to replace the trademark phrase And the winner is... with the phrase And the Oscar goes to... Did you notice? The Streaker During the Academy Awards ceremony held on April 2, 1974, a man named Robert Opal ran across the stage naked, flashing the peace sign. David Niven had been on stage to introduce the Best Picture category when the streaker ran behind him. Thinking quickly on his feet, Niven remarked, The only laugh that man will ever get in his life is by stripping ... and showing his shortcomings.† A 20-Year Delay in Award Eligibility In a strange turn of events,  Charlie Chaplins movie Limelight, which was produced in 1952, won an Academy Award in 1972—20 years after its first release. According to the Academys rules at the time, a movie could not be considered for an Academy Award until it had played in Los Angeles. When Limelight finally played at a theater in Los Angeles in 1972, it became eligible for an award. Winners Who Refused the Awards Honor The Academy Awards are one of the highest honors one can receive in the movie business. Yet, 3 people have refused the honor. The very first person to refuse an Oscar was Dudley Nichols. Nichols, who had won Best Screenplay for  The Informer  (1935), boycotted the Academy Awards ceremony because of ongoing conflicts between the Academy and the Writers Guild. For his dramatic portrayal of the World War II general in  Patton  (1970), George C. Scott won the Academy Award for Best Actor. Scott refused the honor, stating that the awards ceremony was a  two-hour meat parade. Marlon Brando also refused his award for Best Actor for  The Godfather  (1972). Brando, who said he refused the award because of the discrimination toward Native Americans by the U.S. and Hollywood, sent a woman supposedly named, Sacheen Littlefeather, to collect his award. It turned out later that the woman was really an actress named, Maria Cruz. The Oscar Statuette The Oscar statuette stands at 13 1/2 inches tall and weighs 8 1/2 pounds. It depicts a knight, holding a sword, standing on a reel of film which has five spokes, representing the 5 original branches of the Academy--actors, directors, producers, technicians, and writers. In 1949, the Academy started to number the statuettes, starting with number 501. Award Ceremony Postponements Contrary to the old adage, the show must go on, the Academy Awards ceremonies have been postponed 3 times. In 1938, the ceremony was delayed a week because of flooding in Los Angeles. In 1968, the Academy Awards ceremony was pushed back 2 days because of  Martin Luther King Jr.s  funeral. The Academy Awards ceremony was pushed back a single day in 1981 because of the  assassination attempt  on President  Ronald Reagan. The First Televised Academy Awards On March 19, 1953, the Academy Awards ceremony was telecast for the first time across the United States and Canada. Then 13 years later on April 18, 1966, the Academy Awards were broadcast in color for the first time. Both of these ceremonies were hosted by Bob Hope. Plaster Oscars Rather than the usual metal Oscar statuettes, the Academy Awards handed out plaster Oscars during World War II in support of the war effort. After the war, the plaster Oscars could be traded in for traditional metal ones. 11 Nominations, 0 Wins In Oscar history, 2 films  tied  for the record of the most nominations without a single win. Both  The Turning Point  (1977) and  The Color Purple  (1985) received 11 Oscar  nominations but won not a single Academy Award. Sisterly Competition Twice in Academy Awards history, 2 sisters have been nominated for the same category during the same year. For the 1941 Academy Awards, sisters Joan Fontaine (Suspicion) and  Olivia de Havilland  (Hold Back the Dawn) were both nominated for the Best Actress award. Joan Fontaine won the Oscar. Jealousy between the two sisters continued to escalate after this and the 2 have been estranged for decades.   At the 1966 Academy Awards, a similar thing happened. Sisters Lynn Redgrave (Georgy Girl) and Vanessa Redgrave (Morgan: A Suitable Case for Treatment) were both nominated for the Best Actress award. However, this time, neither of the sisters won.