U.S. Flags Online

At the time, they said we would grow into a nation of cynics. I mean, you can’t have the president of any nation revealed as a thief, a liar and a moral vacuum and then continue, business as usual. Rally round the flag. Hail to the chief and all that jazz.

Cynics? I thought they were wrong. We were a nation of outraged citizenry. More people came forward to do the “right thing” during the Watergate investigation than did not. By the way, the right thing, in this case, was both hard and dangerous.

It meant speaking out against bosses and policies and the “perversion” of law and civic rights.
Actual government officials, both high and low, had to come forward.
It meant, ultimately, speaking out against the president and those glowing in the ring of power.
Action would have to be taken, formal, messy, public and legal action.
It meant jolting the history books.
It meant that the citizens of this country would be given a choice: what we would find acceptable by our leaders and what we would not.

June 18 and June 19, 1972: the Washington Post reports on a break-in to Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. Of the five arrested, one claims to be former CIA while another proves to be a Republican security aide.

October 10, 1972, the FBI verifies links between the Republican Committee to Re-Elect the President and the Watergate criminals. Among the charges are evidence of organized political spying and sabotage.

November 17, 1972, Nixon is re-elected in a landslide victory.

November, 17, 1973, Nixon publicly states he is innocent of any Watergate connection.

July 24, 1974, Congress overrules executive privilege and insists the President turn over missing tape recordings of White House conversations “forthwith.” The Supreme Court, in an 8-0 decision, supported the requisition of the tapes. Justice William H. Rehnquist recused himself because of his prior relationship with Nixon appointee and White House Attorney General, John N. Mitchell.

July 27, 1974, Congress passes three articles of impeachment against Nixon. The three articles of impeachment begin with obstruction of justice and end with subverting the laws of this nation.

August 8, 1974, Nixon resigns.

July 25, 1974, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan made the following speech before Congress. There is no room for cynicism in this speech. This is a moment in history that is sweeping and grand. It is inspiring:

Mr. Chairman:

I join in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.

Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, “We, the people.” It is a very eloquent beginning. But when the document was completed on the seventeenth of September 1787 I was not included in that “We, the people.” I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision I have finally been included in “We, the people.”

Today, I am an inquisitor; I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.

…The subject of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men. That is what we are talking about. In other words, the jurisdiction comes from the abuse or violation of some public trust. It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution, for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office.

The Constitution doesn’t say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the Executive. In establishing the division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the same person.

We know the nature of impeachment. We have been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to “bridle” the Executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. The framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the Executive. The nature of impeachment is a narrowly channeled exception to the separation of powers maxim; the federal convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term, “maladministration.” “It is to be used only for great misdemeanors,” so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention. And in the Virginia ratification convention: “We need one branch to check the others.”

The North Carolina ratification convention: “No one need to be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity.

“Prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community,” said Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, number 65. “And to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.” I do not mean political parties in that sense.

The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term, “high crime and misdemeanors.”

Of the impeachment process, it was Woodrow Wilson who said that “nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can.”

Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, tax reform, health insurance, campaign finance reform, housing, environmental protection, energy sufficiency, mass transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one.

This morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we were told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the CIA by the President is thin. We are told that that evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the President did know on June 23, 1972. The President did know that it was Republican money, that it was money from the Committee for the Re-election of the President, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on June 17.

What the President did know on June 23 was the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, which included Howard Hunt’s participation in the Dita Beard ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt’s fabrication of cables designed to discredit the Kennedy Administration.

We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the President of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the President. The committee subpoena is outstanding and if the President wants to supply that material, the committee sits here. The fact is that on yesterday, the American people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their President would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States.

At this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the President’s actions.

Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. “If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there is grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached.”

We have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects payment to the defendants of money. The President had knowledge that these funds were being paid and that these were funds collected for the 1972 presidential campaign. We know that the President met with Mr. Henry Petersen twenty-seven times to discuss matters related to Watergate, and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information Mr. Petersen was receiving and transmitting to the President. The words are, “If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached.”

Justice Story: “Impeachment is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations.”

We know about the Houston plan. We know about the break-in of the psychiatrist’s office. We know that there was absolute, complete direction in August 1971 when the President instructed Ehrilichman to “do whatever is necessary.” This instruction led to a surreptitious entry into Dr. Fielding’s office. “Protect their rights.” “Rescue their liberties from violation.”

The South Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: Those are impeachable “who behave amiss or betray their public trust.”

Beginning shortly after the Watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the President has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the Watergate case which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions; impeachable, those who misbehave. Those who “behave amiss or betray their public trust.”

James Madison, again at the constitutional convention: “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.”

The Constitution charges the President with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the President has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregarded the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, concealed surreptitious entry, attempted to compromise a federal judge while publicly displaying his cooperation with the process of criminal justice. “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.”

If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that eighteenth century Constitution should be abandoned to a twentieth century paper shredder.

Has the President committed offenses and planned and directed and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? This is the question. We know that. We know the question.

We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question.

It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Happy notes:

July 26, 1948
President Harry S. Truman signs Executive Order 9981 and legally ends discrimination in the U.S. military and in the government. To be thorough, Truman also establishes the Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Forces.

President Truman’s Executive Order 9981 states:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.

July 28, 1868
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. It promises that all citizens, born or naturalized, are equally protected under the law. This granted African Americans the right of citizenship.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

July 31, 1777
The 19-year old Marquis de Lafayette became Major General de Lafayette in the Continental Army.

Recent birthday babes include:
Wesley Snipes, 1963, actor
Vita Blue, 1949, baseball great and winner of the Cy Young, American League MVP, and Sporting News Pitcher of the Year awards
Mick Jagger, 1944, legendary English rock ‘n roll bad boy…but you already know that
Bugs Bunny, 1940, debuts in the cartoon, “A Wild Hare”
Stanley Kubrick, 1928, director, A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, 2001: A Space Odyssey…
Henry Moore, 1898, English sculptor
Amelia Earhart, 1897, the first aviatrix to fly alone over the Atlantic
Robert Graves, 1895, English poet, novelist, critic and classical scholar (I, Claudius)
Aldous Huxley, 1894, author or Brave New World
Maxfield Parrish 1870, painter
Henry Ford, 1863, industrialist
Emily Bronte, 1818, English author of Wuthering Heights
Alexander Dumas, 1802, French author of The Three Musketeers

The Three Articles of Impeachment Against Richard M. Nixon (courtesy of www.historyplace.com)

Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.

In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the following:

(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.

(2) Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.

(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.

(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.

(5) Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payments of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities.

(6) Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.

(7) Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.

(8) Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Executive Branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct; or

(9) Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Article 2: Abuse of Power.

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:

(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions to him, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.

(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

(5) In disregard of the rule of law: he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch: including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Article 3: Contempt of Congress.

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, had failed without lawful cause or excuse, to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgement as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by Constitution in the House of Representatives.

In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.

See these links for more Watergate history and Watergate timelines:
https://www.washingtonpost.com
https://www.watergate.info/chronology/brief.shtml
https://www.historyplace.com
https://www.watergate.info
https://www.landmarkcases.org

“One small step for man and one giant leap for mankind.”
Neil Armstrong, upon taking those first steps on the moon, July 20, 1969

May 25, 1961
President John F. Kennedy’s formally asks Congress and the nation to accept the gauntlet, cast by the Soviet Union’s recent launch of a man into space, of safely landing and returning a man on the moon by the end of the decade.

This speech, amounting to a springtime “state of the union” speech, defines where the nation is and where the President believes it should go. Kennedy defines specific goals and indicates the cost – the financial cost – of meeting these goals.

Kennedy believed that if the American people focused on a goal, we could achieve it – even the dream of landing a man on the moon – and by the end of the decade.

On July 20, 1969 the Apollo 11 landed the first man on the moon.

On a personal note:
Where were you when Armstrong landed on the moon?

Excerpt: IX. President Kennedy on space travel

Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. … Now it is time to take longer strides–time for a great new American enterprise–time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth.

I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshalled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.

Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of lead time, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own.

For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last. … But this is not merely a race. Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.

I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals:

First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.

We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations–explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight.

But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon–if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.

Secondly, an additional 23 million dollars, together with 7 million dollars already available, will accelerate development of the Rover nuclear rocket. This gives promise of some day providing a means for even more exciting and ambitious exploration of space, perhaps beyond the moon, perhaps to the very end of the solar system itself.

Third, an additional 50 million dollars will make the most of our present leadership, by accelerating the use of space satellites for world-wide communications.

Fourth, an additional 75 million dollars–of which 53 million dollars is for the Weather Bureau–will help give us at the earliest possible time a satellite system for world-wide weather observation.

Let it be clear–and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make–let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal ‘62–an estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all. …

It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. But all of you have lived through the last four years and have seen the significance of space and the adventures in space, and no one can predict with certainty what the ultimate meaning will be of mastery of space.

I believe we should go to the moon. But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful. If we are not, we should decide today and this year.

This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, material and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful inter-agency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel.

New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further–unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space.

X. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, let me emphasize one point. It is not a pleasure for any President of the United States, as I am sure it was not a pleasure for my predecessors, to come before the Congress and ask for new appropriations which place burdens on our people. I came to this conclusion with some reluctance.

But in my judgment, this is a most serious time in the life of our country and in the life of freedom around the globe, and it is the obligation, I believe, of the President of the United States to at least make his recommendations to the Members of the Congress, so that they can reach their own conclusions with that judgment before them. You must decide yourselves, as I have decided, and I am confident that whether you finally decide in the way that I have decided or not, that your judgment–as my judgment–is reached on what is in the best interests of our country.

In conclusion, let me emphasize one point: that we are determined, as a nation in 1961 that freedom shall survive and succeed–and whatever the peril and set-backs, we have some very large advantages.

The first is the simple fact that we are on the side of liberty–and since the beginning of history, and particularly since the end of the Second World War, liberty has been winning out all over the globe.

A second real asset is that we are not alone. We have friends and allies all over the world who share our devotion to freedom…

A third asset is our desire for peace. It is sincere, and I believe the world knows it. We are proving it in our patience at the test ban table, and we are proving it in the UN where our efforts have been directed to maintaining that organization’s usefulness as a protector of the independence of small nations. In these and other instances, the response of our opponents has not been encouraging.

Yet it is important to know that our patience at the bargaining table is nearly inexhaustible, though our credulity is limited that our hopes for peace are unfailing, while our determination to protect our security is resolute…

Finally, our greatest asset in this struggle is the American people–their willingness to pay the price for these programs–to understand and accept a long struggle–to share their resources with other less fortunate people … to show friendship to students and visitors from other lands … and, finally, to practice democracy at home, in all States, with all races, to respect each other and to protect the Constitutional rights of all citizens.

I have not asked for a single program which did not cause one or all Americans some inconvenience, or some hardship, or some sacrifice. But they have responded and you in the Congress have responded to your duty–and I feel confident in asking today for a similar response to these new and larger demands. It is heartening to know, as I journey abroad, that our country is united in its commitment to freedom and is ready to do its duty.

Once upon a time…

About 600 African American soldiers, all armed and ready for battle, muster on Boston Common.

It is May, a saucy month in New England. The gardens are greening and life seems full of possibility. This particular day is no exception. It is, in fact, absolutely golden: warm, sunny, a day to wrap your arms around.

To be precise, it is the 28th of May, 1863 and despite the pleasant weather, we are at war with ourselves.
Shiloh. Harper’s Ferry.
Antietam has too-recently made its blood offering.
Fredericksburg. Chancellorsville.
Already this is a history of near loss for the Union Army, and a history of wondrous survival for the Confederates.

But here on Boston Common, there is both celebration and boldness in the air as the first Northern “coloured regiment” of the Union Army gets ready to march off to battle. Trained and armed just like their white counterparts, they are also uniformed and paid – just like their white counterparts.

But unlike their white counterparts, these soldiers and their white officers march with a death sentence over their heads. On Christmas Eve, 1862, nearly a month before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Confederate President Jefferson Davis’ General Orders #111 declare that any and all commissioned Union officers be considered “as robbers and criminals deserving death” upon capture. Further, whether the black soldiers be freed or runaway slaves, it no longer mattered once they crossed Southern lines. At that time, all were considered “slaves [who were to be] “at once delivered over to…the respective States to which they belong to be dealt with according to the laws of said States.”

Most of these men are free, but not all. They have come from Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri…as far away as Bermuda. They all know the risks of serving in this regiment. In spite of these risks, perhaps because of these risks, they stand here now in regimental trim, ready to make their mark on history.

Among the souls here today are Lewis Henry Douglass and Charles Redmond Douglass, sons of the former slave and great abolitionist, Frederick Douglass.

James Caldwell, grandson of Sojourner Truth, is here as well. He has traveled from Battle Creek, Michigan.

So, too, is Stephen Atkins Swails, a young man who will survive to become a Reconstructionist lawyer, town mayor, and member of the 1868 electoral college. He also will be the first man of color to make lieutenant in this unit (Blue-Eyed Child of Fortune 30).

William Harvey Carney is here. He is one of the first to join that cold February (Blue-Eyed Child of Fortune 30). Twenty-three years old, Carney was born into slavery.

Both his parents were slaves but the family, now free, lives in New Bedford, Massachusetts. When he was 15, he “embraced the gospel” and later believed he would become a minister (The Liberator November 6, 1863), but he is here, instead, responding to a different type of calling:

Previous to the formation of colored troops, I had a strong inclination to prepare myself for the ministry; but when the country called for all persons, I could best serve my God serving my country and my oppressed brothers. (The Liberator 1863).

Leading these men are the sons of socially prominent, white abolitionist families: Col. Robert Gould Shaw, of Boston, who was married just a month prior, and Lt. Col. Norwood “Pen” Hallowell and his younger brother, Edward. Pen Hallowell will go on to lead the Massachusetts 55th, a second African American regiment formed after the success of the 54th. Edward Hallowell eventually will command the 54th.

The American author, Henry James, has a younger brother, Wilkie, who also signs on.

They are gathered now, in front of the State House and will march to Boston Harbor, famous for a different party during a different war. From there, they sail south. Their ultimate destination is Fort Wagner, South Carolina.

They arrive on July 18, 1863 having seen some prior skirmishes the month before. The fort is located on Morris Island and guards the southern approach into Charleston harbor. This battle will be the second attempt in a week to win the fort. The first attempt resulted in over 300 Union dead compared to the loss of 12 Confederate soldiers (www.wikipedia.org).

Col. Shaw writes:

July 18th. Morris Island
We are in General Strong’s Brigade, and have left Montgomery, I hope for good. We came here last night, and were out again all night in a very heavy rain. Fort Wagner is being very heavily bombarded. We are not far from it. (Blue-Eyed Child of Fortune 386)

Five thousand Union soldiers attack the fort. The Massachusetts 54th leads the way. Their approach is along the beach. They need to cross over a 30’ defensive embankment. It is here that Col. Shaw, leading his men by foot, raises his sword to storm the enemy walls.

“Forward 54th!” he cries. His men follow. Shaw is one of the first to reach the top of the wall.

The Union dead number into the thousands. Of the 600 soldiers of the 54th, 220 die as a result of the day’s battle. One of those soldiers, shot through the heart, is Col. Shaw. One of the survivors is William Carney.

At battle’s end, the Confederacy strip Col. Shaw’s body, briefly put him on display, then throw him into the bottom of a mass grave with other soldiers of the 54th. The action is intended as an insult, not least because officers’ bodies were, in those days, collected and returned from the battleground to the family for a formal burial. Not so in this case.

The intended insult ends up as a point of honor between Col. Shaw and his men. His family says that this is where their son would want to be, that he would have considered it an honor to be buried with his men.

His widow never remarries.

In the fire of battle, however, Carney sees the flag-bearer drop the company flag. Without giving it any thought, he picks up the flag before it can be captured and fights his way to the Fort Wagner wall. He is said to have kept the flag waving for 20 minutes during that desperate battle. When he finally gives up his position, family legend says that he actually wraps himself in the flag in order to protect it.

The action also makes him a very special moving target: a former slave, a black Union soldier, a company man bearing the company colors. Carney is wounded four times before he gives up the flag in safety. Twice in his body. Once in his arm. The last bullet grazes his head.

Even when a member of the NY 100th offers to carry the flag for him, Carney keeps going, refusing to give up the flag to any but a member of the 54th (“America’s Civil War” Hammond, March, 2007).

“The old flag never touched the ground,” he says when he finally collapses.

In 1900, 37 years after his act of bravery and 38 years after the medal’s inception, William Carney is awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor “to be presented in the name of Congress, to such officers and non-commissioned privates as shall most distinguish themselves by their gallantry in action.”

William Harvey Carney is the first African American recipient.

“I only did my duty,” says Carney upon receiving it.

Follow this you-tube link to see an interesting little video about the Emancipation Proclamation and the Massachusetts 54th.

Moon gazing.

Lovers’ moons.

Cows jumping over moons.

Goodnight Moons.

Man has had a love affair with that great silver orb probably since he first spied it washing his nights in light, shading his lover’s legs, or maybe just waxing and waning or doing cool things like turning copper.

When Rembrandt van Rijn was born on July 15, 1606, man did not dare consider ever setting foot on the moon. He hardly dared consider his own place in the universe. But Rembrandt surely considered the moon for he played with light and dark, brightness and shadow. This 17th century Dutch old master is most famous, perhaps, for his painting The Night Watch, which is just one of some 600 paintings he is credited with.

Rembrandt was a prolific experimenter, painting on canvas instead of common board and painting diverse subjects. He also is the creator of hundreds of etchings and even more drawings. But if you want to learn about moon walks and presidential dreams, read on, fair reader!

To see some of Rembrandt’s work, visit this link:

www.rijksmuseum.nl/index.jlp

On July 16, 1969, the Apollo 11 headed towards the moon with Neil Armstrong as commander, “Buzz” Aldrin as the lunar module pilot, and Michael Collins as the command module pilot.

This was the spacecraft, folks! This is the one that carries the first man to walk on the moon.

To see pictures from this voyage as well as to read (or hear) the astronauts report on the journey, go to this link: www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/

FirstLunarLanding/toc.html

In a speech to a joint session of Congress on March 25, 1961, President Kennedy asked Congress and the nation to make it a goal to safely land (and return) the first man to walk on the moon. Here is an excerpt from that speech

Now it is time to take longer strides–time for a great new American enterprise–time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth.

I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshalled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.

Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of leadtime, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last. … But this is not merely a race. Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.

I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals:

First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations–explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon–if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.

Ah! Dreams…“We are the stuff that dreams are made on,” said Shakespeare and it is true.

This is a very special dream week. It is a week of wonder in terms of the creative as well as the courageous. Fair Reader, read on!

All I Have to Do Is Dream, the Everly Brothers, 50 years ago this week, released that fabulous song.

Ten years later, Otis Redding’s (Sittin’ on the) Dock of the Bay was on top of Billboard.

In 1964, The Beatles had just released A Hard Day’s Night which was followed, just one year later, by that ode to teenage angst, The Rolling Stones’ (I can’t get no) Satisfaction.

Check out this weird musical medley of hits from the 1970s:
On the one hand is The Commodores’ Three Times a Lady sharing radio space with Debby Boone’s You Light Up My Life, while on a totally different third hand are Waylon Jennings and Willie Nelson asking, Mammas, Don’t Let Your Children Grow Up to Be Cowboys.

That, in a clef note, was America in the late 1970s.

Some other high notes of the week:

Happy Birthday!
Wyoming (1890);

And happy birthday to the original raging bull, Jake la Motta (1921); to that heart-warming comedian Bill Cosby (1937); to tennis great Arthur Ashe (1943) … and to Robert the Bruce, King of Scotland (1274). That last one may be pushing it but ‘twas a great movie now, wasn’t it?

But! More important than Classic Coke’s return in 1985, or the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team winning the World Cup in 1999…

More important than Etch-a-Sketch making its happy debut in 1960…

Even of greater note than Geraldine Ferraro’s historic 1984 vice presidential nomination is the fact that…

On July 11, 1925, the Scopes Trial had just begun its second day of putting the freedom to teach evolution on trial.

Clarence Darrow would represent John Scopes, the Tennessee teacher who was accused of breaking a state law, the Butler Act, by teaching evolution in his science class.

The state was represented by that great orator and presidential aspirant, William Jennings Bryan.

Scopes was found guilty on July 21 (short trial) and fined $100.

It was, however, the Butler Act that was really on trial. Was it a fair law? (See the link below for the full text of the law.) It was repealed September 1, 1967.

On day 2 of the trial, Darrow argued that this law was, indeed, unconstitutional saying:

If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public school, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools… At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers. Soon you may set Catholic against Protestant and Protestant against Protestant [sic], and try to foist your own religion upon the minds of men. If you can do one you can do the other. Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding. … After awhile, your honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed.

The trial became the inspiration for the play, Inherit the Wind. The title, by the way, comes from a Bible verse:

He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart. (Proverbs 11:29)

Be well!
Concord Star

Related links courtesy of UMKC Law School:

Full text of the Butler Act (Tenn. HB 185, 1925) and its repeal: www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/tennstat.htm

Background on the trial:
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm

Transcript of the trial:
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes2.htm