U.S. Flags Online

On the evening of August 24, 1814, the British begin to burn Washington, D.C.

The destruction is such that the sky glows for miles around with flames. The Capitol building, Senate House, the President’s mansion – anything related to government and much that is not is burnt or destroyed.

Earlier that day, Dolley Madison had received word from her husband, President James Madison, to pack and leave their home. Immediately.

Dolley tried to comply. She really did. In fact, the guns of battle were not distant. Not at all! Oh dear! So much to do and as the afternoon wore on, you could hear the booming of cannon and the soldiers approaching – retreating Americans as well as the advancing Brits! Mr. Carroll, a friend sent to help her, was getting rather cross with the First Lady as she flatly refused to leave behind, in enemy hands, a life-size portrait of George Washington.

Oh! Tedious frame! Despite their efforts and the need for haste, the frame just would not be unscrewed from the wall! The only thing for it was to cut the painting out, which is exactly what she did.

It was only then, as she later wrote her sister, after putting “the precious portrait…in the hands of two gentlemen of New York, for safekeeping,” that the First Lady allowed herself to be rescued.

Later, only three weeks and 35 miles away from that day, the British prepare to take Fort McHenry. The fort sits at the entrance to Baltimore harbor, a worthy target as Baltimore is the young country’s third largest city. Having already captured the much smaller capitol and put the government to flight, the British can win this war by winning Baltimore, a sweet revenge on an impudent country that was but a colony some 30 years prior.

Defending Fort McHenry is Major George Armistead, uncle to the Confederate Civil War hero, Brigadier General Lewis Armistead who is best known for his brave leadership of the ill-fated Pickett’s Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg.

The weather is wet, so stormy that Major Armistead is not flying the large garrison flag but its smaller companion, a “signal” or “storm flag.” He had commissioned both flags a year prior from Baltimore flag maker Mary Pickersgill. The garrison flag measures 30’x42’. It has 15 stripes and 15 stars. Each stripe is two feet wide and each star is two feet in diameter.

It is so huge that in making it, Mrs. Pickersgill, her daughter, nieces, and an indentured servant had to sew it in a local malt house after hours, by candlelight.

It is so large that if you were to lay it out on a modern high school basketball court, its length would be exactly half the length of the court and its width, more than half the width of the court.

It is so large that it meets Major Armistead’s original desire to fly a banner “so large that the British will have no difficulty seeing it from a distance” (www.flaghouse.org).

But on this day, the weather is so poorly that Armistead decides to fly the smaller flag.

Shortly after sunrise on September 14, somewhere between 6:30 and 7 o’clock that morning, the British begin to blast Fort McHenry.

On one of the British warships is an American prisoner, Dr. William Beanes, and two Americans who are there on his behalf: Col. John Stuart Skinner and Francis Scott Key. Skinner and Key, arriving the night before under a military flag of truce, are there to persuade the British admiralty that Dr. Beanes should be released. Col. Skinner is a military diplomat whose job is just this: to negotiate prisoners’ release while Key, a Supreme Court lawyer, is a friend of Dr. Beanes.

They meet with Major General Robert Ross, and Admiral Alexander Cochrane aboard the HMS Tonnant. Ross is the very man responsible for the torching of Washington. Though initially not terribly keen on the idea, the British officers eventually agree to release Dr. Beanes. It probably helps that Skinner had brought letters with him written by British prisoners of war testifying to Dr. Beanes’ character and his good treatment of the wounded.

Although the officers agree to the release, they also decide that none of the Americans can leave until after the planned attack on Fort McHenry is over. Moved from one ship to another, it is from this curious perspective of being right there, in the heart of the enemy camp, that they pass their “friendly captivity,” watching helplessly as the enemy begins a 25-hour bombardment of Fort McHenry.

During the day, they occasionally see the storm flag through the increasingly dense smoke from the blasts of the bombs and mortars. This is their only way of knowing if the fort stands or if it has fallen. As the attack continues and day lengthens again into night, it becomes increasingly difficult to see if the flag – if the fort – has survived:

And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.

The words to the national anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner, give, perhaps, the truest picture of what that battle was like. Although its author, the lawyer-poet, Key, and the diplomat, Skinner, along with the good Dr. Beanes, will be free when the attack is over, the truth is that the end of the battle also will foretell the war’s end – and with it, the future of the nation.

Francis Scott Key begins writing his poem, Defense of Fort McHenry, on the back of some papers he has in his pocket while on board ship. Nothing better describes the emotions of that moment when, at sunrise the next day, he desperately looks to see if the flag is still flying.

Although Key and his fellow Americans do not know it, for their keepers are not likely to tell them, the British withdrew earlier that morning after being unable to take the fort. Though Key and his colleagues do not see it, Major Armistead replaced the storm flag with the much larger garrison flag shortly before dawn. And, though Key and his comrades can not hear it, the garrison soldiers are firing their weapons in accompaniment to a rather rowdy rendition of Yankee Doodle.

As they search the skyline for a sign as to the outcome of the battle, the Americans finally see what they are looking for. Writes Key:

O say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free, and the home of the brave?

Three months after the British defeat at Fort McHenry, the Treaty of Ghent is signed, the official end to a war in which no new territories are gained by either side but a finality is given to the position the young democracy holds amongst the leading nations of the world.

When Key finishes his poem, he shows it to his brother-in-law who considers it a much finer song than poem and suggests a popular tune of the day to accompany it, albeit a drinking song. Within a week, Key’s words are in print and the poem, The Defense of Fort McHenry, soon turns into the song, The Star-Spangled Banner, drinking tune and all.

In 1889, the Navy makes The Star-Spangled Banner its official flag-raising song. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson establishes the precedent of having The Star-Spangled Banner played at formal government occasions, military and otherwise. But it is not until 1931 that The Star-Spangled Banner actually becomes the nation’s anthem.

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Bookmark this post:

August 9, 1936
Jesse Owens wins four gold medals at the Berlin Olympics as well as breaking world records (individually as well as part of a team). He is the first American track and field athlete to win 4 golds at one Olympics.

His run in the 100-meter dash (10.3 seconds) became an Olympic record and tied the then-current world record. He set an Olympic record in the long jump (8.06 meters – over 26’) which was not broken until 1968 (New York Times, April 1, 1980). His run in the 200-meter dash (20.7 seconds) set another world record as did his team’s run in the 4 x 100-meter relay (39.8 seconds).

In the 200-meter dash, the silver medalist was Mack Robinson, older brother of 17-year old Jackie Robinson. Owens’ 200-meter and 100-meter run times were Olympic records until 1964 (NY Times).

Just one year before, at the Big Ten Conference Championships in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Jesse Owens broke 3 world records in 45 minutes.

While that was on the track, off the track things were very different. Because of his race, he was not allowed to stay at the “whites only” hotel with his other teammates. In fact, he could not even enter the hotel through the front door.

At the Berlin Olympics, Hitler refused to shake hands with any of the black Olympian medalists. In fact, he actually left the stadium after three black Americans, Owens included, swept all the high-jump medals.

On the other hand, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt also did not acknowledge the conquering hero when the team returned home. While a phone call or White House invitation would not have been unusual, Owens received neither.

Presidents Ford and Carter redressed the situation with the Presidential Medal of Honor (1976) and the Living Legends Award (1979).

Owens died in 1980 of lung cancer. Yes, he was a smoker. When he won that first Olympic medal, he was a new father, married to his high school sweetheart.

In 1984, a street in Berlin was re-named in his honor, Jesse-Owens-Allee.

Link:
http://library.osu.edu/…
http://www.jesseowens.com

Bookmark this post:

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

Bookmark this post:

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.

Bookmark this post:

In the fall of 1775, Mr. James Wharton arrives at Mistress Margaret Manny’s Philadelphia millinery shop with over 100 yards of red, white and blue bunting from which the good seamstress is to make a ship’s flag. In this case, the ship is the Alfred, one of the first war ships in a navy that has but a handful of ships – literally. (Sources vary in their count, placing the number of ships anywhere between 4-6.)

The Alfred, a 30-gun frigate manned by 300 sailors, anchors in Philadelphia’s Delaware River. On December 3, 1775, her new First Lieutenant, John Paul Jones, has the honor of raising, before a cheering crowd of sailors and civilians alike, the first flag to fly over any American war ship.

“I hoisted with my own hands the flag of freedom,” says Jones later (www.ushistory.org).

The flag Lt. Jones raises is new as well as familiar: With a bold design of 13 stripes in alternating colors of red and white, it also contains, in the upper, left-hand corner, the British Union Jack. The Union Jack, interestingly, is its own hybrid, a design made from superimposing England’s red St. George’s cross over Scotland’s white St. Andrew’s cross against a dark blue field. This first flag of the Revolution is called the Grand Union.

On New Year’s day, 1776, General George Washington, raises an identical flag over his headquarters on Prospect Hill in Somerville, Massachusetts. Boston is occupied by the British and General Washington has begun to lay siege to the city. The local population, despite their political points of view, do not know what to make of this flag. Is it a British flag? Clearly it bears the British Union Jack, but it flies from the enemy camp. Could it mean the rebel army has surrendered?

“By this time, I presume they think it strange we have not made a formal surrender of our lines,” quips General Washington three days later (www.ushistory.org).

Clearly, a more suitable flag is needed.

In the course of this new year, Thomas Paine writes a pamphlet entitled Common Sense, arguing passionately for independence. By spring, Washington wins his siege of Boston and the British army sails on to New York. In July, the Continental Congress publishes the Declaration of Independence and begins the business of crafting a new governmental infrastructure to replace the old. Battles are won and lost by both sides.

Early in November of that same year, a rather small event occurs: Francis Hopkinson is appointed to the governing board of the Continental Navy. Hopkinson is a lawyer, a member of the Continental Congress, and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. But he [is] also possesses an artistic mind: He composes music. He writes songs and poetry, as well as political pamphlets and satires, including The Typographical Mode of Conducting a Quarrel and The Political Catechism (www.declarationofindependence.org). [Ships, however, need all kinds of flags in order to survive (signal flags, communication flags...flags of origin) and appointment to this committee puts an artistic mind, like Hopkinson, in the right place for a natural involvement with any flag design.] In 1780, Hopkinson will bill Congress for “a cask of public wine” as payment for his work over the years, including designing the flag and other official seals and devices.

The family stories of Philadelphia upholsterer, Betsy Ross, say that during the summer of 1776, the widow is visited by General Washington and two other members of the Continental Congress: Robert Morris, secretary of the Marine committee (www.americanrevolution.org); and her husband’s uncle, Col. Ross. The men discuss the design of a flag which Washington draws for her. The flag contains a blue field with 6-pointed stars, identical to the stars of both the Hopkinson and Washington family shields. Mistress Ross points out that a 5-point star would, in her opinion, be a more practical design as they are quickly made from a fold of fabric. She demonstrates this with a cutting.

It is not until June 14 of the following summer, that the Continental Congress finally passes the Flag Act, the first official description of the flag of the United States. It simply reads:

Resolved, that the flag of the United States be made of thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a
new Constellation.

The same meeting also grants John Paul Jones his first command.

“That flag and I are twins,” says Jones. “We were born at the same hour” (www.americanrevwar.homestead.com).

Also that summer, Betsy Ross puts in a bill. Hers goes to the Navy, for services sewing flags for ships.

In September, the only battle of the Revolutionary War to take place in Deleare occurs at Cooch’s Bridge, prelude to the Battle of Brandywine. The British army gets a taste of rebel tactics as compared to the European brand of warfare. It also is believed that this battle is the first of the Revolution to fight under the new flag.

When John Paul Jones, commanding the war sloop, The Ranger, is in France on February 13, 1778, he receives the first international recognition of the Stars and Stripes, the first recognition by a foreign power that this is the flag of the United States of America. In his campaign journal, Jones says he asked French Admiral de la Motte Picquet to return his signal:

“That brave officer agreed to do so. Neither he nor I knew that the allegiance between France and America had been signed seven days before at Versailles.”

John Paul Jones goes on, that April, to defeat the British war ship, The Drake. He is flying the Stars and Stripes. The interconnectedness of his fortune and that of his flag are, as he once noted, blessed with fortune. To use his own imagery, he and his flag truly are twins.

As for the rest of the war, Jones did not speak with callow arrogance when he declared, a bit later from the decks of another ship –

“We have not yet begun to fight!”

LINKS:
smithsonian: www.si.edu
www.americanrevolutionhomepage.org
www.americanrevolution.org
www.ushistory.org
www.nps.gov/archive

Bookmark this post: