Now I could go on a diatribe about Donny referencing his many fuck ups but his last chapter has not been written yet.
And now time for the old professor to drop some history.
The worst president to many political historians was Buchanan the 15th president of the United States.
Historians often label James Buchanan as one of the worst presidents in United States history. His presidency was marked with conflict, a conflict that had been brewing for over thirty years. Yet, Buchanan’s actions, and at times his inactions, aggravated sectional tensions to the point where the Union dissolved.
James “Old Buck” Buchanan was born to wealthy Irish immigrants on April 23, 1791, in rural Cove Gap, Pennsylvania. He entered Dickinson College at the age of 16, two years later he graduated with honors. After his graduation in 1809, Buchanan studied law and as his legal career grew so did his political one. Buchanan served in a reserve unit during the War of 1812 and did not experience any combat, and shortly after the war, the Old Buck served in the Pennsylvania State Legislature before his election to serve in the United States House of Representatives from 1821 until 1831, where he sat on the House Judiciary Committee.
…
Buchanan’s presidency was marred with conflict; however, one of the most significant events of his presidency began to unfold even before his inauguration. At the heart of the Dred Scott v. Stanford case was the status of slavery in the territories, an issue that had plagued American politics since the Missouri Compromise. Buchanan desperately hoped that the Supreme Court would unequivocally settle this massive issue before his inauguration in March of 1857. In violation of presidential ethics, on February 3, 1857, the president-elect began corresponding with Justice John Catron of Tennessee. Buchanan inquired as to when the country would learn about a decision and if the decision would be narrowly focused or broad. In his response, Catron did not answer as to when a decision would be handed down but did mention that the territorial question would be involved. On February 23, 1857, Justice Robert Grier of Pennsylvania responded to an earlier letter of Buchanan and tipped him off to the coming decision, writing “six if not seven will declare that the compromise law of 1820 to be non-effect.” With this prior knowledge in his inaugural address, Buchanan referred to Dred Scott as a decision that would “speedily and finally” resolve all questions about slavery in the territories, and he would “cheerfully submit to that decision.”
I could go into some diatribe about the music of the 80s but I shall leave that for someone that is a fan.
I will close out my week with a little cultural history.
For generations upon generations men wore hats…..top hats. derby, cowboy, bowler, etc…..as late as the 1040s and 50s hats were still being part of the attire and then in the 1960s something happened….but why did it happen?
It was everywhere. Men, women, and even children did it every time they left the house. If you see old newsreel footage of men in the office or on commuter trains from the advent of the motion picture camera to the early ‘60s, nearly everyone is wearing a hat. Hats were just as common for women in that era. For a woman to go out without a hat in the first half of the 20th century was akin to going out without clothes.
The funny thing is that everyone’s headgear is so similar in the old-timey footage that it makes previous generations look like big-time conformists. Then, in the early ‘60s, everything changed, and men and women started to go out in public with their hair exposed. Why did such a big aspect of fashion seem to change overnight?
Warmbru Curiosity investigated the question recently in a popular YouTube video. Warmbru’s channel is a lighthearted look at some of the more unusual people and events from our history and how they have influenced the world in which we live.
Warmbru says fashion changed dramatically after World War II, when people in developed countries began to care less about expressing their social status. “This was especially true among the younger generation the rise of youth culture in the 1950s and 1960s emphasized rebellion against traditional norms, including formal dress codes,” the YouTuber says.
Another big reason for the change in fashion was technology. Cars became the preferred mode of transportation for many after World War II and indoor environments became more hospitable. “People spent far less time exposed to the elements as people increasingly moved to urban areas and started using cars,” Warmbru says. “The practicality of wearing hats diminishes. Hats can be cumbersome in cars and on public transport, improvements in heating and air conditioning reduce the need for hats to provide warmth.”
Warmbru adds that President John F. Kennedy, elected in 1960, rarely wore a hat and his decision to go bareheaded became associated with modernity. Further, in 1963, the mop-topped Beatles proudly flaunted their hatless heads as they shook them while singing, “Wooooo.” Hat-wearing among women began to decline around the same time as the restrictive and complex headgear clashed with the burgeoning women’s liberation movement.
Since it is the 250th anniversary if the US I have set about re-acquainting the American people with the original Founding Father with a series dedicated to Thomas Paine.
I am always amazed to see any Right winger use Paine as some sort of icon for their beliefs….it is humorous for if they knew anything about Paine they would realize that he stood for damn near everything they hold dear.
…
The only thing Paine liked less than monarchical rule was its enablers, anyone who relinquished their freedom willingly to an aspiring tyrant.
This is not only wrong, Paine insists, but against nature, since all of us are created equal.
But even that’s not the worst part. Those who sacrifice their own freedom on the altar of monarchy also sacrifice that of future generations. Their “unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the next succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool.” Ouch.
“Most wise men,” Paine adds, “in their private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils, which when once established is not easily removed; many submit from fear, others from superstition, and the more powerful part shares with the king the plunder of the rest.”
It was Paine that chided Americans to throw off the yoke of Britain….
“In ‘Common Sense,’ Thomas Paine defines common sense as the fundamental ability of all people to reason and discern truth, regardless of social standing or education. He argues that this innate capacity, when applied to political matters, reveals the absurdity of hereditary monarchy and the necessity of self-governance based on the consent of the governed. Paine’s ‘Common Sense’ is a call to action, urging colonists to reject British rule and embrace republicanism, a system of government where power resides in the people.” (To discern the truth….something Americans have lost)
…
What was Paine’s specific vision for human society? Long after the successful defeat of British colonialism in “the colonies,” he wrote this passage in “Rights of Man, Part the Second”: “When it shall be said in any country in the world that my poor are happy, neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars, the aged are not in want; the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am the friend of its happiness—when these things can be said, then may that country boast its constitution and its government.”
…
“Anyone needing to be reminded of core Enlightenment beliefs—that government can only be empowered by its citizens; that such citizens are born with certain natural rights; that none are born superior to any other; that all will be treated equally before the law; and that the state has a duty to help the neediest of its people—reading Paine offers a political and spiritual inspiration, one that has driven men and women to achieve greatness across history. Of Paine’s many reasons for daring to publish work for which he could have been hanged or guillotined in the United Colonies, the United Kingdom, or France, this legacy is his glory.”
The US resistance movement fighting the Trump regime’s effort to destroy everything Thomas Paine stood for and fought for, and more, will be stronger if we raise him up more and more over the coming months as we approach the 250th anniversary on July 4th next year of the issuing of the Declaration of Independence. There’s no question which side he would be on if he was alive today.
(znetwork.org)
This is something I wrote a couple of years ago about Thomas Paine….
I have been a fan of Paine since I was 14 when my grandfather gave me a copy of Common Sense….it was eye opening and profound….we need another Thomas Paine to bring some light to the darkness that now engulfs our nation…..we need Thomas Paine.
I shall forego the “Dump’ for this Saturday to bring you some history as we are beginning our celebration of the birth of America, 250 years and counting.
As a political historian I always like to look at cause and effect and the publication of Commonsense, was cause that lead a bunch of wealthy white guys to declare independence from Mother England.
Some believe that the DoI was the beginning of our struggle for independence….I disagree. It began with Thomas Paine and the publishing of his pamphlet ‘Commonsense’ on 10 January 1776.
Common Sense made a clear case for independence and directly attacked the political, economic, and ideological obstacles to achieving it. Paine relentlessly insisted that British rule was responsible for nearly every problem in colonial society and that the 1770s crisis could only be resolved by colonial independence. That goal, he maintained, could only be achieved through unified action.
Hard-nosed political logic demanded the creation of an American nation. Implicitly acknowledging the hold that tradition and deference had on the colonial mind, Paine also launched an assault on both the premises behind the British government and on the legitimacy of monarchy and hereditary power in general. Challenging the King’s paternal authority in the harshest terms, he mocked royal actions in America and declared that “even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their own families.”
Finally, Paine detailed in the most graphic, compelling and recognizable terms the suffering that the colonies had endured, reminding his readers of the torment and trauma that British policy had inflicted upon them.
(jackmillercenter.org)
The Constitution of the United States as proposed by Thomas Paine in Common Sense
Since Paine’s contribution is mostly overlooked by Americans here is the full text of Commonsense….
But for those lazy amongst us….these are the main ideas within Commonsense….
Monarchies Violate Laws of Nature and Religion
Thomas Paine believes monarchies are an invalid form of government because they violate the laws of nature and religion. Paine argues all people are born as equals, which is a function of nature. No person or family is better than another. That line of reasoning concludes there shouldn’t be a ruling class. Paine also thinks those who do rule should not be able to pass their position to their next of kin. Nature doesn’t grant one family superior intelligence or leadership abilities, and it’s very possible the next person in line for the job will lead his or her followers into ruin. Monarchal rule and hereditary succession violate the very laws of nature.
Monarchies also violate the word of God. Paine points out there were not any kings in the early days of humanity (at least according to scripture) and there weren’t any wars. Paine implies these two are related. He contends the devil invented kings, which were first adopted by the heathens, as a tool to promote idolatry. Both Gideon and Samuel warn their followers about the dangers of worshiping someone other than God. In Samuel’s case the Israelites don’t listen, and they are smitten for disobedience. Paine believes this biblical evidence proves God is the only true king.
Independent, Democratic America
Paine insists the British government doesn’t have the colonists’ best interest at heart. It cares only about its own profit and success, and it treats the colonists as second-class citizens. Americans do not have the same rights as those who live on British soil and are unfairly punished when they try to uphold their interpretation of the British Constitution. The grievances between the two parties, as well as the bloodshed and destruction caused by the British army, are too great to repair. The only answer is for the colonies to separate themselves from Great Britain.
To those who quaver in fear of losing the protection and benefits afforded by the British government, Paine points out Great Britain is much too far away to protect the colonists from any imminent danger, and it is much too small of an island to govern a territory as large as the American colonies. Though he admits there have been benefits to British rule, he contends life in the colonies would perhaps have been even more pleasant and fruitful had Great Britain never controlled them at all.
An independent America will need a government of its own. Paine has already proven monarchical rule is unsuitable for the success of a nation and the happiness of its people, so he suggests a representative government elected by the people. This structure is in line with what he believes nature intended, as each person’s voice will be represented equally. The law will be king in America, not a monarch.
The Fight for Independence Cannot Be Postponed
Paine urges his readers to take up the cause of independence now. The tensions between Great Britain and the American colonies are only going to get worse, and the damage done at the battles of Lexington and Concord and during the Siege of Boston cannot be repaired. If anything, the situation will worsen. Waiting for a better time would mean the loss of experience gained during the French and Indian War (1754–63), which would decrease the colonists’ chances of victory. Delaying the push for independence could mean being tethered to Great Britain indefinitely, and as Paine points out, a country dependent on another is weak in the eyes of the world.
America may be a young country, but it has a lot of assets, including its youth. “Youth is the seed time of good habits, as well in nations as in individuals,” he writes. Developing continental unity now will be much easier than 50 years down the road when individual colonies are deeply entrenched in their own ways of life. Colonies are not yet at their peak populations, which means there aren’t too many people or ports to protect, yet there are still enough men to form a robust army. People haven’t yet developed strong roots in their communities, nor have they made their family fortunes in business. Unlike British civilians, who may carry the weight of wealth and family tree, the colonists have little to lose by going to war. That will surely change if efforts for independence are postponed, which will make it harder to raise a capable army.
American Independence Benefits the World
Paine argues American independence will help all friendly nations thrive, especially those who engage with trade. Separating the colonies from Great Britain will create open and free trade. That means the colonists decide to whom they will sell and for what price, which will help the American economy grow and which will benefit other, primarily European, economies as well. When no longer bound by Great Britain’s trading laws, they will be free to import goods from other countries, such as Spain and France, as well as to import goods to them, all of which will improve the international economy. Paine doesn’t leave out England—he thinks open trade will benefit the British government and its citizens alike.
Trade isn’t the only part of international relations that will improve with American independence. The colonies will be able to maintain strong and friendly relationships with other countries even if those countries are quarreling with Great Britain. As subjects of the British government, the colonies often found themselves in the middle of disagreements with other nations, and there was always the risk of going to war over matters that didn’t pertain to those living in North America. Freedom from Great Britain allows the colonies to declare neutrality during international conflicts, which preserves existing relationships and protects the American citizens, their property, and their economy.
Now after reading that who was the original Founding Father?
Sixteen years ago I wrote this piece doing my part to give Thomas Paine his due….something this country has never been able to bring itself to do.
The newest stupid act of attacking Venezuela is just an extension of the US ill-conceived plans for Latin America and the Caribbean….
You guys know I cannot let this go without offering a historical perspective, right?
America has a long history of intervening in Latin America and the Caribbean….all the way back to 1823 and the Monroe Doctrine…..
The Monroe Doctrine is the best known U.S. policy toward the Western Hemisphere. Buried in a routine annual message delivered to Congress by President James Monroe in December 1823, the doctrine warns European nations that the United States would not tolerate further colonization or puppet monarchs.
All well and good….but how has it all worked out over 200+ years?
…
U.S. policy, underpinned by the Monroe Doctrine, has shaped the region in the decades since World War II, leading to overt and covert interventions that have often — but not always — resulted in bad outcomes and unintended consequences.
Here are five examples:
The overthrow of Guatemala’s government
By 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was concerned about a Guatemalan land-reform program that nationalized property owned by the U.S.-based United Fruit Company (now Chiquita Brands International). The initiative was carried out under Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz, the nation’s second democratically elected leader, whose term began in 1951. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles accused Árbenz of establishing what he described as a “communist-type reign of terror.”
…
Then there is the US biggest disaster….Bay of Pigs….
Shortly after taking office in 1961, President John F. Kennedy approved a covert plan to overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who had grown increasingly aligned with the Soviet Union since seizing power two years earlier. The secret operation, originally developed under the Eisenhower administration, relied on a force of about 1,400 CIA-trained Cuban exiles who were expected to seize the Bay of Pigs on Cuba’s southern coast and spark a popular uprising against Castro.
Instead, the Bay of Pigs invasion ended in disaster. Castro ordered some 20,000 troops to the beach, forcing most of the U.S.-backed invasion force to surrender. More than 100 were killed. The incident became a major embarrassment for the United States.
Was listening to a local blues station because I had enough of Little Drummer Boy and all, and a song came on that was a favorite of my mother….she had several albums, 78s, of Holiday and her fantastic voice….this was one of her favorites…..
This lady had a fabulous voice it is a real shame that her life was so messed up and the American government was no help at all….
Despite her status as one of the world’s most influential jazz and blues singers, Billie Holiday passed away penniless and alone.
The artist rose to stardom in the 1930s with chart-topping hits such as “Strange Fruit,” “I’ll Be Seeing You,” and “Gloomy Sunday.”
Her distinctive and emotive vocal delivery solidified her place among the all-time greats. However, behind the scenes, Holiday’s life was fraught with difficulties.
Throughout her career and life, she endured pervasive racism. Holiday was denied entry through the front doors of venues and faced segregation in hotels and public accommodations.
In 1938, Holiday made history by touring with Artie Shaw, becoming the first Black woman to lead a white jazz band. Yet, she was forced to find her own lodging as she was prohibited from staying in the same hotels as the rest of the ensemble.
The alleged catalyst for the racism she encountered was her performance of Strange Fruit – a potent protest song against the lynching of Black Americans.
Holiday’s struggle with drug addiction throughout her career made her a target for the US government, which reportedly hatched a scheme to ruin her career.
The Federal Bureau of Narcotics, headed by the purportedly racist Harry J. Anslinger, had a particular fixation on controlling and punishing Black musicians.
I know it is a joyous time and the last thing most people want to think about is politics…..so I will refrain from my ranting and offer a little FYI and some history….
Most of us have that traditional tree with the colorful gifts and the lights and memories of Christmas past hanging from its limbs….but did you ever wonder where this tradition began?
I can help….
Prince Albert, Queen Victoria’s consort, is usually credited with having introduced the Christmas tree into England in 1840. However, the honour of establishing this tradition in the United Kingdom rightfully belongs to ‘good Queen Charlotte’, the German wife of George III, who set up the first known English tree at Queen’s Lodge, Windsor, in December, 1800.
Legend has it that Queen Charlotte’s compatriot, Martin Luther, the religious reformer, invented the Christmas tree. One winter’s night in 1536, so the story goes, Luther was walking through a pine forest near his home in Wittenberg when he suddenly looked up and saw thousands of stars glinting jewel-like among the branches of the trees. This wondrous sight inspired him to set up a candle-lit fir tree in his house that Christmas to remind his children of the starry heavens from whence their Saviour came.
Certainly by 1605 decorated Christmas trees had made their appearance in Southern Germany. For in that year an anonymous writer recorded how at Yuletide the inhabitants of Strasburg ‘set up fir trees in the parlours … and hang thereon roses cut out of many-coloured paper, apples, wafers, gold-foil, sweets, etc.’
In other parts of Germany box trees or yews were brought indoors at Christmas instead of firs. And in the duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, where Queen Charlotte grew up, it was the custom to deck out a single yew branch.
The poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834) visited Mecklenburg-Strelitz in December, 1798, and was much struck by the yew-branch ceremony that he witnessed there, the following account of which he wrote in a letter to his wife dated April 23rd, 1799:
‘On the evening before Christmas Day, one of the parlours is lighted up by the children, into which the parents must not go; a great yew bough is fastened on the table at a little distance from the wall, a multitude of little tapers are fixed in the bough … and coloured paper etc. hangs and flutters from the twigs. Under this bough the children lay out the presents they mean for their parents, still concealing in their pockets what they intend for each other. Then the parents are introduced, and each presents his little gift; they then bring out the remainder one by one from their pockets, and present them with kisses and embraces’.
Ever since Donny entered into politics he has been Hell bent on persecuting people of color….this time around he has taken his desires to full blown attempt to make American a white country again.
The problem with that stupid damn idea is that American has never been a solely white nation….
As Donald Trump deteriorates and his grasp on power fades, he has been lashing out furiously at female journalists and ethnic groups, most recently Somali Americans. His insults land because of their animosity and his power, not their accuracy. Likewise, his administration’s attacks on immigrants are sloppy and driven by lies. It’s strikingly clear that the target is not individuals with criminal records. It’s anyone and everyone guilty of being brown. Native Americans with tribal identification cards, US citizens, people doing crucial work from construction to nursing, military veterans, college students, people sleeping in their own beds, small children: all kinds of residents of this country are under attack.
“ICE raids are cruel, inhumane, and do nothing to serve public safety,” declares Zohran Mamdani, the New York City mayor-elect. Masked thugs smashing car windows and dragging parents away from their babies, terrorizing whole swathes of the population, and interfering with the ability of schools and businesses to function does the opposite. The rounds of targeted hatred by Trump and his minions – for people from Haiti during the 2024 campaign, for people from Venezuela this spring and summer, and most recently for people from Somalia – rely on defamatory lies and insults, because the facts about these groups don’t support the hate.
This terrorizing and demonizing pretends to be in service of recreating a white America that never existed. The US when white supremacists like Trump were young was whiter, but this was never a white country. In 1776, the 13 colonies that became the United States included a significant percentage of Black and Indigenous people (some southern states were a third or more Black). When the US annexed Texas in 1844 and then in 1848 took Mexico’s whole northern half, a Spanish-speaking population was already settled across parts of what’s now the south-west and California. The first African Muslim in what is now the United States came in a Spanish expedition almost a century before the Mayflower brought its fanatical Puritans to the shores of Massachusetts in 1620.
The persecution of huge numbers of brown people and even the mass deportations will not create the white country of far-right fantasy. Los Angeles, for example is an almost 50% Latino city, and despite the ICE and border patrol outrages, arrests, imprisonments and deportations, it remains so. The city’s very name is Spanish, a reminder of who was here first. All the hatred, all the persecution, seems like the panic of racists pretending they can stop the future of this country no longer being majority white through sheer cruelty.
Today is the day we set aside to honor our veterans that honored this country in service.
I also like to bring forth a few memories and such that I seldom talk about with anyone.
I served in Vietnam from 1967-1970 and today I am 79 years old……and I see fellow vets dying off at alarming rates and soon my war and the veterans will be just a fleeting memory that people roll out every November.
For years when people knew that I served in Vietnam they always put forth their opinions on how the war was fought and how we could have won that conflict.
Sadly there will always be these ‘experts’ on war and how it is fought. My response has always been the same….’if you were not there then your opinions are nothing more than fanciful bullshit’.
Vietnam War ended about 50 years ago and we that were there are still trying to come to terms with it….
April 30th marks the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War’s end when Vietnamese tanks rolled into Saigon, soon to be renamed Ho Chi Minh City. The war was a terrible experience for the United States, but even more so for the people of Vietnam and much of the rest of Southeast Asia. Estimates are that up to 3 million Vietnamese perished, as well many many thousands of Cambodians and Laotians. Fifty-eight thousand American died, and a trillion American tax dollars were wasted.
Many of us who were there are still trying to understand and come to grips with it. Based on years of study, here is what I think people still get wrong about the war. What I write will be controversial, but it is based on what I saw and learned. If I seem angry, it is because I still am.
In nearly all wars, the other side is demonized and made into evil caricatures of human beings; doing so makes it easier to kill them. From the U.S. perspective, the Vietnam War was no exception. Even the Vietnamese who were supposedly on our side were commonly referred to as gooks, zips (Zero Intelligence Personnel), slants, slopes and more, often to their faces. In my experience, the U.S. military chain of command made no effort to correct this. Given the pervasive racism among American troops, it should come as no surprise that violence against Vietnamese civilians was common. It is hard to understand how anyone thought the Vietnamese people would rally to the U.S. side while being badly treated.
I still feel that anger…..my country turned it’s back on me and my fellow vets and then 10 years later wanted to welcome us home…..it was too damn late.
The BBC had a very good breakdown of the war and why it was unwinnable from the start….
Another major reason why the USA could not win the war was the lack of support at home from the American public. The huge protest movement divided the country. A major pro–war movement also erupted. Many veterans of the war called the anti–war protesters traitors and communists.
Opposition to the war came from a number of sources and for a number of reasons
Media coverage
This was the first televised war. It was vividly reported by journalists who went to Vietnam in search of stories. Images of innocent civilians being killed, maimed and tortured were displayed on the TV and in newspapers – many Americans were horrified and turned against the war.
Opposition to support for the South Vietnamese Government
The South Vietnamese Government, which the Americans were committed to defending was revealed as corrupt and anti–democratic.
Many Americans questioned how the American Government could justify standing up for this oppressive regime. The USA was meant to fight to protect freedom and democracy.
It became clear that the Vietnamese peasants did not welcome American troops. Many Americans questioned why their country was involved if the local population did not want them there.
Opposition to the ‘Draft’
The ‘Draft’ was the conscription of American men into the US army and lasted from 1954-1975. As sons, brothers and fathers went to war, people began to question whether it was worth it. Draft Law hit African Americans hardest.
Many middle-class Americans opposed the war because, by 1967, the death rate had increased to 160 per week.
Opposition from Civil Rights Movement
There was opposition to the war from civil rights activists, who were fighting for more rights for African-Americans in the USA. Many African-Americans were drafted and because they were new recruits, they were often given the worst postings and assignments. Muhammad Ali had his boxing title revoked for refusing to fight in the war.
Opposition from youth
The main opposition came from students. In the 1960s, protest movements began in California but spread to all the major cities and universities across the USA by 1968.
On 4 May 1970, four peaceful student demonstrators at Kent State University in Ohio were murdered. They were shot by Ohio National Guardsmen during a noon-time campus anti-war rally – this became known at the Kent State Massacre.
Pacifists
Many believed that war was morally wrong. There were mass protests across the USA, including in Washington in December 1969.
Singers wrote anti-war songs and songs that criticised the Vietnam War itself. Bob Dylan wrote ‘Masters of War’ and John Lennon wrote ‘Give Peace A Chance’.
Political opposition
The American Government spent vast amounts of money on the war that could have been spent on domestic problems. Some politicians who had supported the war to begin with, such as Robert McNamara, began to turn against American involvement.
The end of the war in Vietnam
The resignation of President Nixon also weakened US enthusiasm for involvement in Vietnam.
In 1975, the North Vietnamese launched a major offensive and over-ran a series of South Vietnamese strongholds. In May 1975 communist forces took Saigon. In 1976 the two halves of Vietnam were united in a single Socialist Republic.
The Vietnam War was the greatest struggle of the Cold War era and the only major military defeat in United States history.
Please go out and do something nice for a veteran….keeping in mind the sacrifices they made to defend their country and their way of life.
You got it! The Old Professor is going to drop some history that most have no idea about.
How well do you know your history of this country? (Purely rhetorical because most know little to nothing)
There has been numerous amendments considered to the Constitutional but we shot down….but what would this country look like if they had passed?
The United States Constitution had been in effect for little more than a year when Congress first moved to amend it. On September 25, 1789, the legislature sent a dozen proposed amendments to the then-13 states (soon to be 14) for ratification, as the law required. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-fourths of states had ratified 10 of the 12 amendments, which collectively became known as the Bill of Rights.
Another 17 amendments have been ratified in the 234 years since, for a total of 27. But these measures represent just a tiny fraction of the amendments that have been proposed in Congress over the years—nearly 12,000 to date.
“The U.S. Constitution was intended to be amended,” writes historian Jill Lepore in her new book, We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution. However, “almost all efforts to amend the Constitution fail. Success often takes decades. And for long stretches of American history, amending the Constitution has been effectively impossible.”
Most proposed amendments die quietly in congressional committees (if they even get that far), with only a few sent on to the states for ratification. At present, there are six proposed amendments awaiting possible state ratification—one of them dating back to 1789.
Many failed amendments have involved fairly minor administrative matters. But others would have changed the American government in substantial ways and possibly altered the course of history.
Here are a dozen of those failed amendments and what they set out to accomplish.
In 1866, Missouri Representative George Washington Andersonproposed dropping “United States” from the country’s name and simply calling it “America.” The current name was “not sufficiently comprehensive and significant to indicate the real unity and destiny of the American people as the eventual, paramount power of this hemisphere,” he argued, albeit unsuccessfully.
Weighing in from across the Atlantic, the Illustrated London News mocked the proposal as the “verbal appropriation of a hemisphere.”
Just one hemisphere wasn’t enough for Lucas Miller, a first-term representative from Wisconsin. On a single February day in 1893, he introduced 46 bills, one of which would have changed the country’s name to the “United States of the Earth.”
Miller’s rationale, in his own words, was that “it is possible for the republic to grow through the admission of new states into the union, until every nation on earth has become part of it.” Another source suggests that he might also have settled for the “United States of the World.” Miller’s proposal was widely ridiculed at the time, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the congressman didn’t return for a second term.
