#Monroe Administration

[deadpresidents]

The End of the "Era of Good Feelings": Monroe vs. Crawford

James Monroe, 5th President of the United States, led the nation during the “Era of Good Feelings” (1817-1825) when partisan rancor was so diminished that Monroe ran unopposed for re-election in 1820 and was just one vote short of an unanimous Electoral College victory.

The “Era of Good Feelings” collapsed and fell right into regular American partisan bitterness with the 1824 Presidential election, and during that time, the popular President Monroe found some bad feelings in his own Cabinet which resulted in a bizarre confrontation in the White House that winter – the President of the United States vs. the Secretary of the Treasury, no-holds-barred.

Treasury Secretary William H. Crawford had been a front-runner to replace Monroe, but a stroke in 1823 ruined those chances.  Crawford had been serving as Secretary of the Treasury since 1816 when he was appointed by President James Madison and continued on throughout Monroe’s term.  Tired, frustrated, and ready to retire home to Georgia, Crawford called on Monroe at the White House to suggest a list of appointments he wished the President to approve for custom officers at ports in the Northeastern United States, some of the choicest political patronage positions available in the federal government.  However, Monroe objected to Crawford’s list and stated that he intended to name his own picks.  Crawford lost his temper and told the President, “Well, if you will not appoint persons well-qualified for the places, tell me whom you will appoint that I may get rid of their importunities!”.

The President – a Revolutionary War veteran of George Washington’s Army who carried a bullet in his body that had nearly killed him in 1776 – was not intimidated by Crawford’s language or temperament, coldly telling his Treasury Secretary, “Sir, that is none of your damn business."  Crawford was not easily intimidated, either.  The Treasury Secretary had killed a man in a duel years earlier and Monroe’s comment led Crawford to charge at the 67-year-old President with his cane, shaking it at Monroe while calling him a "damned infernal old scoundrel."  Monroe quickly grabbed two red hot tongs from a nearby fireplace for self-defense and threatened to personally throw Crawford – who was 15 years younger than the President – out of the White House.

Both men calmed down as President Monroe prepared to summon his servants to show the Treasury Secretary out.  Crawford apologized for his actions and stated that he did not intend to insult or threaten the President.  Before Monroe could ask him to leave, Crawford left the White House on his own.  The two men never spoke again. 

The "Era of Good Feelings” was over.

#History #Presidents #James Monroe #President Monroe #Monroe Administration #William H. Crawford #Secretary of the Treasury #Era of Good Feelings #Politics #Political History #White House History #Presidential Rivalries #Political Feuds #Presidential History

[she-is-ovarit]

Ashli Streeter said Stevens Transport did not hire her because it had no women to train her. Credit...Montinique Monroe for The New York Times

The trucking industry has complained for years that there is a dire shortage of workers willing to drive big rigs. But some women say many trucking companies have made it effectively impossible for them to get those jobs. Trucking companies often refuse to hire women if the businesses do not have women available to train them. And because fewer than 5 percent of truck drivers in the United States are women, there are few female trainers to go around. The same-sex training policies are common across the industry, truckers and legal experts say, even though a federal judge ruled in 2014 that it was unlawful for a trucking company to require that female job candidates be paired only with female trainers. Ashli Streeter of Killeen, Texas, said she had borrowed $7,000 to attend a truck driving school and earn her commercial driving license in hopes of landing a job that would pay more than the warehouse work she had done. But she said Stevens Transport, a Dallas-based company, had told her that she couldn’t be hired because the business had no women to train her. Other trucking companies turned her down for the same reason. “I got licensed, and I clearly could drive,” Ms. Streeter said. “It was disheartening.” Ms. Streeter and two other women filed a complaint against Stevens Transport with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Thursday, contending that the company’s same-sex training policy unfairly denied them driving jobs. The commission investigates allegations made against employers, and, if it determines a violation has occurred, it may bring its own lawsuit. The commission had brought the lawsuit that resulted in the 2014 federal court decision against similar policies at another trucking company, Prime. Critics of the industry said the persistence of same-sex training nearly a decade after that ruling, which did not set national legal precedent, was evidence that trucking companies had not done enough to hire women who could help solve their labor woes. “It’s frustrating to see that we have not evolved at all,” said Desiree Wood, a trucker who is the president and founder of Real Women in Trucking, a nonprofit. Ms. Wood’s group is joining the three women in their E.E.O.C. complaint against Stevens, which was filed by Peter Romer-Friedman, a labor lawyer in Washington, and the National Women’s Law Center. Companies that insist on using women to train female applicants generally do so because they want to avoid claims of sexual harassment. Trainers typically spend weeks alone with trainees on the road, where the two often have to sleep in the same cab. Critics of same-sex training acknowledge that sexual harassment is a problem, but they say trucking companies should address it with better vetting and anti-harassment programs. Employers could reduce the risk of harassment by paying for trainees to sleep in a hotel room, which some companies already do. Women made up 4.8 percent of the 1.37 million truck drivers in the United States in 2021, according to the most recent government statistics, up from 4 percent a decade earlier. Long-haul truck driving can be a demanding job. Drivers are away from home for days. Yet some women say they are attracted to it because it can pay around $50,000 a year, with experienced drivers making a lot more. Truck driving generally pays more than many other jobs that don’t require a college degree, including those in retail stores, warehouses or child care centers.

The infrastructure act of 2021 required the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to set up an advisory board to support women pursuing trucking careers and identify practices that keep women out of the profession. Robin Hutcheson, the administrator of the agency, said requiring same-sex training would appear to be a barrier to entry. “If that is happening, that would be something that we would want to take a look at,” she said in an interview. Ms. Streeter, a mother of three, said she had applied to Stevens because it hired people straight out of trucking school. She told Stevens representatives that she was willing to be trained by a man, but to no avail. Bruce Dean, general counsel at Stevens, denied the allegations in the suit. “The fundamental premise in the charge — that Stevens Transport Inc. only allows women trainers to train women trainees — is false,” he said in a statement, adding that the company “has had a cross-gender training program, where both men and women trainers train female trainees, for decades.” Some legal experts said that, although same-sex training was ruled unlawful in only one federal court, trucking companies would struggle to defend such policies before other judges. Under federal employment discrimination law, employers can seek special legal exemptions to treat women differently from men, but courts have granted them very rarely. “Basically, what the law says is that a company needs to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time,” said Deborah Brake, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in employment and gender law. “They need to be able to give women equal employment opportunities and prevent and remedy sexual harassment.” Ms. Streeter said she had made meager earnings from infrequent truck driving gigs while hoping to get a position at Stevens. Later this month, she will become a driver in the trucking fleet of a large retailer. Kim Howard, one of the other women who filed the E.E.O.C. complaint against Stevens, said she was attracted to truck driving by the prospect of a steady wage after working for decades as an actor in New York. “It was very much a blow,” she said of being rejected because of the training policy. “I honestly don’t know how I financially made it through.” Ms. Howard, who is now employed at another trucking company, said she had worked briefly at a company where she was trained by two men who treated her well. “It’s quite possible for a woman to be trained by a man, and a man to be a professional about what the job is,” she said. Other female drivers said they had been mistreated by male trainers who could be relentlessly dismissive and sometimes refused to teach them important skills, like reversing a truck with a large trailer attached. Rowan Kannard, a truck driver from Wisconsin who is not involved in the complaint against Stevens, said a male trainer had spent little time training her on a run to California in 2019. At a truck stop where she felt unsafe, Ms. Kannard said, the trainer demanded that she leave the cab — and then locked her out. She asked to stop the training and was flown back to Wisconsin. Yet she said she did not believe that same-sex training for women was necessary. “Some of these men that are training, they should probably go through a course.” Click the article to read more. The author is Peter Eavis.

#women in the trades #women's oppression #women truck drivers #truck drivers #sexism #misogyny

[talonabraxas]

Solstice Solar System Stargate. Dec21-22. Talon Abraxas

Between us here in our solar system and Milky Way centre lies the Sagittarius Cloud, a group of stars including the cluster M24, the Urantia Book locates M24 in their cosmology as the HQ of our pizza slice of the galaxy where Seraphim Angels aid the transfer of Souls to star systems.

Pre-Founder Galactic Centre StarSeeding energetic templates from Central Sun, came to fruition in Lyra.

.

Galactic Centre Administration - Inhabits the centre of a galaxy and are those Elders termed Masters and Celestial Beings. These Elders travel between galaxies and help where necessary and have the capability to influence and direct Source plan for continued evolution.

ET groups like the Galactic Federation (real one), Guardian Alliances etc come under their wing.

.

Wingmakers claim that by tuning into our GC we 'enter the galactic centre tributary zone', thereby gaining access to what they termed 'encoded sensory data streams', inspiring new forms of creativity, in the arts, sciences, social sciences, and more.

While the Galactic Feds and Guardian Alliance groups focus more on a 'rescue mission'.

.

Numerous groups of out-of-body explorers have transported themselves to our GC, including the Monroe Institute, their 'STARLINES program' focuses on establishing and strengthening the link between Earth and the Galactic Core.

.

Back in the 1500s our earth aligned the GC on Dec 14th, Nostradamus's birthdate.

144 years ago the alignment was on the 16th, Alice Bailey's birthdate

Around 2222 the alignment from our Earth thru our Sun to GC will take place exactly at the Solstice.

.

We've been providing evidence, for decades, that the, local to earth Solstice, takes place at the point where the solar ecliptic intersects the galactic equator *at the all-important Stargate Portal angle of 60deg, the conic angle of a golden ratio spiral.

--Grayham Forscutt

[icarusbetide]

connection between wartime administration & federalist-lean?

There's an argument that wartime service and experiencing Congress' failures firsthand as Washington's aide de camp pushed Hamilton further into the ideals that would later be seen as Federalist: a national instead of state outlook, a permanent military power, and a strong, efficient government.

I was wondering if that argument can be applied on a broader scale: is there an overall connection between revolutionary wartime administration and federalist-leaning political beliefs?

I'm by no means qualified but for my own curiosity's sake, I tried to find the political inclinations of former leaders in the war as well as members of Washington's family, who arguably should have seen the same inefficiencies as Hamilton.

Major Generals:

Washington: Tried very hard to be nonpartisan, but pretty federalist when all's said and done. Especially in 2nd term as president and in last years of life Horatio Gates: Supported Jefferson's presidency, so assuming he was leaning Democratic-Republican? Henry Knox: Federalist Philip Schuyler: Federalist William Alexander, Lord Stirling: Not sure John Sullivan: Federalist, led drive in New Hampshire for Constitution's ratification Thomas Mifflin: Federalist according to Wikipedia (was also aide to GW from June to August 1775) Arthur St. Clair: Federalist. Governor of Northwest Territory, removed by Jefferson in 1802 due to political party differences. Benjamin Lincoln: Federalist, strong policies and presence in Massachusetts Thomas Conway: Unreliable source says Federalist William Moultrie: Some sites say Federalist but he had falling out with Washington because of his pro-French actions towards Genet. Possibly nonpartisan.

Washington's family (Aides, Culper, Life Guard. If they died before we can quantify as "Federalist", then not included):

Note: I tried to include length of service and timeline, arguably important (there during Valley Forge or good period?), but it's difficult in consideration of leave and such. Used Wikipedia's dates.

Edmund Randolph (August - November 75): Wiki says Federalist but I know enough about him that he was often the swinging vote in Washington's cabinet, and that he didn't sign the Constitution because he thought it too strong. Tench Tilghman (August 76 - June 80 | June 80 - Nov 83): Died in 1786. I shouldn't include him but raise a glass for our hardworking Tilghman. Robert Harrison (Nov 75 - May 76 | Military Sec May 76 - 81): Died in 1790. Wikipedia says Federalist. John Fitzgerald (Nov 76 - July 78): Couldn't find John Walker (Feb - March 77): Unreliable source says Federalist Samuel Blachley Webb (June 76 - Jan 77): Couldn't find William Grayson (Assistant Sec. July - August 76 | Aide August 76 - Jan 77): Leader of Anti-Federalist faction with Mason, Monroe, etc. died in 1790 Alexander Contee Hanson Sr. (Assistant Sec. June - Sep 76): Federalist according to Wiki Alexander Hamilton (March 77 - April 81): Is this even a question? Stephen Moylan (March 76 - June 76 | Sept. 76 - Jan 77): "Firm Federalist" according to Founders Online James McHenry (May 78 - August 80): Federalist, GW's Secretary of War in 2nd term when cabinet members were much more partisan. Richard Kidder Meade (March 77 - November 80): Couldn't find. I know that he was very close with Hamilton, which makes me think it possible that their politics had some similarities? But entirely speculation. Hodijah Baylies (May 82 - Dec 83): Federalist. According to Founders Online, Gallatin was advised against Baylies because he was a "decided and we believe a sentimental federalist”. David Cobb (June 81 - Jan 83 | June 83 - Dec 83): Wiki says Federalist Peregrine Fitzhugh (July 81 - Oct 81): Not sure if same Peregrine Fitzhugh, but in a letter to Jefferson in 1807, said: "It is true I have been called a Federalist, and feel a pride in being so: but my Federalism is firmed in those principles which dictated the correct and memorable declaration that we were all Federalists all republicans" William Stephens Smith (July 81 - June 82): Federalist (member of Congress as Federalist in 1812) David Humphreys (June 80 - Dec 83): Federalist. He was part of the Hartford Wits and wrote the poem The Anarchiad. "In 1802, Thomas Jefferson...decided to replace Humphreys...Historians speculate that Humphreys's closeness to the Federalist Party motivated Jefferson’s decisions." from Mt. Vernon Richard Varick (Aide & Priv Sec May 81 - Dec 83): Apparently Federalist and later mayor of New York Benjamin Walker (Jan 82 - Dec 83): Federalist, elected to Congress as Federalist

Caleb Gibbs (May 76 - Dec 80): Couldn't find Nathaniel Sackett: Couldn't find Benjamin Tallmadge (1778 - 1783): Federalist, part of minority in Congress during Jefferson & Madison administrations

Other aides who might've had administrative work, although I'm not sure:

Aaron Burr: Very short run with Washington, and Israel Putnam's aide. Technically Democratic-Republican, but some historians have noted his politics did not always align with a party.

James Monroe: Aide to Stirling, Republican-Democratic

Concerns:

First concern: I'm not sure if the other major generals' aides would see as much administrative work directly with Congress as Washington's aides. I'm under the impression that other generals would report to Washington, than Congress, but I'm not sure.

Second concern: I also want to add that other factors would have most definitely played a role, such as familial and economic interests, which may or may not have been influenced by the war. Still, I thought it would be an interesting exercise.

Third concern: A lot of this is very shallow research as I did not have the time or energy to really dig into all of them. Please let me know if there is any inaccurate information (even Federalist or Democratic Republican is a very broad term and I'm sure their beliefs varied).

Please let me know if you see any inaccurate information, or anyone/some branch I did not consider!

#alexander hamilton #george washington #aaron burr #the aides de camp #amrev #amrev fandom #revolutionary war

[racefortheironthrone]

Just a note about the best historians with Ricardians or Ripperologist since it reminded me of something. Can't remember the exact wording, remember a professor saying something to the affect on how a lot of bad writers have made a lot of money off of the Kennedys. The books around them and the Marilyn Monroe or Grassy Knoll of it often don't seem very academic or peer reviewed and can't imagine a gossipy tell-all on the McKinley administration.

I think this is a subset of the general de-professionalization of history, where amateur historians are able to publish high-profile work in mainstream presses, in a way that you don't really see in other disciplines.

This often leads to major problems when big name authors like Doris Kearns Goodwin, David McCullough, and Stephen Ambrose got caught for plagiarism and other deeply sloppy research and writing practices, due in large part because none of them had ever undergone academic training as historians, because what they got caught for is stuff we learn not to do in Methods 101.

In fact, I remember their case quite vividly, because those three scandals broke the year I became a history major. I attended a introductory lecture for new majors that Eric Foner gave, and he brought up the three cases and said that this was the exact reason why he never uses a research assistant, because if you rely on research assistants who don't know the methods or the literature or what to look for in the archives as well as you do, you run the risk of these kind of fuck-ups creeping into your work.

This is one of the reasons why I argue that history is not a social science, because it is profoundly non-collaborative.

#history #historical analysis #academia #higher education #my day job #plagiarism #historiography

[charlesoberonn]

List of US Presidents and how many future presidents were born during their administrations

Before Independence: 8. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Quincy Adams, Jackson, William Harrison

Before Presidency: 2. Van Buren, Taylor

Washington: 3. Tyler, Polk, Buchanan

Adams: 1. Fillmore

Jefferson: 3. Pierce, Lincoln, Johnson

Madison: 0.

Monroe: 2. Grant, Hayes

Quincy Adams: 0.

Jackson: 3. Garfield, Arthur, Harrison

Van Buren: 1. Cleveland

Henry Harrison: 0.

Tyler: 1. McKinley

Polk: 0.

Taylor: 0.

Fillmore: 0.

Pierce: 2. Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson

Buchanan: 1. Taft

Lincoln: 0.

Johnson: 1. Harding

Grant: 2. Coolidge, Hoover

Hayes: 0.

Garfield: 0.

Arthur: 2. FDR, Truman

Cleveland: 0.

Harrison: 1. Eisenhower

McKinley: 0.

Teddy Roosevelt: 1. LBJ

Taft: 2. Nixon, Reagan

Wilson: 2. Kennedy, Ford

Harding: 0.

Coolidge: 2. Carter, H.W Bush

Hoover: 0.

FDR: 1. Biden

Truman: 3. Clinton, W. Bush, Trump

Eisenhower: 0.

JFK: 1. Obama

LBJ: 0.

Nixon: 0.

Ford: 0.

Carter: 0.

Reagan: 0.

H.W Bush: 0.

Clinton: 0.

W. Bush: 0.

Obama: 0.

Trump: 0.

Biden: 0.

#i did another one #history

[qqueenofhades]

ngl disappointed but not surprised that the reaction from the major left-leaning public in latam to leaders like lula supporting russia and china being unquestioned applause. just a month ago everyone agreed Ukraine was the victim (even with the mentioned russian propaganda issue making them think "they weren't saints") and now they think this is great because it's owning the us and is anti-monroe action or whatever.

Like, the importance of BRICS aside, it's just such a black and white stupid point of view

An old-school Latin American leftist like Lula is never going to align himself with the US too closely, because it would be anathema in his political/ideological tradition and reflects the historical grievances of years of Cold War-era CIA interference, sponsored coups, and social disruption in Latin America. However, it is deeply disappointing, especially since everyone was so relieved when he defeated Bolsonaro and promised to restore Brazil's democratic traditions and participation in international affairs. Giving the likes of Sergei Lavrov and the Russian Foreign Ministry a state visit/official reception and recognition isn't "neutrality," no matter how the administration might like to call it, because THEY ARE COMMITTING GENOCIDE. THEY ARE LITERALLY COMMITTING GENOCIDE. YOU DON'T NEED TO SOFT-WALK IT OR PROVIDE COVER JUST BECAUSE IT'S POLITICALLY CONVENIENT FOR YOU.

Anyway: Yes. This. Again.

#anonymous #ask #russia ukraine war #politics for ts

[warsofasoiaf]

Can you briefly explain what is going on between Venezuela and Guyana? I am not at all familiar with it; if war occurred could other powers (like the US, Brazil and perhaps the UK and Spain who are former imperial powers) get involved?

The territory in dispute is called Essequibo (named for the Essequibo River), and it has long been disputed between the two countries even back when they were colonial holdings. Venezuela has claimed that all territory to the west of the river is theirs. The border naming the territory as Guyanese was established in 1899 and has been variously upheld, either by the UK (since the UK was the colonial administrator of Guyana until the 60's) or by the USA under the Monroe Doctrine.

The reason why this dispute has cropped up again primarily deals with offshore oil deposits found in the territory. Both Guyana and Venezuela have asserted their claim to the territory to exploit the oil field.

Conflict is unlikely, given what I mentioned before. The US asserts Guyana's claim to the territory which was awarded to it by the ICJ. Brazil likewise believes the territory to be Guyanese. Mexico under Obrador sided with Venezuela.

Thanks for the question, Cle-Guy

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

#guyana #venezuela #essequibo #foreign policy

[determinate-negation]

In the face of the Biden administration’s aggressiveness and belligerence in foreign affairs, one can’t help but wonder: among the U.S. ruling elite, who is advocating war? Is there still a mechanism to curb such belligerence in the country?

This article comes to three conclusions: first, in the Biden administration, two foreign policy elite groups that used to compete against each other, liberal hawks and neoconservatives, have merged strategically, forming the most important foreign policy consensus within the elite echelon since 1948 and bringing the country’s war policy to a new level; second, in consideration of long-term interests, the big bourgeoisie in the United States has reached a consensus that China is a strategic rival, and has established solid support for its foreign policy; and third, due to the design of the U.S. Constitution, the expansion of the far-right forces, and the sheer monetization of elections, the so-called democratic institutions of checks and balances are completely incapable of restraining the belligerent policy from spreading.

[...]

In the field of foreign policy, the most influential think tank since World War II is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). This think tank receives donations from a variety of sources, and its current board includes Richard Haass, Bush Sr.’s principal adviser on the Middle East, and Ashton Carter, Obama’s Secretary of Defense. The German magazine Der Spiegel has described the CFR as “the most influential private institution in the United States and the Western world” and “the central politburo for capitalism”. Richard Harwood, senior editor and investigator at the Washington Post, called the council and its members “the closest thing to an American ruling body”.

Regardless of which party’s candidates they support in the elections, this long-standing collaborative network has maintained the stability of foreign policy. This U.S. supremacy worldview that denies other countries’ involvement in international affairs dates to the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, which proclaimed U.S domination to the entire Western hemisphere; only today’s U.S. foreign policy elite has applied this doctrine to the whole world rather than just the American continents. Cross-party synergy and party switching are common for this group of foreign policy makers, and they are closely tied to the ruling capitalist class, as well as to the Deep State (the intelligence services together with the military) that control U.S. foreign policy.

[...]

More critically, the upper echelon of the U.S. bourgeois elite has long been more influential than the “industrial elite” ever was. For example, Michael Bloomberg, whose value is estimated to have reached U.S. $83 billion and who owns 88% of the information services company Bloomberg, has also made considerable stock market investments over the years. Today’s billionaires from Eric Smidt to Charles Koch, George Soros, and Elon Musk, diversify their investments across industries and fund think tanks and policy groups through nonprofit foundations, enabling them to overcome the confines of short-term economic interests and see the big picture of foreign policy, in contrast to those old millionaires who, in the past, were focused on a single industry. A bourgeoisie with a shared consciousness would expect long-term excess returns from a fully liberalized Chinese market following the overthrow of the Chinese state, which is greater motivation for these billionaires to be willing to suffer temporary losses in some sectors as a result of containing China.

The CFR, which is depicted as “leading the U.S. government from behind the scenes,” has Founder-level corporate members including companies in energy (Chevron, ExxonMobil, Hess, Tellurian), finance (Merrill Lynch, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Blackstone), IT (Accenture, Apple, AT&T, Cisco), Internet (Google, Meta), among other sectors. In a research report published in January, the CFR proposed to “strengthen U.S.-Japan coordination in response to the Taiwan issue”. These policy proposals of preparing for war and containing China reflect the long-term strategic assertions of the bourgeois elite, which include the controllers, shareholders, and key accounts of the CFR members.

#really long but really good article #politics #imperialism #mine

[daughterofluthien]

tamora monroe and "there's no such thing as fate," please?

There’s no such thing as fate.

People had tried to tell her that for years, but she could never quite bring herself to believe it. She may not have landed the counseling position she wanted—the one she had spent years training and studying for—but when a friend sent her a job posting for an English teacher at one of the most troubled high schools in the state, she couldn’t help but feel like the Universe had set this all up just for her.

The students at Beacon Hills High had endured a lot over the past three years. A quick google search turned up multiple articles about mountain lion attacks, several separate serial killers, and even an infectious disease outbreak. Not to mention the recent rapid turnover of administration. She might not have the official job title, but there were a lot of students at that school that needed a sympathetic ear.

There’s no such thing as fate.

For some reason, none of her classes in trauma recovery had covered how exactly you were supposed to heal after waking up in a pile of bodies. None of her professors had talked about the bone deep fear that drives you to close your eyes in the face of the most terrifying thing she’d seen in her entire life. 

She didn’t know how she survived. She didn’t know how to talk to anyone about the fact that she had. 

How could she hope to help students when she was so lost and afraid herself?

There’s no such thing as fate.

No one had saved her, so Tamora had to save herself. 

She listened and studied, and learned there were monsters in the world. More than that, there were monsters in Beacon Hills—all the tragedies the town had faced over the years, they weren’t part of some improbable string of bad luck. All the evil and death had been the work of some malevolent hand.

Now all she needed to know was if the leadership of the town was complicit, or just unforgivably blind.  

There’s no such thing as fate.

The only practical way to fight a conspiracy, she soon learned, was to build one of her own. She’d learned so much more about the monsters now, and she knew what she had to do.

If the only way to save Beacon Hills was to drag it, bloody and screaming, into the light, then that’s what she would do. She came to this town to help troubled students, and that’s what she would do. No matter what tried to stand in her way.

After all, there was no such thing as fate.

#ty i had a lot of fun with this one! #teen wolf #tamora monroe #my fic #ask game

[deadpresidents]

GEORGE WASHINGTON •Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph J. Ellis (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •George Washington: A Life by Willard Sterne Randall (BOOK)

JOHN ADAMS •John Adams by David McCullough (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams by Joseph J. Ellis (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •John Adams: Party of One by James Grant (BOOK)

THOMAS JEFFERSON •Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power by Jon Meacham (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph J. Ellis (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History by Fawn Brodie (BOOK)

JAMES MADISON •The Three Lives of James Madison: Genius, Partisan, President by Noah Feldman (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •James Madison: A Life Reconsidered by Lynne Cheney (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •James Madison: A Biography by Ralph Ketcham (BOOK | AUDIO)

JAMES MONROE •James Monroe: A Life by Tim McGrath (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation's Call to Greatness by Harlow Giles Unger (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •James Monroe: The Quest for National Identity by Harry Ammon (BOOK)

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS •John Quincy Adams: American Visionary by Fred Kaplan (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, A Private Life by Paul C. Nagel (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •The Lost Founding Father: John Quincy Adams and the Transformation of American Politics by William J. Cooper (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •The Remarkable Education of John Quincy Adams by Phyllis Lee Levin (BOOK | KINDLE)

ANDREW JACKSON •American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House by Jon Meacham (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times by H.W. Brands (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Andrew Jackson, Volume I: The Course of American Empire, 1767-1821 by Robert V. Remini (BOOK) •Andrew Jackson, Volume II: The Course of American Freedom, 1822-1832 by Robert V. Remini (BOOK | KINDLE) •Andrew Jackson, Volume III: The Course of American Democracy, 1833-1845 by Robert V. Remini (BOOK)

MARTIN VAN BUREN •Martin Van Buren and the American Political System by Donald B. Cole (BOOK | KINDLE) •Martin Van Buren and the Emergence of American Popular Politics by Joel H. Silbey (BOOK) •Martin Van Buren: The Romantic Age of American Politics by John Niven (BOOK)

WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON •A Child of the Revolution: William Henry Harrison and His World, 1773-1798 by Hendrik Booraem V (BOOK | KINDLE) •Mr. Jefferson's Hammer: William Henry Harrison and the Origins of American Indian Policy by Robert M. Owens (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •The Carnival Campaign: How the Rollicking 1840 Campaign of "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" Changed Presidential Elections Forever by Ronald G. Shafer (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO)

#Books #Books About Presidents #Presidents #Presidency #Book Suggestions #Book Recommendations #George Washington #President Washington #General Washington #Washington Administration #John Adams #President Adams #Adams Administration #Thomas Jefferson #President Jefferson #Jefferson Administration #James Madison #President Madison #Madison Administration #James Monroe #Monroe Administration #President Monroe #John Quincy Adams #JQA #President J.Q. Adams #J.Q. Adams Administration #Andrew Jackson #President Jackson #General Jackson #Jackson Administration

[pub-lius]

burr pt.2 electric boogaloo (this joke is only funny to me)

its politics time, because Burr had a really fucking long political career and i get tired just reading about it. (also here's pt. 1)

Washington and Adams Administrations

Burr said he found politics "a great deal of fun" so he entered the 1792 gubernatorial race in NY, but withdrew bc Daddy Clinton told him to. He was supported by Northern republicans, but was distrusted by Southerners (wonder why). According to James Monroe, my detested, it was better to select "a person of more advanced life and longer standing in publick trust, particularly one who in consequence of such service had given unequivocal proofs of what his principles really were." Now, you may be thinking that he must be talking about Jefferson, but this is Monroe, and he was probably just kissing his own ass, as per usual.

Burr sided with anti-administration forces who opposed Hamilton's financial plan and Washington's foreign policy. Burr also defended Albert Gallatin who was unseated in 1794 after Federalists determined he did not meet the 9 year citizenship requirement.

Burr voted against Washington's nomination of John Jay as envoy to Britain in 1794, and was one of the most outspoken opponents of the Jay treaty.

Burr set his sights on the presidency with an energetic campaign in the 1796 election, and Republicans endorsed him as their second choice (ie vice-president canidate), but it was still a little divisive. Most, if not all, Democratic-Republicans voted for Thomas Jefferson, and only half of his voters also voted for Burr. Burr finished fourth with 30 electoral votes.

Burr retired from the Senate in 1797, and returned to the New York Assembly in 1798, making several enemies during his brief term. As relations with France got heated over the XYZ affair, Burr advocated for defensive measures to protect New York harbor. This was reasonable since New York was very strategically important, but it's location made it vulnerable to a naval attack. This prompted accusations that Burr had switched parties to the Federalist side, and that he abused public trust for personal benefit, a common theme in rumors about him. Allegedly, he participated in private land speculation ventures in NY and sought to enact legislation removing restrictions on land ownership by non-citizens, which would increase the value of western lands. Basically, they thought he was trying to influence legislation so he could make money.

Hammy boy is back and this time he is working together with Burr. Burr and Hamilton secured a charter and raised subscriptions for a private company to improve the water supply of Manhattan. These were two incredibly intelligent and creative men, and that is greatly reflected in their choice for the company's name, The Manhattan Water Company (/sarcasm). Turns out, the extra money from this was used to establish the Bank of Manhattan, which was controlled by Republicans. Pretend to be shocked even though both of them lived on Wall Street.

Some weird shit went down with the Republican voters in New York in the 1799 election, and Burr was turned out of office. People were really suspicious of him, but he remained a vital asset.

Burr opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which won him Demo-Republican support, especially in New York which had a large immigrant population. This ensured that NYC elected a Republican delegation to the state legislature in 1800.

Election of 1800

Republicans wanted a New Yorker for their 2nd presidential choice (im saying this instead of vice presidential candidate and you'll see why). Clinton refused, so Burr was the next option. He was nominated on May 11, 1800. Jefferson claimed he harbored reservations of Burr, but he was acting all nice to him to ensure Republican victory. Jefferson was also very busy with his behind-the-scenes campaign, writing letters and encouraging press support that was critical of the Adams Administration. This is when he called him a hermaphrodite btw.

Burr had a far more active campaign technique. He visited Rhode Island and Connecticut in late August to secure Republican support. Burr's political prowess during 1800 raised suspicion among enemies and supporters. He didn't fit the stoic, unattached statesman who just let his supporters run the campaign for him. Burr campaigned more like a modern politician.

It was generally expected that each elector would cast one vote for Jefferson, one for Burr. Each elector had two votes, and they didn't distinguish who they wanted for president, and who they wanted for vice president. Whoever came in second would be VP, so the party would generally determine who they would advocate the most, and who they would advocate the second most. Basically they were like "this guy is great! this guy is also pretty good. also we HATE those guys (other party's nominees)" So, they really just hoped that Jefferson would get the most, and Burr would get second.

...but, uh, by mid-December, Republicans still didn't have a president in office. They definitely defeated the Federalists, because Adams and Jay had like. no votes. But Jefferson and Burr both had 73 votes, and were at a stalemate, which meant that the vote would be taken to the House of Representatives.

Federalists JUMPED on this opportunity, specifically Hamilton, who had already doomed Adams to lose the election. Some Federalists believed that Burr was more flexible and less partisan, and would be more likely to approve Federalist legislation. Other Federalists who supported Burr hoped that if the two parties were deadlocked for too long, Federalist-leaning Congress would resolve the impasse with legislation authorizing the Senate to elect a Federalist president. This is stupid and idk why people thought this was possible.

Hamilton launched into his smear campaign of Burr. He advised other Federalists not to trust Burr in very simple words, but in the background he was spreading awful rumors about Burr, which was pretty usual. The only difference from how he attacked Burr vs how he attacked Adams is that he didn't publish anything about Burr, but he would have.

The House of Representatives announced Jefferson was the winner on February 17, 1801. Burr made only a few comments and they were guarded, evasive, and contradictory. He seemed particularly angry that there were rumors that he was soliciting Federalist support in an attempt to steal the presidency, which he didn't do, but he happily accepted any Federalist votes.

"...take no step whatsoever, by which the choice of the House of Representatives can be impeded or embarrassed, [instead] keep the game perfectly in Your own hand." -advice from Federalist Robert Goodloe Harber against withdrawing from the election that Burr followed

Jefferson Administration

Burr was inaugurated as VP on March 4, 1804 by James Hillhouse in the Senate Chamber of the new capitol. He gave a brief address of "about 3 sentences" which was overshadowed by Jefferson's speech.

He immediately received a shit ton of letters from associates seeking appointments and demanding removal of Federalists. He handed these off to Jefferson, who removed the "midnight appointments" from the Adams Administration.

In fall of 1801, Burr campaigned for a naval position for Matthew L. Davis, and it was around this time that Jefferson began to distance himself from Burr. Davis' appointment was reliant on Clinton and De Witt for a NY appointment. De Witt talked mad shit about Burr, and Burr was so upset that he talked in the third person about it (he did this a lot).

"The handbills were numerous, of various descriptions, uniform however in Virulent and indecent abuse. [T]o Vilify A.B. was deemed of so much consequence that packages of them were sent to various parts of the country." -Burr

Burr lost like. all political relevance except for being VP. I mean, people still respected him because he wasn't bad at his job, but they were incredibly suspicious of his Federalist friendships, alienation from Republicans, and his now infamous opportunism.

On January 27, 1802. Burr cast a tie-breaking vote that undercut Republican effort to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1801, which provided reforms to the Supreme Court which allowed for a potentially Federalist controlled judiciary (shout out John Marshall). Burr voted for Republican repeal, and secretly informed Federalists he would add amendments to make it acceptable to moderate Republicans. He resolved the tie in favor of Federalists.

"I am for the affirmative, because I can never resist the reference of a measure where the Senate is so nicely balanced, when the object is to effect amendment, that may accommodate it to the opinions of a larger majority; & particularly when I can believe that gentlemen are sincere in wishing a reference for this purpose. Should it, however, at any time appear that delay only is intended, my conduct will be different." -Burr (apparently in 2020 I didn't think it was important to have dates for my quotes.)

After Burr announced a select committee consisting of 2 Republicans, 2 Federalists, and 1 moderate, The New York Evening Post wrote, "The Vice President was very deliberate. He took ballots of the respective Senators, examined them attentively, state the number of them, & holding them up in his hand, mentioned that gentlemen, if they chose, might come and examine them. Mr. G[ouverneur] Morris hoped never to see, in the Senate, a proceeding implying so much distrust." And i'd love to tell you what political party the Evening Post was associated with, but I didn't know how to take notes in 2020, and I'm losing my mind just a little.

Burr continued to be estranged from his own party, possibly to form his own, but no one really liked him so, tough luck. Burr contacted Jefferson, saying that he thought it was best for him to retire for the sake of the party, and wanted Jefferson to publicly give him his confidence. Jefferson said he had no influence in the last election, but he would in the next, which is weird and foreboding but aight. Jefferson didn't trust Burr because he was pissy that Burr warned Madison not to trust people (ie Jefferson) too much.

Burr retired without Jefferson's "mark of favor", and was replaced as VP by Clinton. After leaving the vice-presidency, he entered the NY gubernatorial race to have some kind of a job, since he was majorly in debt.

*wipes sweat dramatically* okay so i think i'll have 1-2 more Burr posts, and then we're onto Lafayette, which is going to be significantly more extensive because I've read two full books about him, and taken notes on him. and THEN i have to do Hamilton which will be. even more extensive. but we got this. okay bye see you in the next one

#aaron burr #history #amrev #alexander hamilton #american history #amrev history #thomas jefferson #founding fathers #election of 1800 #do it for richie 💪

[presidentialsims]

Simerican 2024 Presidential Election candidates are announced.

Beginning | Previous | Next

Simerica’s three largest political parties have each released the official election posters for their respective candidates.

Incumbent President Henry Cronin of the Simtrist Party has launched his 2024 campaign with a rally in his home town of Brindleton, where the Cronin family has long been a fixture of local politics. The Cronin campaign seems to have pivoted from previous policies with the environment seems to have taken a backseat and economic inequality (which Cronin pledged to combat during his first term in the White House) does not feature in the Simtrist Party’s manifesto. Nevertheless, Cronin was greeted by a sizeable crowd who cheered his campaign slogan, “Leading Simerica into tomorrow”.

The Sim Workers’ Party have, for only the second time, nominated a presidential candidate after Elliot Fleig’s campaign performed better than expected, trouncing the Simertarians in many of their traditional strongholds, but this was not enough to defeat Cronin, who won the election in a landslide. Now, the SWP’s rising star Delilah Stokes, Congresswoman for Willow Creek’s Foundry Cove district, has entered the race. Stokes is not a political newcomer having run against Simertarian Party stalwart Jasper Monroe in the 2021 Gubernatorial election in Louisimana and suffering a narrow defeat. With many Simerican households facing a bleak economic outlook, Stokes is confident her campaign, which is promising progressive taxation and nationalisation of several key Simerican utilities, will win even more support than her predecessor and mentor, Party Leader Elliot Fleig.

Hoping to reverse the recent trend of poor electoral performance for the Simertarian Party, Ulysses T. Hatfield has also kicked off his campaign with a rally in his home state of Winconsim, where he is currently Governor. Taking to the stage alongside wife Ruby-Ann and children Billy, Hank, and Elizabeth, Governor Hatfield has promised to “resurrect traditional Simerican industries” which he sees as having lost out under the Cronin administration’s eco-friendly and “anti-business” policies. With the backing of a united and invigorated Simertarian Party, who seem to have put the Goth debacle firmly behind them, Hatfield is hoping to galvanise communities who have drifted away from Simertarian influence. With a well-funded campaign that is widely supported by many industries, Hatfield is President Cronin’s stiffest competition in this year’s election.

#presidentialsims #President Cronin #the cronins #thecroninadministration #TS4 #ts4 roleplay #ts4 roleplaying #ts4 story #ts4 storytelling #TS4 SCREENSHOTS #ts4politics #TS4Simblr #TS4whitehouse #unitedstatesofsimerica #presidentialsims: #presidentialsims:Cronin1

[racefortheironthrone]

So bit of a vague question , but I’d be interested in how you feel about “the world outside your window” with marvel. Ofc it was started a lot more in line with the current happenings of the world specifically New York but these days due to a few reasons , such as the sliding timescale, to retain characters they’ve made things like the Sian Cong war, and then there’s fictional characters as presidents, street level becomes cosmic level, many events, more and more fantastical city, etc. not that it’s an issue on my end, esp since I’ve never had a connection to New York (different big city where no superheroes live :( ) so it’s always been a degree of speeratjon, but I’d be curious how you feel about it / what the heart of “outside your window” is that must be kept but other things don’t have to. Thank you!

The "World Outside Your Window" as a concept/slogan has always been a tricky thing, because it was sort of retrofitted onto the Marvel Universe from Jim Shooter's "New Universe" (an experimental brand-new comics universe which was supposed to have mirrored our universe exactly prior to the "White Event" that gave some people super-powers; the "New Universe" was also distinctive for not having a sliding timescale and being set in real time, such that the events of each comic were supposed to happen a month apart, and so forth).

The Marvel Universe had more of a complicated relationship with reality: the Fantastic Four would mention Beatlemania, but in the Marvel Universe it was the FF who was getting mobbed by young women at JFK; Sue Storm would mention Marilyn Monroe, but in the Marvel Universe it was Sue doing the famous photoshoot on a red velvet backdrop. On the other hand, there was also the original fiction that Marvel Comics existed in the Marvel Universe, with Stan and Jack making cameos that made it clear that they were working on (non-fiction) comics about America's biggest celebrities at the merry Marvel Bullpen.

It also mattered when you were talking about the Marvel Universe; the sliding timescale evolved gradually in the late 70s/early 80s and Marvel was a lot more specific about its real world references before it set in: most older men were WWII veterans, Charles Xavier fought in Korea, Tony Stark became Iron Man in a very definite Vietnam, real U.S presidents made cameos in Marvel comics and were elected (or not) in real time (people forget that the original Days of Future Past was themed around the election of Ronald Reagan; Chris Claremont pulled no punches), and characters were given definite birthdates and canon ages.

(That's right; Jean Grey is old enough to collect Social Security, although the Social Security Administration might raise a fuss about how to count missed payments when she was dead.)

But Marvel jettisoned that cultural specificity in the 80s in favor of the sliding timescale - and I think you can't have both a sliding timescale and "the world outside your window" because characters don't age and (confusingly) cultural change happens in the background without explanation. It's one of the reasons why Marvel has given Chip Zdarsky the creative freedom to do Spider-Man: Life Story (and then let Mark Russell steal the same idea for the FF).

#marvel #marvel meta #the world outside your window

[alphaman99]

HISTORY THAT SHOULDN'T BE FORGOTTEN.

Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason. He was imprisoned for 2 years without a trial, however...

The post-war Jefferson Davis: The famous trial that never was.

By Bill Ward

When the War Between the States ended, the victorious Northerners viewed Jefferson Davis, as the former President of the Confederate States of America, much differently than others who had served the Confederacy.

For example, when Robert E. Lee surrendered to U.S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, the meeting between the two generals was amicable. Lee was received and treated with courtesy as a senior officer. The terms were so apparently lenient, with Grant conceding to Lee’s requests on behalf of his soldiers, the surrender was referred to as “a gentleman’s agreement.”

However, even after signing a loyalty oath, Lee and other former Confederate Army officers and members of the CSA government were later disenfranchised and treated as second-class citizens. But in the eyes of the northern public, Jefferson Davis was set apart for still a different kind of treatment.

On May 10, 1865, about a mile from the town of Irwinville, Georgia, Federal troops captured Davis. With his arrest on that spring morning, his government ceased to exist. His wife, Varina, and their children were sent to Savannah, where she was kept under virtual house arrest and forbidden to leave the city. Because the soldiers, carpetbaggers and Union supporters treated the Davis children so badly, Varina arranged for them to go to Canada along with her mother.

Davis had been taken back to Virginia and imprisoned in Fort Monroe, where he would stay for the next two years. At first, he was bound in leg irons. Guards watched him around the clock but were not permitted to speak to him. He was allowed no visitors; a light burned in his cell day and night; and his only reading material was a Bible. His treatment was a clear violation of the Bill of Rights.

Many Northern Congressmen and newspapers were nothing short of vicious in their public attacks of Davis. They wanted to see him tried for treason and hanged. In one article, and in one very long sentence, the New York Times referred to Davis by every insulting comment and offensive name that was fit to print. Rhetoric far outran legal reasoning.

But if Davis was in an unusual legal predicament, so was the United States government. The dilemma faced by Washington was how to handle the Davis case. The government under Lincoln had created its own major obstacles by spending four years proclaiming that secessionists were “traitors and conspirators.” The U.S. military had silenced opposition to the administration by closing down newspapers that dared challenge the party line or to make the slightest suggestion that secession might be legal. Thousands of Northerners had been jailed for exercising their First Amendment rights, and those thousands had friends with long memories in the Northern bar.

Northern lawyers were angry for having their clients locked in prison with no civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution; having civilians tried by military courts for non-existent crimes; having a government that ignored the Supreme Court, setting itself above the constitutional plan of checks and balances. They didn’t like having to beg the president for justice for clients convicted by phony courts-martial or locked up for long periods without any trial. Under Lincoln, the U.S. government had become tyrannical, and certainly anything but a free and constitutional society.

The best lawyers of the day were willing to volunteer to defend Jefferson Davis, because they were angry at the way Lincoln’s government had trampled the Bill of Rights and the Constitution for four years. Even those who didn’t believe in secession were repulsed by the conduct of the Republican administration and the U.S. military.

Charles O’Connor of New York, one of the most famous trial lawyers of the era and a man of great stature in the legal profession, volunteered to be Davis’s counsel. Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, would be the trial judge.

But interesting things began to happen, and the government’s dilemma became even worse. University of Virginia Law Professor, Albert Bledsoe, published a book, “Is Davis a Traitor?” Bledsoe methodically took apart the case against secession, delivering a solid blow to the prosecutors and dampening their zeal to try Davis. Prosecutors actually began to look for a way to avoid trying him without vindicating the South.

Then another method was decided on for prosecution. The attorney general would bring in outside, independent counsel, as we have seen in modern times, such as in Watergate or the Clinton scandals. The government needed someone of great standing in the legal community to be the lead prosecutor. It chose John J. Clifford. But after reviewing the case, Clifford withdrew citing “grave doubts” about the validity of the case. The government could “end up having fought a successful war, only to have it declared unlawful by a Virginia jury,” where Davis’s “crime” was alleged to have been committed.

President Johnson, Lincoln’s successor, thought the easiest way out would be to pardon Davis, as he had pardoned many other Confederates. But Davis refused, saying, “To ask for a pardon would be a confession of guilt.” He wanted a trial to have the issue of secession decided by a court of law — where it should have been decided to begin with — instead of on battlefields. Most Southerners wanted the same.

Northerners either forgot or were unaware of a great secessionist tradition in America. Southerners were not alone in their view that each state had the right to determine its own destiny in the Union. The procedure for joining the Union also applied to withdrawing from the Union.

That thought harkens back to an editorial by the Cincinnati (Ohio) Daily Inquirer, in the summer of 1861, after the “traitor” label was let loose by the North: “The Republican papers are great on treason. . . . It is treason to circulate petitions for a compromise or peaceful readjustment of our national troubles . . . to question the constitutional powers of the President to increase the standing army without authority of law . . . to object to squads of military visiting private houses, and to make search and seizures. . . to question the infallibility of the President, and treason not to concur with him. . . It is treason to talk of hard times; to say that the war might have been avoided. It is treason to be truthful and faithful to the Constitution.”

A year after John Clifford withdrew, the government appointed another special counsel, Richard Dana of Boston, who had written the novel, “Two Years Before the Mast.” But after reviewing the evidence, he agreed with Clifford; the case was a loser. Dana argued that “a conviction will settle nothing in law or national practice not now settled…as a rule of law by war.” Dana observed that the right to secede from the Union had not been settled by civilized means but by military power and the destruction of much life and property in the South. The North should accept its uncivilized victory, however dirty its hands might be, and not expose the fruits of its carnage to scrutiny by a peaceful court of law.

Now, over two years after Davis’s imprisonment and grand jury indictments for treason, the stage was set for the great public trial of the century. Davis had been released from prison on a $100,000 bond, supported by none other than Horace Greeley, the leading abolitionist writer in the North and a former Lincoln supporter. Greeley and a host of others were outraged at the treatment Davis had received, being locked up in a dungeon for more than two years with no speedy trial.

Since two famous special counsels had told the government its case was a loser, finally, none other than the Chief Justice, in a quirk of Constitutional manipulation, devised an idea to avoid a trial without vindicating the South. His amazing solution was little short of genius.

The Fourteenth Amendment had been adopted, which provided that anyone who had engaged in insurrection against the United States and had at one time taken an oath of allegiance (which Davis had done as a U.S. Senator) could not hold public office. The Bill of Rights prevents double jeopardy, so Davis, who had already been punished once by the Fourteenth Amendment in not being permitted to hold public office, couldn't be tried and punished again for treason.

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase secretly passed along his clever argument to Davis’s counsel, Charles O’Connor, who then made the motion to dismiss. The Court took the motion under consideration, passing the matter on to the Supreme Court for determination.

In late December 1867 while the motion was pending, President Johnson granted amnesty to everyone in the South, including Davis. But the Davis case was still on the docket. In February 1868, at a dinner party attended by the Chief Justice and a government attorney, they agreed that on the following day a motion for non-prosecution would be made that would dismiss the case. A guest overheard the conversation and reported what was on the minds of most Southerners: “I did not consider that he [Davis] was any more guilty of treason than I was, and that a trial should be insisted upon, which could properly only result in a complete vindication of our cause, and of the action of the many thousands who had fought and of the many thousands who had died for what they felt to be right.”

And so, the case of United States versus Jefferson Davis came to its end — a case that was to be the trial of the century, a great state trial, perhaps the most significant trial in the history of the nation — that never was.

[presidentialchampionstournment]

Monroe (from ChatGPT): The Monroe administration refers to the presidency of James Monroe, who served as the fifth President of the United States from 1817 to 1825. His administration is often characterized by a period of relative national harmony and stability known as the "Era of Good Feelings." One of the most significant events of Monroe's administration was the formulation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. This policy declared that European powers should not interfere in the affairs of the newly independent nations of Latin America and warned against any further colonization efforts in the Western Hemisphere. The doctrine had a lasting impact on U.S. foreign policy.

LBJ (from ChatGPT): Johnson played a pivotal role in advancing civil rights, signing into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. He also signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which aimed to overcome legal barriers preventing African Americans from exercising their right to vote. Johnson's administration initiated the "Great Society" programs, which aimed to combat poverty and inequality. These programs included the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid to provide healthcare for the elderly and low-income individuals, respectively, as well as the creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the expansion of federal aid to education. Johnson declared a "War on Poverty," launching various initiatives such as Head Start, Job Corps, and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 to address issues of poverty and unemployment. Johnson's presidency was overshadowed by the Vietnam War. While initially supporting limited involvement, Johnson escalated U.S. military involvement significantly, leading to widespread protests and social unrest domestically.

#polls #random polls #tumblr polls #tumblr poll #my polls #hyperspecific poll #poll time #random poll #us history #usa #america #politics #american history #us politics #usa politics #american politics #history