The Battle of Bunker Hill

U.S. National Park Service

 I recently came across a reference to the Battle of Bunker Hill, a famous battle in the Colonies' quest for independence.  We won that battle, didn't we?  Actually, no we did not.  If we did not win, why is it remembered as so important?

I suspect that I am like a lot of us.  I recognized the name and thought I remembered it had been important in our early history, but I did not really know what made it important.  I wrongly assumed that we must have won.  The New Englanders who fought in that battle were mostly a rag-tag collection of farmers, bringing their own weapons, led by men whose military experience had been largely in fighting with the British against the French. 

 The British had experienced leadership, but the soldiers themselves were not seasoned.  To make their effectiveness even worse, they were ordered to march side by side in their heavy red uniforms while taking fire from the New Englanders.  Their plan was to slaughter the Americans in close quarters as they struggled to load their muskets.  British discipline failed, they did not follow orders, and they did not reach the colonists to slaughter them with their sabers. The British soldiers fled, stumbling over their own dead and wounded. Later, they returned and took the ground, but at a terrible sacrifice.  The rag-tag Englanders did not win, but they showed they could stand against the British, despite their ragged clothing, limited ammunition, and fairly sketchy knowledge of military discipline.  

Washington did not arrive until later, and ultimately the rag-tag nature of the soldiers was improved with discipline and training, but their stand at Bunker Hill reinforced the idea of independence, not merely demanding better treatment from the English.  Until then, it was resentment about taxes, particularly 1: the stamp act: with taxes on paper, playing cards, and legal documents, 2: the tea act, giving the East India Company a virtual monopoly on selling tea to the colonies, and 3: the sugar act, a tax on molasses as an example, --which brought more dissatisfaction in the Northern States than in the South.  

Bunker Hill changed that.  George Washington agreed to lead the Army, and gradually more of the Colonies began to accept the idea of Freedom.  Washington demanded better military discipline, and few of the New Englanders who had led the farmers were made officers under Washington.  Yet, the role they played is accurately respected for bringing the colonies together and igniting the idea that the Colonists could beat the English.  In short, they kept the notion of American liberty alive, while those less certain gradually joined the cause of Freedom.  

Prior to Bunker Hill, it was so-called radicals, who whispered the word of Freedom, but after Bunker Hill, the whispers spread, and voices grew.  Without Bunker Hill, would America have found the courage to fight for freedom.? 

Daniel Webster spoke at the laying of the cornerstone for the monument on Bunker Hill in 1825, and his words have warned the generations that followed.  "There remains in us a great duty of defense and preservation...(and) may the country itself become a vast and splendid monument, not of oppression and terror, but of Wisdom, of Peace, and of Liberty, upon which the world may gaze with admiration forever!"

Perhaps today is the right time to be reminded of his words.

   

What did Past Presidents Say? #1

  

  With Election Day drawing closer, I thought it might be interesting to explore what some of our past Presidents had to say.  It seems appropriate to begin with our first president, George Washington, who was concerned enough by what he called "The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party" to sound a warning in his Farewell Address.  The following quote explains the concerns Washington had about the dangers of Americans adhering too closely to political parties rather than judging for themselves after careful consideration.   

Washington warned:  "It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; ferments occasionally riot and insurrection.  It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion.  ...A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warning, it should consume."

From the time of Washington's presidency to the present, political parties have come and gone, but the power and influence of political parties have remained.  His words continue to deserve consideration. 

    We sometimes forget the bravery of our founding fathers, who literally risked their lives to establish the federal government of the United States of America, and the Constitution that has guided our nation.  One of those men was John Langdon of New Hampshire.  James Madison described Langdon as "a true patriot and a good man, with a noble way of thinking and a frankness and warmth of heart that made his friends love him much, as it did me in a high degree."  While many of us may not recognize his name, his generosity and wisdom have played an important role in the founding of our nation.  He served his state of New Hampshire in many roles, but his words are important in considering the importance of the roles played by both states and our nation.  John Langdon said:  "The General and State Governments are not enemies to each other, but different institutions for the good of the people of America.  As one of the people, I can say the National Government is mine, the State Government is mine.  In transferring power from one to the other, I only take out of my left hand what it cannot so well use, and put it into my right hand where it can be better used."

    I find it very important to reflect on the amazing courage and wisdom of our founding fathers.  On June 19, 2024, I shared A Patriate Sometimes Overlooked, describing the role played by John Marshall in shaping our Supreme Court.  You might enjoy scrolling back to that post. 

    Next week I will post thoughts from other past presidents.   

        

Do Lies Matter?

 I have written about lying in this blog in the past, but the common acceptance of it continues to trouble me.  A study at the University of Massachusetts found that 60% of people cannot go 10 minutes without lying at least once.  A study at the University of Virginia found that people are more likely to lie over the phone than in person, and another study found people were more likely to lie to strangers.  The list of reasons range from protecting themselves or others, gaining social acceptance, avoiding the consequences of illegal or disreputable activity, and to gain an advantage, to maintain privacy, and to avoid looking foolish or ignorant.  

The studies I read did not seem to include internet lying.  If people are more likely to lie over the telephone than in person, I would assume than lying on the internet is even more common.  Some of the reasons seem more understandable than others, but from my perspective, the acceptance of lying is disheartening.  Many famous people have expressed their concerns and disapproval about lying.  However, as I share some of their comments, you will notice that many of those I quote are long dead!  Do modern commentators find lying less disreputable? 

Here are some thought provoking quotes:

He who tells a lie is not sensible to how great a task he undertakes, for he must be forced to invent twenty more to maintain that one. Alexander Pope, 1688-1744, English Poet and Translator. 

Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to be honest.  Benjamin Franklin, 1706-1790, writer, scientist, inventor, statesman, diplomate, printer, publisher and political philosopher.

It is discouraging how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.  Noel Coward, 1899-1973, English Playwright, composer, director, actor, singer.

The cruelest lies are often told in silence.  Robert Lewis Stevenson, 1859-1894, Novelist essayist, poet, and travel writer.

I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.  Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844-1900, German Philosopher, prose poet, critic, philologist, and composer.

A good liar knows that the most effective lie is always a truth that has had a key piece removed from it.  Carlos Ruiz Aafon, Spanish Novelist, 1964-2020, and author of one of my favorite books, The Shadow of the Wind.

And, continuing with two living authors, I don't like lies...even lies of omission.  Hard truths can be delt with, triumphed over, but lies will destroy your soul.  Patricia Briggs, American author of fantasy.

The trust of the innocent is the liar's most useful tool.  Stephen King, American author of Supernatural fiction, suspense, and crime.

I believe lies do matter, and I fear that the disrespect for truthfulness is a threat to the Nation.  George Washington was known for his firm moral conscience.  His leadership as our first President was very important to the young nation and what he helped shape in those first years.  For 200 years, he was known for his honesty as a little boy for admitting to his father that he was the one who cut down the cherry tree.  That story of a little boy who 'could not tell a lie' became a part of what was expected for our leadership and for its citizens.  

The irony is that an itinerate minister named Mason Locke Weems, set out to make Washington a role model for young men by mythologizing young Washington's life.  For over 200 years, the story of chopping down the cherry tree was taken as fact.  The myth that Weems created almost certainly would have displeased Washington, whose integrity should have given Weems many accurate examples to describe Washington's honesty and sense of responsibility, rather than inventing a false story.    

 I believe neglect of telling the truth matters, and I have chosen to share the words quoted above to express my feelings about that importance.  Our justice system depends on people willing to tell the truth.  Those we elect to office are expected to honor the oath of office they have taken.  Contracts mean nothing if those who enter into them have no intention of honoring what they have contracted to do. Reflecting on whether lies matter seems important to me.    

America's Unique President

Oil painting by Anders Leonard Zorn

Americans may debate which president was the most intelligent, which was the most admired, which was the most wise, and which was the most popular--among other characteristics for which our presidents might contend.  But,  only one President can claim the unique experience of serving two non-consecutive terms.  Grover Cleveland was elected the 22nd President of the United States in 1885, was defeated in the next Presidential election, and was elected the 24th President in 1893.

Because Isaac Werner's journal resumed in 1884, and I follow his story until his estate was settled in 1898, the presidential years of Grover Cleveland have been part of my research.  The son of a Presbyterian minister, Cleveland was known as a man of integrity, who fought political corruption and patronage.  His campaign slogan in 1884 was "A public office is a public trust."

The President (front center) and his 2nd Cabinet

However, his intervention in the Pullman Strike of 1894, backing the Railroad rather than the striking workers, and his support of the Gold Standard rather than Free Silver, put him in opposition to populists like Isaac Werner.  The picture at right shows Richard Olney, a former railroad attorney, and the one acting for the president in the Pullman Strike, (on the left of Cleveland in the photo, hands clutched in his lap).   Other decisions that were contrary to the needs of workers and veterans were his veto of hundreds of private pension bills for American Civil War veterans and his veto of the Congressional Seed Bill, which had appropriated funds to purchase seed grain for farmers whose crops had been completely destroyed by a drought, leaving them nothing to plant for the next season.  He justified his veto, saying:  "...the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people."

One position taken by Cleveland would have pleased populists, when he stood up against the railroads by ordering an investigation of the western lands granted to the railroads by the government, resulting in the forfeiture of some 81,000,000 acres because the promised rail lines for which the lands had been granted had never been built.  

During his first term in the White House, at the age of 49 he married the beautiful 21-year-old Frances Folsom.  When Cleveland was defeated in 1889, his wife was reported to have told a White House staff member, "I want you to take good care of all the furniture and ornaments in the house, for I want to find everything just as it is now, when we come back again."  Her confidence proved warranted when they returned to the White House in 1893!  No other president has returned to the White House after failing to be reelected following his first term.

The tradition of serving only two terms was established by George Washington, although there was, at first, no prohibition against running again.  Franklin Roosevelt ignored that tradition, having won the presidency four times, 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944, although he died less than a year into his fourth term.

In response to FDR's dominance of the office for so long, congressional Republicans proposed the 22nd Amendment, which is now law:  "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once."  You will notice the limit of 6 years for any one person to serve in the office of president.

President Ronald Reagan expressed disapproval of that limitation to a reporter, saying the inability to run for a third term, whether or not the president actually chose to do so, inhibits a lame-duck president from accomplishing important matters because everyone knows his power will end at the close of his second 4-year term.

The Constitution states that in the case of impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate, there are two penalties imposed on the guilty president:  removal from office and disqualification "to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."  Since such a conviction has never occurred, the manner in which removal and disqualification occur has never been employed.

Recently a man, known for spreading conspiracies, tweeted that although President Trump has been impeached, were the Senate to fail to convict it would nullify the president's first term and allow him to run for office two more times.  That tweet is inconsistent with the 22nd Amendment stating "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..."  While President Trump might run for President a second time, to attempt a third term would violate the 22nd Amendment.

In the case of President Cleveland, he did seek the nomination for a fourth run for the presidency but failed to be nominated by his party.

(As an aside, looking back to last week's summary of presidential firsts in communication, Cleveland was the 1st president to be photographed by a motion picture camera when, in his final hours in office, he was photographed at William McKinley's inauguration on March 4, 1897.)

How Our Presidents have Communicated

At the peak of the Populist Movement of which Isaac Werner and many of our ancestors were a part, the People's Party had succeeded in electing not only local candidates but also state and federal officials.  The People's Party was challenging the Republicans and Democrats for the votes of primarily working people, but also some professionals.  

In 1896, however, they took a strategic risk.  They decided to nominate as the People's Party presidential candidate the same man as the Democratic nominee--Wm Jennings Bryan, a 36 year old man from Nebraska.

Their strategy failed, and it split the People's Party.  But, during his campaign, Bryan used the trains to reach more potential voters than a presidential candidate ever had, traveling 18,000 miles between September 11th and November 1 to give 600 speeches to an estimated 5,000,000 people.

The American constitution stipulates that the president "shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."  We are now familiar with seeing the sitting president deliver the annual State of the Union Address on our televisions, but George Washington delivered his message to congress in the provincial capital of New York City on January 8, 1790, and his 'recommended measures judged necessary and expedient' were left to be conveyed to the public in newspapers and broadsheets..  

How communication has changed over the years!  Rutherford B. Hays was the first president to speak by telephone from the White House in 1877, but it was Abraham Lincoln who installed a line for his use in the War Department, used to communicate with state governors and generals.

Although Warren G. Harding was the first president to make a speech by radio, on June 14, 1922, his voice was first transmitted by telephone to a broadcasting station and from there broadcast over the radio.  Of course, the president we think of as a master of radio is Franklin Roosevelt, who reached out to Americans so effectively in a conversational manner during his regular "fireside chats."

The first televised address was given by Harry Truman on October 5, 1947, but Dwight Eisenhower was the first to use television regularly, particularly his use of television commercials in his 1952 campaign.

What Richard Nixon called "the most historic phone call ever made from the White House" on July 20, 1969, occurred when he spoke to the Apollo astronauts on the moon.  The call was set up in advance over a microwave link between Washington and Houston, then out via microwave link to the Deep Space Network, then over DSN stations with the moon in view via S-band.

Bill Clinton was the first president to use email, initially more of a test to show the president how emails were done.  President Clinton himself regards the first e-mail he sent as president to be the one he sent to astronaut John Glenn soon after he boarded the International Space Station.  About a year later, Clinton became the first president to participate in a Webchat hosted by Democratic Leadership Council and an internet company.

While Obama's 2008 presidential campaign used social media very effectively, the first tweet by President Barack Obama was on January 18, 2010 when he hit the "send" button for a tweet composed by an employee hosting the president and first lady on a tour of the Red Cross headquarters in Washington.

Great technological changes in communication have occurred over those decades.  Today, the faces

The Home of our Presidents

and voices of our presidents are familiar from their many appearances on television.

Donald Trump, our current president, is not the first president to tweet, but he is certainly the one to have made tweeting his trademark.  According to Bustle, an online magazine for American women, Trump tweeted 2,568 times during his first year as president.  An article in the New York Times documented the most tweets sent by Trump in one day, in mid-December of 2019, as 123 tweets.

I do not tweet and I have no account, but many people around the world do.  If fact, it was estimated as of September of 2019 that there were about 350 million global monthly active twitter users, with 100 million active daily, 20.5% of those being in the United States.

I cannot predict the methods future presidents may use to communicate to America's citizens.  I can only hope that the future of communication bears no likeness to the telescreens in George Orwell's classic novel, 1984.  

Because today is Flag Day...

Because today is Flag Day, I am adding a bonus post, in addition to my continuing series about "My Antonia."  When my Mother was a little girl, her father teased her about all of the flags flying on her June 14th birthday.  He told her the flags were for her.  I'm not sure she ever really doubted that they were!

In a way, those flags do fly for all of us, and so I post this special Flag Day blog with some wisdom from past Presidents, and one from the United States Supreme Court, to remind us why we honor that glorious symbol of our nation.

The way to secure liberty is to place it in the people's hands, that is, to give them the power at all times to defend it in the legislature and in the courts of justice.  John Adams

A primary object should be the education of our youth in the science of government.  In a republic what species of knowledge can be equally important?  And what duty more pressing than communicating it to those who are to be future guardians of the liberties of the country?  George Washington

We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.  United States Supreme Court, Texas v. Johnson

America will never be destroyed from the outside.  If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.  Abraham Lincoln

No government is perfect.  One of the chief virtues of a democracy, however, is that its defects are always visible and under democratic processes can be pointed out and corrected.  Harry S. Truman

America has never been united by blood or birth or soil.  We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens.  George W. Bush

May the wisdom of those words inspire all of us, and long may our flag fly.

The County Capital & The St. John News

Ad from the County Capital

For those of you who follow this blog, you have frequently seen references to The County Capital.  It was the newspaper to which Isaac Werner subscribed and for which he occasionally wrote.  It was the newspaper of the progressive movement, and it unabashedly supported populist ideas.

The St. John News was the Republican newspaper.  Its bias was equally obvious, for which they made no apologies.  That was the practice of that era, and people subscribed to the paper with which they agreed.

The community of Stafford had the Stafford Democrat, which declared its perspective in its name, so it appears that if you lived in Stafford County in the 1880s, you were able to subscribe to a newspaper that printed the news with the bias that allowed you to read the news from the perspective you wanted to read.  

Just as I have often quoted from one of President Bush's advisors, "People read to be affirmed, not to be informed," and that was true in Isaac's time, just as it is today.  While it might be thought that the internet, which makes access to information so easily available, would make people more broadly informed, that has not appeared to be the case.

Political cartoon re wealthy control of the press

Freedom of the press is one of our most valued promises, alongside freedom of speech.  They are really just two sides of the same coin, for one is a form of speech published widely and the other is speech which may or may not be more limited.  Our first President, George Washington, said:  "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."  But what if that freedom is used to protect misinformation and propaganda as well as factual information?

Americans are generous in protecting these freedoms.  As lawyer Alan Dershowitz has said:  "Freedom of speech means freedom for those who you despise, and freedom to express the most despicable views.  It also means that the government cannot pick and choose which expressions to authorize and which to prevent. 

Clearly, in Isaac's time the use of newspapers for political purposes was commonplace.  Political parties even endorsed specific newspapers as their official organ.  The St. John News made a joke of having lost subscribers due to the popularity of the populist movement in their area, saying 'now our former subscribers have to borrow a copy to read the News.'

The importance of free speech is not just an American ideal, however. French novelist, Marcel Proust, who lived from 1871 to 1922, wrote:  "As long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost and science can never regress."

Ad from the County Capital

Even earlier, French lawyer and member of the Committee of Public Safety, Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794) wrote:  "The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."  That enlightened quote must be considered, however, with awareness that he is perhaps best known for his role in the French Revolution's Reign of Terror and his support for political killings.

In researching the populist movement that swept the nation in the 1880s and 1890s, and which found such acceptance in Kansas, newspapers were a valuable source for my research.  Even small towns had multiple newspapers.  Without radio, television or the internet, people got their news from the newspapers and from orators that traveled the country to speak at large mass rallies.  It was an exciting time in Kansas.  Next week I will share more history about balancing freedom of speech and the press with the delivery of information for an informed public.

The ads and the political cartoon are from the County Capital newspaper during the late 1880s and early 1890s.

Chief Justice John Marshall

Chief Justice John Marshall

Isaac B. Werner's Journal in Kansas was resumed in 1884 and continued daily through 1891.  During that time, only four United States Supreme Court nominations were presented to the Senate by the President.  Since the issue of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia has been in the news now for nearly a year, I thought it would be interesting to see what had happened during the time Isaac was writing in his journal.

During that time the selection of Justices for the Kansas Supreme Court was highly significant, but Isaac's journal contains no reference to the four US Supreme Court appointments between 1884 and 1891.

During 1884-1891 while Isaac was writing in his journal, President Cleveland nominated two men during his first term, both of whom were confirmed by the Senate--Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar in 1887 and Melville Fuller in 1888.  Cleveland's first and second terms were interrupted by the election of President Harrison, who nominated David Josiah Brewer in 1889 and Henry Billings Brown in 1890, both of whom were confirmed.  (After Isaac's journal ended but prior to Isaac's death, Harrison nominated 2 other justices who were confirmed, and during Cleveland's second term he nominated 4 men, 2 of whom were rejected, the nomination of 1 was not acted upon, and 1 was confirmed by voice vote shortly before Isaac's death.)

John Marshall, whose image appears at the beginning of this blog, served on the court for 34 years, from 1801-1835.  The son of Thomas Marshall and Mary Isham Keith, Marshall fit the stereotype for America's early leaders, having been born in a log cabin and raised in a rural community so far from a school that he was largely home schooled.  Yet, despite his humble beginnings, he is regarded as perhaps our greatest Chief Justice for the reason that he set many precedents that now define the American legal system.  Therefore, although Marshall served before Isaac Werner's lifetime, the Supreme Court that Isaac knew, as well as the Supreme Court those of us living now know, was shaped by this man.

It is ironic that one precedent that his nomination set was ignored in the hub-bub of the recent election year.

John Adams

John Marshall was nominated by John Adams on January 20, 1801.  He was confirmed by voice vote 7 days later.  What was unusual about that was that John Adams had already been defeated by Thomas Jefferson when he nominated Marshall and was a lame duck president with only days left to serve in that office when he nominated a justice with open hostility toward the new President-elect.  Yet, the Senate did not hesitate to confirm the nominee, which was acknowledged even at that time as having been done by Adams for political reasons.

It was, in one sense, a sort of pay back, since President Washington had nominated Oliver Elsworth in 1796 in the last days of his presidency to thwart John Adam's ability to fill the vacancy.  

Therefore, the precedent that lame duck presidents have the authority to nominate someone for the Supreme Court with the expectation that the Senate will consider the nominee in a timely way was set by our first two Presidents.

In 2016, with ten months of his second term in office remaining, President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat formerly occupied by Justice Scalia. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declined to bring Garland's nomination to the floor for consideration. McConnell stated his belief that the American people should have a say in who was chosen to fill the seat.  In fact, the American people had "their say" when they elected Senator McConnell and every other sitting Senator whose duty as Senators was to "advise and consent," just as the American people had "their say" when they elected President Obama to a second term of four years with the responsibility to fill any vacancy on the Court during his term of office.  There are six options available to the Senate when a President names his nominee.

Once nominations are formally sent by the President to the Senate for their "advice and consent," the Senate (or in some cases, the nominee) may take one of the following actions:

1.  "take no action," in which the Senate session ends without the nomination being brought to the floor for consideration;

2.  "postpone," in which it is brought to the floor but a vote is taken to defer consideration;

3.  "reject," in which the nominee fails to receive confirmation;

4.  "confirm," in which the nominee is confirmed and he/she accepts the confirmation;

5.  "decline," in which the nominee declines the nomination; and

6.  "withdraw," in which the nominee accepts but subsequently withdraws before confirmation.

Obviously, politics have played a role in every appointment and confirmation, with Presidents making their choices based on men and women who share their political views regarding the Constitution.  Likewise, Senators cast their votes for or against these nominees not only on the basis of the qualifications of the nominee but also with regard to political differences about Constitutional issues.

From most all reasonable accounts, two honorable men have been nominated to fill the vacancy left by Justice Scalia's death--Merrick Garland by President Obama and Neil Gorsuch by Trump.  Had Garland been confirmed, politics would have played a role in the Senate's responsibility to advise and consent, just as politics will play a role if Gorsuch is considered...as politics played a role when the late nominations of Oliver Elsworth and John Marshall were confirmed two centuries ago.

Clearly, one of the actions possible for the Senate to take is "take no action," which is what was done in the case of Merrick Garland's nomination.

United States Supreme Court

However, it is important that Americans understand that the implication that a President lacks the power to nominate his choice for the court during a presidential election year is incorrect.  The nominations of justices by our first two Presidents were far later in their terms; yet, the Senate fulfilled their Constitutional duty to advise and consent and both nominees were confirmed. Of course, midnight appointments have always been closely scrutinized, but in comparison to the acts of Washington and Adams, disposing of a nominee made ten months prior to the end of the President's term through "no action" was neither a questionable midnight appointment nor without precedent.

There were, until 2016, only four examples of  "no action" taken on a Supreme Court nominee. President Tyler struggled to fill two seats on the court during his presidency, and he succeeded in filling only one.  The other seat on the court remained empty until President Polk filled it.  President Fillmore also struggled to fill the seat of one justice, "no action" taken on his first nominee, the second nominee "withdrawn," a third "declined," and "no action" taken on his fourth attempt, a very late nomination in February just prior to President Pierce's inauguration on March 4th.  President Hays attempted a late nomination which was not acted upon; however, President Garfield then renominated the same man when he was inaugurated.

Although there are many examples of politics, rather that the merits of the nominee, defeating a President's choice for the Court, Americans should not be confused by recent events to believe that our Presidents lack such authority in the final year of their Presidency.  Were that so, we would never have had one of our greatest Chief Justices, John Marshall.

Survey Results for $10 Bill Image

Alexander Hamilton

I have just finished "The Quartet" by Joseph J. Ellis, in which he describes his conclusion that four men were key to making the transition from a confederation to a nation in the drafting and passage of our American Constitution.  Those four men were George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison.  While the analysis by Ellis of the importance of those four may not be broadly shared by all historians, he certainly made a strong case for the key roles they played.

Last week's blog did not bring much of an outcry to secure Hamilton's place on the $10 bill.  One follower did write:  "What is wrong with the ten the way it is?  ...people need to forget changing the gender on the money.  How many people actually use paper money?"

Sacagawea

Another follower suggested adding a $25 bill to accommodate the call for a woman's image on our paper currency.  A couple of people suggested using Lady Liberty.

In fact, if there is a great outcry to remove Hamilton and put a woman on the $10 bill, it was not reflected in replies from blog followers.  The follower who asked why any change was needed did suggest Sacagawea might be an appropriate choice if the change to a woman's image were necessary.  The detail at left of Sacagawea with Lewis and Clark is from a painting by Edgar Samuel Paxson located in the Montana State Capitol.   I did not receive any chorus of supporters demanding that Hamilton remain on the bill, nor did names of female  replacements flood the comments on facebook or this blog. 

My survey indicated that people who read my blog really don't give much attention to the faces that appear on our paper currency  Perhaps if I had included the cost involved in making a change, I might have received more responses!