Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist

Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Md Troopers Assoc #20 & Westminster Md Fire Dept Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Showing posts with label History American Presidents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History American Presidents. Show all posts

Monday, December 03, 2018

George H.W. Bush’s service dog, “Sully”


Spokesman for the Bush family Jim McGrath shared this photo of George H.W. Bush's service dog, Sully. https://bit.ly/2FTFD5R

KVUE, “Mission complete. #Remembering41” 9:01 PM - Dec 2, 2018 HOUSTON — George H.W. Bush’s service dog spent a moment with the 41st president’s casket on Sunday night, ahead of a week filled with memorial services.

Bush’s longtime spokesman, Jim McGrath, tweeted a photo the service dog, Sully, laying in front of the casket. The caption read, “Mission complete.”

Bush’s son Jeb retweeted the photo and said, “Sully has the watch.”

According to a news article at KVUE, “Bush will lie in state at the U.S. Capitol giving the American public an opportunity to bid farewell. An arrival ceremony will be held for the former president on Monday at 5 p.m. CT. The public is invited to pay respects beginning Monday at 6:30 p.m. CT through Wednesday at 6 a.m.

“Wednesday [Dec. 5, 2018] is the national day of mourning.

“A plane arrived at Ellington Airport in Houston to take Bush’s body to Washington. A train will eventually take him to his final resting place in College Station with his wife Barbara, who died earlier this year, and daughter Robin, who died from leukemia as a child.”


*****

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

WaPo: the ObamaCare component of President Obama’s legislative legacy


WaPo: the ObamaCare component of President Obama’s legislative legacy

August 16, 2016 / Kevin Dayhoff

When I was younger I loved writing about such things as the practice of medicine in Carroll County history and presidential history. Nowadays, not so much. But this is a rather fascinating academic assessment of one aspect of President Obama’s legislative legacy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/obama-legacy/obamacare.html?wpisrc=nl_evening&wpmm=1 “Obama’s legislative legacy comes down to this question: What if?” by Mike DeBonis:

“President Obama’s landmark health-care law came with a steep political cost, leaving a host of questions about his legislative legacy: Could health-care reform have been done in a different way? Could Democrats have kept control of Congress for another two years or more? Was Obamacare worth it?”

Anyway, I would rather have a root canal than talk with even good friends about the presidential election.

I recently read a piece on Facebook by a pastor that I have always looked-up to, who chastised another pastor for wading into the political waters because he advocated voting for a particular candidate.

Then this pastor proceeded to say disparaging things about one party and write glowingly about the other party. He essentially committed the same offense, only it was okay that he did it because he advocated voting for the opposite party than the pastor he had just chastised for advocating a political position... 

When I ask many folks that have left mainstream denominational churches, why they left; I hear several themes consistently. One they got tired of hearing that they ought to contribute more money to the church. And two, they did not want to hear from pastors about politics when they went to church.

As for President Obama’s legislative legacy - I know that if I ever went back into political office, I would sidestep some of the issues I took-on head-on years ago when I was an elected official. The price was simply far too high. I will forever shake my head over some of the legislative initiatives of past presidents. You would think that at that level of accomplishment, one would learn to avoid the perils and pitfalls of political third-rails.

For some additional context on the legacy of ObamaCare, read a recent article in The Hill on "Aetna pulling back from ObamaCare in blow to health law - In a blow to the health care law, Aetna -- one of the largest health insurers in the country -- announced Monday that it will significantly scale back its presence on the ObamaCare marketplaces next year..." Find it here: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/291531-aetna-pulling-back-from-obamacare-in-blow-to-health-law

Well, I am not a fan of Aetna – so I am not sure if this is a good thing or not…

Moreover, it is still far too early to determine the historic legacy of President Obama. Just like, for example, President John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman; from an historian’s point of view, some aspects of these administrations have stood the test of time well. Some not so much. I mean what in the world was President Truman thinking when he tried to nationalize the steel making industry? My partisan friends will not be amused to learn that presidential historians have come to consider President Bill Clinton as a conservative president and President Nixon a liberal president. Go figure.

Nevertheless, in addition to the recent article on the ObamaCare marketplaces, a number of business periodicals have carried recent articles that explain that once again, this year, the rise in the cost of healthcare is greater that wage increases.

For those of us who felt strongly that health insurance companies had abrogated its social contract with the greater community and that healthcare reform was an absolute necessity; many feel that we have taken two steps forward and three steps back. Take for example, pre-existing conditions. The position of the insurance industry to deny coverage to individuals because of pre-existing conditions, was nuts.

In the last several years I have worked closely with the healthcare delivery system on behalf of several family members and loved ones and my reaction is a mixed-bag.

Several steps into the local hospital and one enters a wormhole in which you quickly find that you are no longer in Carroll County. An esteemed local community leader who commented with the implicit understanding that he would remain anonymous, has recently reassessed his past glowing perception of the hospital and explained that today, “it is a very angry place. Avoid it.”

I have witnessed a number of folks retain attorneys before beginning negotiations with issues with respect to old-age care. In an era when many doubt that government can anything well, Medicare continues to be efficient and effective – but extraordinarily nuanced and complex. Regular folks going to the hospital do not stand a chance and they learn quickly that the social worker health care advocates are not on your side.


Anyway, give “Obama’s legislative legacy comes down to this question: What if?” by Mike DeBonis a read. At a time when so much partisan drivel is passed-off as journalism, Mr. DeBonis has presented non-partisan history junkies with a good read. Just saying. 
*****

Wednesday, March 04, 2015

Rutherford B. Hayes is inaugurated in a private ceremony - Mar 03, 1877 - HISTORY.com

Rutherford B. Hayes is inaugurated in a private ceremony - Mar 03, 1877 - HISTORY.com:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/rutherford-b-hayes-is-inaugurated-in-a-private-ceremony?et_cid=72291116&et_rid=704749232&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.history.com%2fthis-day-in-history%2frutherford-b-hayes-is-inaugurated-in-a-private-ceremony

"On this day in 1877, Rutherford B. Hayes is sworn in as the 19th president of the United States in the Red Room of the White House. Two days later, Hayes was again inaugurated in a public ceremony.

 Some historical accounts claim that Hayes’ first swearing-in ceremony had occurred in secret due to threats made on the new president’s life. Other accounts say that since inaugural day fell on a Sunday, Congress decided to perform a private ceremony the Saturday before the official inauguration date and repeat the performance in public the following Monday.

 It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Hayes’ life had been threatened, as his 1876 election had been hotly contested. For four months, competing factions in Congress as well as their like-minded countrymen argued over the election results. Hayes had lost the popular vote by a slim margin of 250,000 votes, yet appeared to have won a majority in the Electoral College.

Accusations of fraudulent Electoral College vote counts in three southern states (including Florida, which would again play a major role in a contested election in 2000) led Congress to form an electoral commission to make the final decision. On March 2, the commission voted along party lines and put the Republican, Hayes, in office."

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/rutherford-b-hayes-is-inaugurated-in-a-private-ceremony?et_cid=72291116&et_rid=704749232&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.history.com%2fthis-day-in-history%2frutherford-b-hayes-is-inaugurated-in-a-private-ceremony

'via Blog this'
*****

Thursday, May 02, 2013

The Tentacle: The Presidents Club by Kevin Dayhoff Wednesday, April 24, 2013



McDaniel College history professor Bryn Upton, left, discusses the world's most exclusive fraternity, the "Presidents Club," with authors Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy at McDaniel College on April 18. (Photo by Kevin Dayhoff / April 24, 2013)



Last Thursday, Time magazine editors Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy provided a sneak peek behind the curtains into the most exclusive club in the world, “The Presidents Club,” to a crowd that filled McDaniel College’s Decker Lecture Hall in Westminster.

For presidential scholars and arcane American history junkies alike, the timing of the presentation could not have been more perfect. … http://www.thetentacle.com/ShowArticle.cfm?mydocid=5741

++++++++++++++++++++++

Related: Eagle Archive: McDaniel talk offers glimpse into history of 'Presidents Club' by Kevin Dayhoff http://www.baltimoresun.com/explore/carroll/neighborhoods/westminster/ph-ce-eagle-archive-0428-20130424,0,7709543.story

Related







It has been almost two-months since the legendary rock-blues master British guitarist Alvin Lee; the lead singer of the band “Ten Years After,” passed away on March 6.

His sudden death at age 68 was attributed to “unforeseen complications following a routine surgical procedure… http://www.thetentacle.com/ShowArticle.cfm?mydocid=5755
+++++++++++++++
Kevin Dayhoff is an artist - and a columnist for:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/kevindayhoffTwitpic: http://twitpic.com/photos/kevindayhoff
Kevin Dayhoff's The New Bedford Herald: http://kbetrue.livejournal.com/ = www.newbedfordherald.net

Tumblr: Kevin Dayhoff Banana Stems www.kevindayhoff.tumblr.com/
Smurfs: http://babylonfluckjudd.blogspot.com/
Google profile: https://profiles.google.com/kevindayhoff/

E-mail: kevindayhoff(at)gmail.com
My http://www.explorecarroll.com/ columns appear in the copy of the Baltimore Sunday Sun that is distributed in Carroll County: https://subscribe.baltsun.com/Circulation/
+++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++

Friday, July 08, 2011

Washington Post Breaking News Alert: Betty Ford dies at the age of 93

Breaking News Alert: Betty Ford dies at the age of 93
July 8, 2011 9:17:18 PM
----------------------------------------

Betty Ford, 93, a self-proclaimed "ordinary" woman who never cared for political life but made a liberating adventure out of her 30 months as first lady, died Friday, The Washington Post has confirmed.

http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/6041ZA/26ZG29/LRBJBT/HOCI8J/MM8AE/1G/h
Washington Post Breaking News Alert: Betty Ford dies at the age of 93 
*****

Saturday, May 08, 2010

Conspiracy Theories by Bob Allen

Conspiracy Theories

*****

Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/ = http://www.kevindayhoff.net/ Kevin Dayhoff Art: http://kevindayhoffart.blogspot.com/ or http://kevindayhoffart.com/ = http://www.kevindayhoff.com/ Kevin Dayhoff Westminster: http://kevindayhoffwestgov-net.blogspot.com/ or http://www.westgov.net/ = www.kevindayhoff.org Twitter: https://twitter.com/kevindayhoff Twitpic: http://twitpic.com/photos/kevindayhoff Kevin Dayhoff's The New Bedford Herald: http://kbetrue.livejournal.com/ = www.newbedfordherald.net Explore Carroll: www.explorecarroll.com The Tentacle: www.thetentacle.com

Monday, August 17, 2009

Finding Lincoln at a flea market

Finding Lincoln at a flea market

Aug 17, 2009 11:06 AM — Scott Jagow

http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/scratchpad/2009/08/finding_lincoln_at_a_flea_mark.html

A guy buys a box of old papers at a flea market. He’s a history buff, so he’s into that kind of thing. He gets the box home and sorts through it. Lo and behold, at the bottom of that stack is an envelope with Abraham Lincoln’s signature on it. Turns out, it could be the last thing President Lincoln ever signed.

The envelope says simply: “Let this man enter with this note. April 14, 1865. A. Lincoln.” From the Morning Journal of Northern Ohio:

Read the entire article here: Finding Lincoln at a flea market

Aug 17, 2009 11:06 AM — Scott Jagow

http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/scratchpad/2009/08/finding_lincoln_at_a_flea_mark.html

20090817 Finding Lincoln at a flea market
*****

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Eight presidents


Eight presidents

March 11, 2009

I received this in an e-mail and unfortunately I do not know what artist to credit…

20090311 FB SDOSM 8 presidents
Kevin Dayhoff www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address


18610304 Lincolns First Inaugural Address
Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address Washington, DC
Monday, March 4, 1861
3634 words: On Lincoln's first Inaugural Day, he and his wife Mary rode with the out-going President Buchanan in his open carriage to the East Portico of the Capitol Building. There Chief Justice Roger Taney administered the oath of office as soldiers of General Winfield Scott lined the roof-tops of adjacent buildings, armed and ready for any threat. Due to numerous threats of assassination, the president-elect had arrived in Washington under guard and aboard a secret train, just ten days before his inauguration. The assembled crowd couldn't help but notice the scaffoldings surrounding the Capitol dome which was under construction. Abraham Lincoln chose to refer to the obvious work in his Inaugural Address, casting it as a symbol of union.

Fellow-Citizens of the United States:

IN COMPLIANCE with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."

I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?

Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?

I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.

The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?

All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.

Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.

By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

*****
Two weeks before Abraham Lincoln recited his Inaugural Speech and took the oath of office, another President was inaugurated in the United States. In Montgomery, Alabama Jefferson Davis was inaugurated as the first president of the Confederate States of America on February 18, 1861. At the time of Abraham Lincoln's Inauguration on March 4th, SEVEN Southern States had joined the new Confederation. Sixty-four days later the last of the Southern States to secede from the Union had entered the Confederacy under President Jefferson Davis, bringing the total number to 11.

18610304 Lincolns First Inaugural Address posted SDOSM 20090121
Kevin Dayhoff www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

20070214 President Harry Truman and Gauging a presidential legacy





20070214 President Harry Truman and Gauging a presidential legacy

My Tentacle column for this week is up: Gauging A Presidential Legacy

Pictured to the left is the executive director of the Little White House Museum, in Key West Florida, Robert J. Wolz on February 12, 2007

February 14, 2007

Gauging A Presidential Legacy

Kevin E. Dayhoff

Recently political pundits have spent a great deal of effort pondering the legacy of President George W. Bush. Of course, those of us who consider ourselves to be students of history understand that history needs much more time and distance in order to accurately gauge the legacy and historical impact of any particular president.

Yet, uncannily, there are many parallels shared in the legacy of our 33rd president, Harry S Truman and President Bush, our 43rd president; and it is only understandable that the comparisons persist.

I took the opportunity Monday to tour President Truman's Key West White House, known as the "Little White House," in order to re-acquaint myself with the great legacy of the now-legendary president.

After the tour I interviewed the executive director of the Little White House Museum, Robert J. Wolz, at great length. The tour guide, David Lynch and Mr. Wolz are both walking encyclopedias on the life and times of President Truman.

Mr. Wolz says, with a certain "I told you so" confidence, that it is "remarkable that President Truman has gone from the least popular president of all time to the fifth most successful."

President Truman first arrived in Key West in November 1946, just days after the majority party in Congress had changed in the mid-term elections. In his case, Republicans reclaimed Congress for the first time since the administration of Republican President Herbert Hoover, the man who had immediately preceded President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Read the rest here: Gauging A Presidential Legacy

####

Florida Key West, President George W. Bush, President Harry S Truman, The Tentacle, History American Presidents

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Presidential eras by Steven Schoenherr at University of San Diego

Presidential eras by Steven Schoenherr at University of San Diego

September 1, 2006

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/20th/p/eras.html

Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933-1945
Dwight Eisenhower 1953-1961
John F. Kennedy 1961-1963
Lyndon Johnson 1963-1969
Richard Nixon 1969-1974
Gerald Ford 1974-1977
Jimmy Carter 1977-1981
Ronald Reagan 1981-1989
George Bush 1989-1993
Bill Clinton 1993-2001
George W. Bush 2001-2006

Update: January 18, 2009 - Steven Schoenherr has retired as Professor of History at the University of San Diego, and no longer maintains the web pages on the history server.

His new home page is http://homepage.mac.com/oldtownman/
For information about these web pages contact the Department of History.
For information about the DVD newsreels contact the Bookstore

20060901 Presidential eras by Steven Schoenherr at Univ of San Diego
Kevin Dayhoff www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/