Moe Factz 37 - "A Shell Game"

Moe Factz with Adam Curry for May 16th 2020, Episode number 37
"A Shell Game"
Download the mp3
Executive Producers:
  Dame Jennifer Buchanan
  Anonymous film student
Associate Executive Producer:
  styleannedesign
Description
  Adam and Moe break down the New York Time 1619 Project, with surprising results!
ShowNotes
  Emancipation - Google Search
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 16:59
    synonyms: freeing, liberation, liberating, setting free, release, releasing, letting loose/out, setting loose/free, discharge, unchaining, unfettering, unshackling, untying, unyoking, uncaging, unbridling, freedom, liberty, manumission, disenthralment
  Forced into Glory - Wikipedia
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 16:54
    2000 book by Lerone Bennett Jr.
    Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream (2000) is a book written by Lerone Bennett Jr., an African-American scholar and historian, who served as the executive editor of Ebony for decades. It criticizes United States President Abraham Lincoln and claims that his reputation as the "Great Emancipator" during the American Civil War is undeserved.
    In his introduction, Bennett wrote:
    [The] basic idea of the book is simple: Everything you think you know about Lincoln and race is wrong. Every schoolchild, for example, knows the story of "the great emancipator" who freed Negroes with a stroke of the pen out of the goodness of his heart. The real Lincoln ... was a conservative politician who said repeatedly that he believed in white supremacy. Not only that: He opposed the basic principle of the Emancipation Proclamation until his death and was literally forced '' Count Adam Gurowski said he was literally whipped '' "into the glory of having issued the Emancipation Proclamation," which Lincoln drafted in such a way that it did not in and of itself free a single slave.
    The book is dedicated to those individuals whom Bennett calls "the real abolitionists", including Frederick Douglass, Thaddeus Stevens, and Wendell Phillips. In the dedication, he praises them for forcing Lincoln "into glory".
    Bennett's critics, including historians James M. McPherson, Eric Foner, and Lucas E. Morel, believe that he ignores Lincoln's political and moral growth during the course of the Civil War. In addition, they surmise that Bennett oversimplifies the complexities of the period on issues of race when criticizing Lincoln. Unlike Bennett, they conclude that Lincoln was instrumental in creating the framework that emancipated the slaves in the United States.[1][2][3]
    In a 2009 review of three newly published books on Lincoln, historian Brian Dirck referred to Bennett's 2000 work and linked him with Thomas DiLorenzo, another critic of Lincoln. He wrote that "Few Civil War scholars take Bennett and DiLorenzo seriously, pointing to their narrow political agenda and faulty research."[4]
    See also [ edit ] The Real LincolnReferences [ edit ] ^ McPherson, James M. (August 27, 2000). "Lincoln the Devil". The New York Times . Retrieved July 26, 2007 . ^ Foner, Eric (April 9, 2000). "Recent Book Reviews". Los Angeles Times Book Review . Retrieved 2007-07-26 . ^ Morel, Lucas E. (Fall 2000). "Forced into Gory Lincoln Revisionism". Claremont Review of Books. Claremont Institute . Retrieved July 26, 2007 . ^ Dirck, Brian (September 2009). "Father Abraham: Lincoln's Relentless Struggle to End Slavery, and: Act of Justice: Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the Law of War, and: Lincoln and Freedom: Slavery, Emancipation, and the Thirteenth Amendment (review)". Civil War History. pp. 382''385. Further reading [ edit ] Barr, John M. "Holding Up a Flawed Mirror to the American Soul: Abraham Lincoln in the Writings of Lerone Bennett Jr." Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association 35.1 (2014): 43-65. onlineMorel, Lucas E. "Forced Into Gory Lincoln Revisionism," Claremont Review of Books, (2000) vol 1#1 onlineExternal links [ edit ] C-Span Booknotes interview with Bennett on Forced into Glory (September 10, 2000)DiLorenzo, Thomas J. (January 12, 2008). "An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cult". LewRockwell.com.
  Reconstruction Amendments - Wikipedia
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 16:45
    Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution
    A political cartoon of Andrew Johnson and Abraham Lincoln, 1865, entitled "The 'Rail Splitter' at Work Repairing the Union". The caption reads (Johnson):
    Take it quietly Uncle Abe and I will draw it closer than ever!! (Lincoln):
    A few more stitches Andy and the good old Union will be mended!The Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution,[1] adopted between 1865 and 1870, the five years immediately following the Civil War. The last time the Constitution had been amended was with the Twelfth Amendment more than 60 years earlier in 1804. The Reconstruction amendments were important in implementing the Reconstruction of the American South after the war. Their proponents saw them as transforming the United States from a country that was (in Abraham Lincoln's words) "half slave and half free" to one in which the constitutionally guaranteed "blessings of liberty" would be extended to the entire populace, including the former slaves and their descendants.
    The Thirteenth Amendment (proposed in 1864 and ratified in 1865) abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except for those duly convicted of a crime.[2] The Fourteenth Amendment (proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868) addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws for all persons. The Fifteenth Amendment (proposed in 1869 and ratified in 1870) prohibits discrimination in voting rights of citizens on the basis of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude".[3] All races, regardless of prior slavery, could vote in some states of the early United States, such as New Jersey, provided that they could meet other requirements, such as property ownership.
    These amendments were intended to guarantee freedom to former slaves and to establish and prevent discrimination in certain civil rights to former slaves and all citizens of the United States. The promise of these amendments was eroded by state laws and federal court decisions throughout the late 19th century. In 1876 and beyond, some states passed Jim Crow laws that limited the rights of African-Americans. Important Supreme Court decisions that undermined these amendments were the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873, which prevented rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges or immunities clause from being extended to rights under state law; and Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 which originated the phrase "separate but equal" and gave federal approval to Jim Crow laws. The full benefits of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments were not recognized until the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
    Thirteenth Amendment [ edit ] Text of the 13th Amendment
    The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the U.S. Senate on April 8, 1864, and, after one unsuccessful vote and extensive legislative maneuvering by the Lincoln administration, the House followed suit on January 31, 1865. The measure was swiftly ratified by all but three Union states (the exceptions were Delaware, New Jersey, and Kentucky), and by a sufficient number of border and "reconstructed" Southern states, to be ratified by December 6, 1865. On December 18, 1865, Secretary of State William H. Seward proclaimed it to have been incorporated into the federal Constitution. It became part of the Constitution 61 years after the Twelfth Amendment, the longest interval between constitutional amendments to date.[4]
    Slavery had been tacitly enshrined in the original Constitution through provisions such as Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, commonly known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, which detailed how each state's total slave population would be factored into its total population count for the purposes of apportioning seats in the United States House of Representatives and direct taxes among the states. Although many slaves had been declared free by Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, their legal status after the Civil War was uncertain.
    Fourteenth Amendment [ edit ] The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was proposed by Congress on June 14, 1866. By July 9, 1868, it had received ratification by the legislatures of the required number of states in order to officially become the Fourteenth Amendment. On July 20, 1868, Secretary of State William Seward certified that it had been ratified and added to the federal Constitution. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to treatment of freedmen following the war. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by Southern states, which were forced to ratify it in order to return their delegations to Congress. The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade (1973), regarding abortion, and Bush v. Gore (2000), regarding the 2000 presidential election.
    The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom, if ever, litigated. The fifth section gives Congress enforcement power. The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from Africans could not be citizens of the United States. The Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted in such a way that it does very little. While "Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment reduces congressional representation for states that deny suffrage on racial grounds," it was not enforced after southern states disfranchised blacks in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (see below, at Fifteenth Amendment).[5] While Northern Congressmen in 1900 raised objections to the inequities of southern states being apportioned seats based on total populations when they excluded blacks, Southern Democratic Party representatives formed such a powerful bloc that opponents could not gain approval for change of apportionment.[6]
    The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy.
    The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for the US Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, and its prohibition of laws against interracial marriage, in its ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967).
    This amendment was the foundation of elements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (this also relied on the 15th Amendment), legislation to end legal segregation in the states and to provide for oversight and enforcement by the federal government of citizens' rights to vote without discrimination. It has also been referred to for many other court decisions rejecting unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.
    Fifteenth Amendment [ edit ] Text of the 15th Amendment
    The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments.
    By 1869, amendments had been passed to abolish slavery and provide citizenship and equal protection under the laws, but the narrow election of Ulysses S. Grant to the presidency in 1868 convinced a majority of Republicans that protecting the franchise of black voters was important for the party's future. After rejecting broader versions of a suffrage amendment, Congress proposed a compromise amendment banning franchise restrictions on the basis of race, color, or previous servitude on February 26, 1869. The amendment survived a difficult ratification fight and was adopted on March 30, 1870. After blacks gained the vote, the Ku Klux Klan directed some of their attacks to disrupt their political meetings and intimidate them at the polls, to suppress black participation. In the mid-1870s, there was a rise in new insurgent groups, such as the Red Shirts and White League, who acted on behalf of the Democratic Party to violently suppress black voting. While white Democrats regained power in southern state legislatures, through the 1880s and early 1890s, numerous blacks continued to be elected to local offices in many states, as well as to Congress as late as 1894.
    From 1890 to 1910, all the states of the former Confederacy passed new constitutions and other laws that incorporated methods to disfranchise blacks, such as poll taxes, residency rules, and literacy tests administered by white staff, sometimes with exemptions for whites via grandfather clauses. When challenges reached the Supreme Court, it interpreted the amendment narrowly, ruling based on the stated intent of the laws rather than their practical effect. The results in voter suppression were dramatic, as voter rolls fell: nearly all blacks, as well as tens of thousands of poor whites in Alabama and other states,[7] were forced off the voter registration rolls and out of the political system, effectively excluding millions of people from representation. Democratic state legislatures passed racial segregation laws for public facilities and other types of Jim Crow restrictions. During this period of political struggle, the rate of lynchings in the South reached an all-time high.
    In the twentieth century, the Court interpreted the amendment more broadly, striking down grandfather clauses in Guinn v. United States (1915). It took a quarter century to finally dismantle the white primary system in the "Texas primary cases" (1927''1953). With the South having become a one-party region after the disfranchisement of blacks, Democratic Party primaries were the only competitive contests in those states. But Southern states reacted rapidly to Supreme Court decisions, often devising new ways to continue to exclude blacks from voter rolls and voting; most blacks in the South did not gain the ability to vote until after passage of the mid-1960s federal civil rights legislation and beginning of federal oversight of voter registration and district boundaries. The Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964) forbade the requirement for poll taxes in federal elections; by this time five of the eleven southern states continued to require such taxes. Together with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966), which forbade requiring poll taxes in state elections, blacks regained the opportunity to participate in the U.S. political system.
    See also [ edit ] Crittenden CompromiseCorwin AmendmentNational Freedom DayReconstruction ActsForty acres and a muleBallot access in the United StatesBlack suffrageVoting rights in the United StatesSlavery Abolition Act 1833 (United Kingdom)List of United States AmendmentsReferences [ edit ] ^ "U.S. Senate: Landmark Legislation: Thirteenth, Fourteenth, & Fifteenth Amendments". www.senate.gov . Retrieved January 3, 2020 . ^ "America's Historical Documents". National Archives. National Archives and Records Administration. January 25, 2016. Archived from the original on September 26, 2016 . Retrieved November 25, 2018 . ^ "The 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution". National Constitution Center '' The 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution . Retrieved January 3, 2020 . ^ "The Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11-27". United States National Archives. United States National Archives. Archived from the original on June 11, 2013 . Retrieved February 24, 2014 . ^ "Committee at Odds on Reapportionment: Three Reports on the Bill Submitted to the House" (PDF) . The New York Times. December 21, 1990 . Retrieved November 25, 2018 . ^ Valelly, Richard M. (October 2, 2009). The Two Reconstructions: The Struggle for Black Enfranchisement. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226845272. Archived from the original on April 29, 2016 . Retrieved October 31, 2015 . ^ Feldman, Glenn (2004). The Disfranchisement Myth Poor Whites and Suffrage Restriction in Alabama. University of Georgia Press. p. 135. OCLC 474353255.
  Lerone Bennett Jr. - Wikipedia
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 16:41
    Lerone Bennett Jr.
    Born ( 1928-10-17 ) October 17, 1928DiedFebruary 14, 2018 (2018-02-14) (aged 89)NationalityAmericanOccupationWriterauthorscholarsocial historianYears active1949''2018Known forBefore the Mayflower (1962)Forced into Glory (2000) Spouse(s) Gloria Sylvester(m. 1956; died 2009)
    Children4Lerone Bennett Jr. (October 17, 1928 '' February 14, 2018) was an African-American scholar, author and social historian, known for his analysis of race relations in the United States. His best-known works include Before the Mayflower (1962) and Forced into Glory (2000), a book about U.S. President Abraham Lincoln.
    Born and raised in Mississippi, Bennett graduated from Morehouse College. Thereafter, he served in the Korean War and began a career in journalism at the Atlanta Daily World before being hired away by Johnson Publishing Company to work for JET magazine. Later, Bennett was the long-time executive editor of Ebony magazine, and was associated with the publication for more than 50 years. Bennett also served as a visiting professor of history at Northwestern University.
    Biography [ edit ] Early life and education [ edit ] Bennett was born in Clarksdale, Mississippi, on October 17, 1928, the son of Lerone Bennett Sr. and Alma Reed. When he was young, his family moved to Jackson, Mississippi, the capital. His father worked as a chauffeur and his mother a maid but they divorced when he was a child. At twelve he began writing for The Mississippi Enterprise, a Jackson, Mississippi, black owned paper. He recalled once getting in trouble for being distracted from an errand when he happened upon a newspaper to read. He attended segregated schools as a child under the state system, and graduated from Lanier High School.[1] Bennett attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia, where he was classmates with Martin Luther King Jr. Graduating in 1949, Bennett recalled that this time was integral to his intellectual development. He also joined the Kappa Alpha Psi fraternity.
    Career [ edit ] Bennett served as a soldier during the Korean War, he also pursued graduate studies. He became a journalist for the Atlanta Daily World from 1949 until 1953. He also served as city editor for JET magazine from 1952 to 1953.[2] The magazine was established in 1945 by John H. Johnson, who first founded its parent magazine, Ebony, that year. In 1953, Bennett became associate editor of Ebony magazine and then executive editor from 1958. The magazine served as his base for the publication of series of articles on African-American history. Some were collected and published as books.
    He wrote a 1954 article "Thomas Jefferson's Negro Grandchildren",[3] about the 20th-century lives of individuals claiming descent from Jefferson and his slave Sally Hemings. It brought black oral history into the public world of journalism and published histories. This relationship was long denied by Jefferson's daughter and two of her children, and main line historians relied on their account. But new works published in the 1970s and 1990s challenged that position. Since a 1998 DNA study demonstrated a match between an Eston Hemings descendant and the Jefferson male line, the historic consensus has shifted (including the position of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation at Monticello) to acknowledging that Jefferson likely had a 38-year relationship with Hemings and was the father of all her six children of record, four of whom survived to adulthood.[4][5]
    In addition Bennett wrote several books, including numerous histories of the African-American experience. These include his first work, Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America, 1619''1962 (1962), which discusses the contributions of African Americans in the United States from its earliest years. Bennet served as visiting professor of history at Northwestern University.[6] His 2000 book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream, questions Abraham Lincoln's role as the "Great Emancipator". This last work was described by one reviewer as a "flawed mirror."[7] It was criticized by historians of the Civil War period, such as James McPherson and Eric Foner.[8] Bennett is credited with the phrase: "Image Sees, Image Feels, Image Acts," meaning the images that people see influence how they feel, and ultimately how they act.[citation needed ]
    Personal life [ edit ] Bennett married Gloria Sylvester (1930''2009) on July 21, 1956. They met while working together at JET. The couple had four children together: Alma Joy, Constance, Courtney, and Lerone III (1960''2013).[9] A longtime resident of Kenwood, Chicago, Bennett died of natural causes at his home there on 14 February 2018, aged 89.[6]
    Legacy and honors [ edit ] 2003 '' Carter G. Woodson Lifetime Achievement Award from Association for the Study of African American Life and History[10]1978 '' Literature Award of the American Academy of Arts and Letters1965 '' Patron Saints Award from the Society of Midland Authors1963 '' Book of the Year Award from Capital Press Club1982 '' Candace Award from the National Coalition of 100 Black Women[11]Honorary degrees from Morehouse College, Wilberforce University, Marquette University, Voorhees College, Morgan State University, University of Illinois, Lincoln College, and Dillard University.Bibliography [ edit ] Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America, 1619''1962 (1962)What Manner of Man: A Biography of Martin Luther King, Jr. (1964)Confrontation: Black and White (1965)Black Power U.S.A.: The Human Side of Reconstruction 1867''1877 (1967)Pioneers In Protest: Black Power U.S.A. (1968)The Challenge of Blackness (1972)The Shaping of Black America (1975)Wade in the Water: Great Moments in Black History (1979)Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream (2000), Johnson. Publ. Co.References [ edit ] ^ Genzlinger, Neil (February 16, 2018). "Lerone Bennett Jr., Historian of Black America, Dies at 89". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved March 1, 2018 . ^ "Lerone Bennett Jr. A Classical Author" Archived October 23, 2014, at the Wayback Machine, African-American Registry. ^ Lerone Bennett, "Thomas Jefferson's Negro Grandchildren," EBONY, Vol. X (November 1954), pp. 78''80. ^ "Conclusions", Report of the Research Committee on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, Monticello, January 2000, accessed March 9, 2011. Quote: The DNA study, combined with multiple strands of currently available documentary and statistical evidence, indicates a high probability that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings, and that he most likely was the father of all six of Sally Hemings's children appearing in Jefferson's records. Those children are Harriet, who died in infancy; Beverly; an unnamed daughter who died in infancy; Harriet; Madison; and Eston." ^ "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account". Monticello. Thomas Jefferson Foundation . Retrieved November 4, 2011 . ^ a b Goldsborough, Bob (February 16, 2018). "Lerone Bennett, historian and former executive editor of Ebony magazine, dies". Chicago Tribune . Retrieved March 1, 2018 . ^ John M. Barr, "Holding Up a Flawed Mirror to the American Soul: Abraham Lincoln in the Writings of Lerone Bennett Jr.," Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association 35 (Winter 2014), 43''65. ^ Barr, 2014. ^ "Lerone BENNETT III's Obituary on Atlanta Journal-Constitution". January 25, 2013 . Retrieved March 1, 2018 . ^ Wayne Dawkins, "Black America's popular historian: Lerone Bennett Jr. almost retired after 50 years at Ebony..." Archived April 6, 2006, at the Wayback Machine, Black Issues Book Review, January''February 2004, accessed 25 May 2009. ^ "Candace Award Recipients 1982''1990, Page 1". National Coalition of 100 Black Women. Archived from the original on March 14, 2003. Further reading [ edit ] Barr, John M. "Holding Up a Flawed Mirror to the American Soul: Abraham Lincoln in the Writings of Lerone Bennett Jr." Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association]] 35.1 (2014): 43-65. onlineWest, E. James. "Lerone Bennett, Jr.: A Life in Popular Black History." The Black Scholar 47.4 (2017): 3-17.West, Edmund. "Ebony Magazine, Lerone Bennett, Jr., and the Making and Selling of Modern Black History, 1958-1987" (PhD Dissertation, University of Manchester, 2016) online.External links [ edit ] Bennett's biographyLerone Bennett Jr.'s oral history video excerpts at The National Visionary Leadership ProjectAppearances on C-SPANBooknotes interview with Bennett on Forced Into Glory, September 10, 2000.Lerone Bennett Jr. Papers at Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library, Emory University
  Corporate Philanthropy: The Ultimate Guide to Giving
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 16:23
    Corporate Philanthropy: The Ultimate Guide to Giving
    What is Corporate Philanthropy?
    Types of Corporate Philanthropy
    Corporate Philanthropy Basics
    Why is Corporate Philanthropy Important?Becoming familiar with corporate philanthropy is important, especially for nonprofits and corporations. It encourages employee giving, which has a positive impact on nonprofits and society, and benefits businesses by helping them reach their goals.
    For example, corporate philanthropy can lead to:
    Positive Work EnvironmentBringing employees together to participate in team volunteer grants or other team programs encourages everyone to see themselves as part of the greater community. This feeling of community then benefits the greater social good.
    Increased Employee EngagementCompanies with engaged employees who enjoy their jobs outperform companies with disengaged workers by up to 202%! Collective participation in philanthropy engages employees with each other.
    Positive PublicImagePartnering with a nonprofit provides corporations the opportunity to publicly show their communities how invested they are through press releases, social media, and word of mouth! Their work then adds to greater social change.
    Enhanced Consumer RelationshipsConsumers want to buy from companies that are doing good deeds in the world, especially those that support causes they care about. By upholding their commitment to these causes, companies make a huge impact.
    Corporate Philanthropy Statistics
    Strategies for Nonprofits to Raise More from Corporate Philanthropy
    There are multiple ways nonprofits can raise more by taking advantage of corporate philanthropy. From building awareness to actively searching your donor database, try out these tips to raise more money for your organization:
    1. Use a corporate philanthropy database.Encourage your donors to search their eligibility for matching gifts using a corporate philanthropy database. Once donors have completed their gift, they can search for their employer using a search tool embedded into your nonprofit's website. If they are match eligible, their company's profile will populate with the guidelines and steps they need to follow to submit a match request.
    2. Automate your match eligibility process.Invest in a matching gift automation platform that automatically searches your donors as they give to your organization and determines their match eligibility. If they are match eligible, the platform will then automate outreach to these donors encouraging them to submit a match request.
    3. Encourage volunteers to match their hours.Many volunteers at nonprofits don't know that their companies offer volunteer grant programs. Encourage them to search their company name in a corporate philanthropy database to determine whether their employer offers such a program. If their company does, they can then follow the provided guidelines to submit a grant application.
    Corporate Philanthropy Examples
    Corporate Philanthropy Database: Learn More About Double the Donation
    Nonprofits can increase their revenue by promoting matching gifts and volunteer grant programs to their supporters. Through these corporate philanthropy programs, donors can double their gifts and volunteers can make an even greater impact with their time.
    Double the Donation can help both nonprofits and employees take advantage of these corporate philanthropy opportunities.
    Double the Donation offers the #1 matching gifts database and volunteer grant database, with more than 8,500 organizations using it. As the most comprehensive and up-to-date resource, corporate employees can look up their companies to determine whether they are eligible for matching gifts, volunteer grants, or both.
    In addition, full-service automated matching gift solutions like 360MatchPro by Double the Donation can do more than provide users with the necessary information and forms. These services can actually move donors through the matching gift request submission process, from identifying match-eligible donors through email domain screening to sending automated reminder emails. Your staff saves time, and your donors get the guidance necessary to ensure they submit their matching gift requests promptly.
    How the Database Works:
    STEP 1:Access the database.
    STEP 2:Search for your employer.
    STEP 3:View the results.
    Additional Corporate Philanthropy Resources
    Corporate Giving Programs: The Ultimate GuideCorporate giving programs allow all sorts of companies to invest in the greater social good.
    Learn how corporate giving programs impact nonprofits and how employees can participate.
    Corporate Matching Gift ProgramsThere are a lot of companies that offer corporate matching gift programs.
    Learn more about this type of corporate philanthropy and how employees can take part!
    Corporate Volunteer Grant ProgramsMany companies will offer excellent volunteer grant programs to their employees.
    Learn more about volunteer grant programs and how they can bring in free money for nonprofits!
  Board of Directors | Emancipation Park Conservancy
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 16:22
    Emancipation Park Conservancy Board of Directors
    ChairmanRamon Manning
    Vice ChairwomanJacqueline W. Bostic
    SecretaryValerie Coleman Ferguson
    TreasurerYvette E. Mitchell
    Drucie ChaseJared CraneDorris Robinson EllisRick LowePhillip SarofimGertrude StoneAlvia WardlawValerie WilliamsJay Zeidman
    Ex-Officio Members:
    Mayor Sylvester Turner, City of Houston Dwight Boykins, Council Member, District DSteve Wright, Director '' Houston Parks and Recreation Department
  About Us | Jack and Jill of America, Inc.
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 16:20
    MISSION: Jack and Jill of America, Inc., is a membership organization of mothers with children ages 2 '' 19, dedicated to nurturing future African American leaders by strengthening children through leadership development, volunteer service, philanthropic giving and civic duty.
    The late Marion Stubbs Thomas founded Jack and Jill of America, Incorporated, on January 24, 1938, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Twenty mothers came together to discuss creating an organization to provide social, cultural and educational opportunities for youth between the ages of 2 and 19. In 1946, 10 chapters were involved in the national restructuring process. The constitution and bylaws were drawn up, and the organization was incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware.
    Today, Jack and Jill boasts more than 245 chapters nationwide, representing more than 40,000 family members. Each chapter plans annual programming activities guided under a general five point programmatic thrust: cultural awareness, educational development, health (education and advocacy), civic (legislative advocacy and service) and social/recreational areas. Through service projects, Jack and Jill of America creates a medium of contact for children to stimulate their growth and development. Through lobbying, educational programming, dissemination of education materials, and the organization of community and charitable events, Jack and Jill has promoted the public awareness and interests of children including child development, child growth, child quality of life, child care and the promotion of children's rights.
    ''To us as mothers, [Jack and Jill] has become a means of furthering an inherent and natural desire '...to bestow upon our children all the opportunities possible for a normal and graceful approach to a beautiful adulthood.''
    '' Marion Stubbs Thomas
  consevancy - Google Search
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 16:19
    Willowsford Conservancy | Home Page
    https://willowsfordconservancy.org
    Explore Willowsford Conservancy, stewards of Willowsford's 2000 acres of open space, farmland, woodlands and natural habitat.
  Shell lawsuit (re oil spills & Bodo community in Nigeria) | Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 16:05
    In 2012, members of the Bodo community in Nigeria filed a lawsuit against Shell in London High Court. They seek compensation for two oil spills and losses suffered to their health, livelihoods, and land. They also request clean up of the oil pollution. In 2015, Shell accepted responsibility for the spill and agreed to a £55 million out of court settlement and to assist in clean up.Members of the Bodo community in Nigeria filed a lawsuit against Shell in London High Court on 23 March 2012, seeking compensation for two oil spills, which occurred in 2008 and 2009 in the Niger Delta. The 15,000 plaintiffs ask for compensation for losses suffered to their health, livelihoods and land, and they ask for clean-up of the oil pollution. They allege that the relevant pipelines caused spills because they were over 50 years old and poorly maintained, and that Shell reacted too slowly after being alerted to the spills. Shell admits that its Nigerian subsidiary, the Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), is liable for the spills. However, it denies the allegations of the plaintiffs and argues that the cause of the oil spills was oil theft and sabotage. It further disputes the alleged volume of oil spilled and the size of the area affected.
    Shell has made settlement offers to the plaintiffs, which they refused on the basis that they were too low in light of the alleged damages suffered.
    A preliminary hearing took place from 29 April to 9 May 2014 to consider Shell's duty to take reasonable steps to prevent spillage from their pipelines '' whether from malfunction or from oil theft. The judge ruled on 20 June 2014 that Shell could be held responsible for spills from their pipelines if the company fails to take reasonable measures to protect them from malfunction or from oil theft (known as ''bunkering''). In November 2014, it was revealed that documents produced in the UK High Court suggested that Shell had been warned about the ''risk and hazard'' of the pipeline before the oil spill that affected the Bodo community. Shell "dismisses the suggestion that it has knowingly continued to use a pipeline that is not safe to operate".
    In January 2015, Shell accepted its responsibility and agreed to a £55 million out of court settlement to pay for cleaning up the spill. An internationally recognized clean-up operation, the Bodo Mediation Initiative sponsored by the Dutch Government, was also established. In turn, communities agreed to put a hold on an onoing legal claim they had brought in the London High Court, but nonetheless reserved the right to resume the claim should the clean up be inadequately conducted.
    In June 2017, Shell tried to strike out the lawsuit alleging that some members of the community obstructed clean up. The Court dismissed the claim. Shell then sought to prevent the community from going back to court by requesting to include a clause in the settlement, according to which any disruptive act by any resident of the Bodo community would lead to termination of the lawsuit. On 24 May 2018, a UK judge ruled that the Bodo community should retain the right to revive the claim for another year with no conditions attached, in the event of the clean-up not be completed to an adequate standard.
    - "Nigeria's Bodo community claims win over Shell after latest UK court ruling", Estelle Shirbon, Reuters via Thomson Reuters Foundation, 24 May 2018- "Shell announces £55m payout for Nigeria oil spills", John Vidal, Guardian (UK), 7 jan 2015-''Shell in preliminary Nigeria oil spill judgement'', BBC News, 20 Jun 2014- ''Niger delta oil spill victims reject 'derisory' Shell compensation offer'', John Vidal, Guardian (UK), 13 Sep 2013- ''Shell seeks settlement for Nigeria oil spill'', Sarah Kent, Dow Jones Newswires, 06 Sep 2013- ''Shell 'uses sabotage claims to avoid blame for Nigeria oil spills''', Tom Bawden, Independent (UK), 19 Jun 2013- ''Shell accepts liability for two oil spills in Nigeria'', John Vidal, Guardian (UK), 3 August 2011- ''[PDF] The true tragedy: delays and failures in tackling oil spills in the Niger Delta'', Amnesty Intl. & Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD), Nov 2011
    Shell:- Shell's Nigerian subsidiary agrees £55 million settlement with the Bodo community, Shell, 7 Jan 2015- Senior English judge delivers ruling in preliminary Bodo trial, Shell Nigeria, 20 Jun 2014- [DOC] Open letter on oil spills from the Managing Director of the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd (SPDC), Managing Director of the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC), 04 Aug 2011
    Leigh Day (lawyers for the plaintiffs):- Shell agrees £55m compensation deal for Niger Delta community, 7 Jan 2015- London High Court rules that Shell Nigeria could be legally liable for bunkering, 20 Jun 2014- Background to the Bodo claim, 25 Apr 2014- [PDF] Leigh Day & Co 2012 Annual Review, Dec 2012 [see p.23]
    Royal Courts of Justice:- Bodo Community & others v. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, 20 Jun 2014
    24 May 2018
    Nigeria's Bodo community claims win over Shell after latest UK court rulingAuthor: Estelle Shirbon, Reuters via Thomson Reuters Foundation
    A British judge ruled on Thursday that Nigeria's Bodo community, which has been involved in a protracted legal battle with Shell over the clean-up of two 2008 oil spills, should retain the option of litigation for another year. Lawyers for Bodo had accused Shell of trying to kill off the legal case by seeking a court order that would have meant the community had to meet onerous conditions before it could revive its litigation, which is currently on hold. A London High Court judge, Mrs Justice Cockerill, ruled that the litigation should remain stayed until July 1, 2019, with no conditions attached should the Bodo community's representatives seek to re-activate it before then...In 2015, Shell accepted liability for the spills, agreeing to pay 55 million pounds...to Bodo villagers and to clean up their lands and creeks. After years of delays, the clean-up is currently underway, under the auspices of the internationally recognised Bodo Mediation Initiative (BMI). Shell's lawyers had argued...that the community should only be able to re-activate the legal case should Shell fail to comply with its obligation to pay for the clean-up. But Bodo's lawyers had countered that the community should have unfettered access to the London courts if the clean-up was not completed to a high standard. A spokeswoman for Shell said the company remained committed to working with the BMI to advance the clean-up plan in Bodo...
    Read the full post here
    4 January 2017
    Interview with John Gbei from the Bodo community in Nigeria Author: John Gbei & Leigh Day
    This interview was prepared with the support of Leigh Day as input for the session on ''Access to Remedy: Victims' Perspectives in Cross-Border Cases'' at 2016 UN Forum on Business & Human Rights.
    11 November 2015
    Nigeria: Bodo community claim Shell has yet to begin oil spill clean-up following settlement''How a poor Nigerian town got Shell to pay for major oil spills'', 6 Nov 2015
    '...The waters of Bodo Creek and the surrounding delta were once strewn with fishing boats'...But in 2008 a Royal Dutch Shell pipeline burst beneath the surface and gushed thousands of barrels of oil into the surrounding river'...20 years after the first large protests over oil pollution'...a court victory has given new hope that redress is possible'...In January'...Shell admitted responsibility for the Bodo spills'...and settled a landmark lawsuit with the community. The company agreed to pay $110 million in compensation'...and pledged to clean up Bodo Creek. The case, thought to be the largest settlement of its kind in Africa, has implications for the oil industry'...It set the precedent that individual citizens can claim damages and be compensated directly for oil pollution to their land. And it confirmed that the legal battle could be fought where the parent company is located'...rather than in Nigeria, ''where there is no hope of any justice''...''Parent companies have a due diligence requirement to make sure that their subsidiaries are not trampling people's human rights overseas'''...The oil company's promised cleanup of Bodo Creek hasn't been started...[I]f Shell doesn't make meaningful progress by the new year, the company [will be dragged] back to court'...
    Read the full post here
    12 January 2015
    Shell & the Bodo community '' settlement vs. litigationAuthor: Elodie Aba, Legal Researcher, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
    On 7 January 2015'...Shell had agreed to an out of court settlement of £55 million with the Bodo community affected by oil spills in Nigeria. This agreement brings to an end a six year journey seeking justice for these residents of the Niger Delta. It is a ground-breaking settlement '' despite so much damage, no multinational oil company has ever directly compensated individuals harmed in the Niger Delta for the destruction of the environment on which so much of their livelihoods depends'...Shell's settlement with the Bodo community means the Nigerian victims will receive compensation without needing to endure a potentially lengthy legal process'...However'...[a] trial'...could have potentially set an important legal precedent and clarified the position of English courts for future corporate human rights lawsuits. But'...a trial involves an uncertain outcome, and the legal process could be made even longer with subsequent appeals'...The hope must be that this settlement sends a message to so many other companies embroiled in long legal cases around extensive environmental damage to communities.
    Read the full post here
    9 January 2015
    Shell and the liability debateAuthor: Sudeep Chakravarti, Livemint
    The new year has provided an object lesson in'...corporate responsibility. It has global implications for businesses. That makes it local for India, currently in the throes of a policy makeover that firmly places government on the side of business'...While businesses here continually push the boundaries of what they can get away with'..., globalization of activism and judicial process is increasingly ensuring that businesses get away with less'...[O]n 7 January, Royal Dutch Shell Plc. agreed to pay £55 million'...in an out-of-court settlement to a community of fishermen in Nigeria'... From the liability and risk-planning perspective, some feel the settlement'...has not exactly closed the book, merely one chapter. FT quotes the concern of [the] executive director of Stakeholder Democracy Network, as to the likelihood of continuing scrutiny of Shell: ''If I was a shareholder, I would be factoring in future liabilities.''
    Read the full post here
    7 January 2015
    Long-awaited victory as Shell finally pays out £55 million over Niger Delta oil spillsAuthor: Amnesty International
    ''While the pay-out is a long awaited victory for the thousands of people who lost their livelihoods in Bodo, it shouldn't have taken six years to get anything close to fair compensation,'' said Audrey Gaughran, Director of Global Issues at Amnesty International.
    Read the full post here
    7 January 2015
    Niger Delta communities hit by oil spills to instigate more claims in London against oil firms, say civil society actorsAuthor: John Vidal, Guardian (UK)
    ''Niger delta communities to sue Shell in London for oil spill compensation,'' 7 Jan 2015
    Niger delta communities hit by oil spills will bypass Nigerian courts and try to sue Shell and other oil companies in London following the'...settlement awarded'...to'...people in Bodo, say community chiefs and non-government groups'...'''...Shell'...are a big company and if we go to the Nigerian courts, they will win,'' said Abere [a Bonny island community leader]...''Communities will now look to London for justice. In Nigeria they know they cannot get redress. People get no individual compensation'...,'' said Akpobari [who works with'...Social Action]. The tendency of Nigerian courts to side with oil companies when they appeal against lower court awards was acknowledged by an oil company source who said'...: ''It is not unusual for large awards to be made against companies in the Nigerian courts but often they are overturned on appeal...'' Leigh Day say'...they plan to investigate four other pollution claims against Shell because the English court system is fairer...
    Read the full post here
    7 January 2015
    Nigeria: Shell agrees to compensate communities affected by two oil spillsAuthor: William Wallis, Financial Times
    "Royal Dutch Shell agrees $83M Nigeria oil spill settlement"
    Royal Dutch Shell is to pay tens of millions of pounds in compensation to 15,000 Nigerian fishermen affected by two huge oil spills. The out of court deal, believed to be the biggest of its kind, ends a three year legal battle. The Anglo-Dutch oil company has agreed payouts averaging £2,000 each to the fishermen in the Bodo region of the Niger delta, as part of a compensation package worth £55 million ($83 million) for what it called two "highly regrettable" spills in 2008...The deal settles a lawsuit brought against Shell in London over leaks in the Bomu-Bonny pipeline that caused environmental damage to rural coastal settlements of 49,000 people living in 35 villages, many of whom are subsistence farmers and fishermen...Mutiu Sunmonu, managing director of SPDC, said it was "pleased" to have reached agreement and clean-up work would begin soon. Human rights group Amnesty International called the settlement "an important victory for the victims of corporate negligence".
    Read the full post here
    7 January 2015
    Nigeria: Shell's N15 Billion Settlement to Ogoni Community "Inadequate"Author: Ben Ezeamalu, Premium Times (Nigeria)
    '...Shell's agreement to pay £55 million'...to'...fishermen in'...Ogoniland is not commensurate with the disaster'...on the area'...[t]he Health of Mother Earth Foundation, HOMEF, said'..."When compared to what polluting oil companies pay elsewhere for their ecological crimes, HOMEF sees the compensation'...as inadequate for the severity of damage done"'...Shell's Managing Director said'..."We've always wanted to compensate the community fairly and we are pleased to have reached agreement'..." Shell also said it would begin clean up of the sites immediately. HOMEF, however, welcomed Shell's agreement to pay the penalty noting that it was a confirmation of their guilt'..."Since the oil companies do not respect fines imposed on them by Nigerian regulatory agencies'...this decision should encourage other communities to bring up cases against Shell and other oil companies operating in the Nigeria'...and other countries," said'...a member of the international Advisory Board of HOMEF'..."A safe environment is a foundational basis for human survival," the group said...
    Read the full post here
  Nigeria files $1.1 billion London lawsuit against Shell, Eni over oil deal - Reuters
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 16:05
    LONDON (Reuters) - The Nigerian government said it had filed a $1.1 billion lawsuit against Royal Dutch Shell and Eni in a commercial court in London on Thursday in relation to a 2011 oilfield deal.
    The OPL 245 oilfield is also at the heart of an ongoing corruption trial in Milan in which former and current Shell and Eni officials are on the bench.
    Milan prosecutors allege bribes totalling around $1.1 billion were paid to win the license to explore the field which, because of disputes, has never entered into production.
    The new London case also relates to payments made by the companies to get the OPL 245 oilfield license in 2011.
    ''It is alleged that purchase monies purportedly paid to the Federal Republic of Nigeria were in fact immediately paid through to a company controlled by Dan Etete, formerly the Nigerian minister of petroleum, and used for, amongst other things, bribes and kickbacks,'' Nigeria said on Thursday.
    ''Accordingly, it is alleged that Shell and Eni engaged in bribery and unlawful conspiracy to harm the Federal Republic of Nigeria and that they dishonestly assisted corrupt Nigerian government officials.''
    The Nigerian attorney general's office did not respond to phone calls and messages seeking comment. Shell said ''the 2011 settlement of long-standing legal disputes related to OPL 245 was a fully legal transaction with Eni and the Federal Government of Nigeria, represented by the most senior officials of the relevant ministries.''
    Eni said in an emailed statement it rejected ''any allegation of impropriety or irregularity in connection with this transaction.''
    ''Eni (...) signed a commercial agreement in 2011 for a new license for OPL 245 with the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company and the consideration for the license was paid directly to the Nigerian government,'' it said.
    Nigeria has already filed a London case against U.S. bank JPMorgan for its role in transferring over $800 million of government funds to Etete, who has been convicted of money laundering.
    In another separate trial, a Milan court in September found a middleman guilty of corruption after prosecutors alleged he had received a mandate from Etete, who has denied any wrongdoing, to find a buyer for OPL 245, collecting $114 million for his services.
    Reporting by Stephen Jewkes, Ron Bousso, Julia Payne, Paul Carsten, Shadia Nasralla; editing by Jason Neely and David Evans
  Fourth International - Wikipedia
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 15:57
    The Fourth International (FI) is a revolutionary socialist international organization consisting of followers of Leon Trotsky, also known as Trotskyists, whose declared goal is the overthrowing of global capitalism and the establishment of world socialism via international revolution. The Fourth International was established in France in 1938, as Trotsky and his supporters, having been expelled from the Soviet Union, considered the Third International or Comintern as effectively puppets of Stalinism and thus incapable of leading the international working class to political power. Thus, Trotskyists founded their own competing Fourth International.[1]
    In the present day, there is no longer a single, centralized cohesive Fourth International. Throughout most of its existence and history, the Fourth International was hunted by agents of the NKVD, subjected to political repression by countries such as France and the United States, and rejected by supporters of the Soviet Union as "illegitimate pretenders". The Fourth International struggled to maintain contact under these conditions of crackdowns and repression during World War II due to the fact that subsequent proletarian uprisings were often under the influence of Soviet-aligned Stalinists and militant nationalist groups, leading to defeats for the Fourth International and the Trotskyists, who subsequently never managed to obtain meaningful influence.[2]
    Despite this, many parts of the world, including Latin America, Europe and Asia, continue to have large Trotskyist groupings who are attracted to its anti-Stalinist positions and its defense of proletarian internationalism. Several of these groups carry the label "Fourth Internationalist" either in their organization's name, important political position documents, or both. In line with Trotskyist theory and thought, the Fourth International tended to view the Comintern as a degenerated workers' state. However, although it regarded its own ideas as more advanced and thus superior to those of the Third International, it did not actively push for the Comintern's destruction. The current incarnation of the Fourth International does not operate as a cohesive entity in the manner of its predecessors.
    The Fourth International suffered a major split in 1940 and an even more significant schism in 1953. A partial reunification of the schismatic factions occurred in 1963, but the organization never recovered sufficiently, and it failed to re-emerge as a single transnational grouping. The response of Trotskyists to such a situation has been in the form of forming multiple Internationals across the world, with some divided over which particular organization represents the true legacy and political continuity of the historical Fourth International.
    Trotskyism [ edit ] Trotskyists regard themselves as working in opposition to both capitalism and Stalinism. Trotsky advocated proletarian revolution as set out in his theory of "permanent revolution", and believed that a workers' state would not be able to hold out against the pressures of a hostile capitalist world unless socialist revolutions quickly took hold in other countries as well. This theory was advanced in opposition to the view held by the Stalinists that "socialism in one country" could be built in the Soviet Union alone.[3] Furthermore, Trotsky and his supporters harshly criticized the increasingly totalitarian nature of Joseph Stalin's rule. They argued that socialism without democracy is impossible. Thus, faced with the increasing lack of democracy in the Soviet Union, they concluded that it was no longer a socialist workers' state, but a degenerated workers' state.[1]
    Trotsky and his supporters had been organised since 1923 as the Left Opposition. They opposed the bureaucratization of the Soviet Union, which they analysed as being partly caused by the poverty and isolation of the Soviet economy.[4] Stalin's theory of socialism in one country was developed in 1924 as an opposition to Trotsky's Theory of Permanent Revolution, which argued that capitalism was a world system and required a world revolution in order to replace it with socialism. Prior to 1924, the Bolsheviks' international perspective had been guided by Trotsky's position. Trotsky argued that Stalin's theory represented the interests of bureaucratic elements in direct opposition to the working class.
    Eventually, Trotsky was sent into internal exile and his supporters were jailed. However, the Left Opposition continued to work in secret within the Soviet Union.[5] Trotsky was exiled to Turkey in 1928. He moved from there to France, Norway and finally to Mexico.[6] He was assassinated on Stalin's orders in Mexico in August 1940.[7]
    Political internationals [ edit ] A political international is an organisation of political parties or activists with the aim of co-ordinating their activity for a common purpose. There had been a long tradition of socialists organising on an international basis, and Karl Marx had led the International Workingmen's Association, which later became known as the "first international".
    After the International Workingmen's Association disbanded in 1876, several attempts were made to revive the organisation, culminating in the formation of the Socialist International (Second International) in 1889. This was disbanded in 1916 following disagreements over World War I. Although the organisation reformed in 1923 as the Labour and Socialist International, supporters of the October Revolution and the Bolsheviks had already set up the Communist International (Comintern), which they regarded as the Third International.[8] This was organised on a democratic centralist basis, with component parties required to fight for policies adopted by the body as a whole.
    By declaring themselves the Fourth International, the "World Party of Socialist Revolution", the Trotskyists were publicly asserting their continuity with the Comintern, and with its predecessors. Their recognition of the importance of these earlier Internationals was coupled with a belief that they eventually degenerated. Although the Socialist International and Comintern were still in existence, the Trotskyists did not believe those organisations were capable of supporting revolutionary socialism and internationalism.[4]
    The foundation of the Fourth International was therefore spurred in part by a desire to form a stronger political current, rather than being seen as the communist opposition to the Comintern and the Soviet Union. Trotsky believed that its formation was all the more urgent for the role he saw it playing in the impending World War.[1]
    Decision to form the International [ edit ] In the early 1930s, Trotsky and his supporters believed that Stalin's influence over the Third International could still be fought from within and slowly rolled back. They organised themselves into the International Left Opposition in 1930, which was intended to be a group of anti-Stalinist dissenters within the Third International. Stalin's supporters, who dominated the International, would no longer tolerate dissent. All Trotskyists, and those suspected of being influenced by Trotskyism, were expelled.[9]
    Trotsky claimed that the Third Period policies of the Comintern had contributed to the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany, and that its turn to a popular front policy (aiming to unite all ostensibly anti-fascist forces) sowed illusions in reformism and pacifism and "clear[ed] the road for a fascist overturn". By 1935 he claimed that the Comintern had fallen irredeemably into the hands of the Stalinist bureaucracy.[10] He and his supporters, expelled from the Third International, participated in a conference of the London Bureau of socialist parties outside both the Socialist International and the Comintern. Three of those parties joined the Left Opposition in signing a document written by Trotsky calling for a Fourth International, which became known as the "Declaration of Four".[11] Of those, two soon distanced themselves from the agreement, but the Dutch Revolutionary Socialist Party worked with the International Left Opposition to declare the International Communist League.[12]
    This position was contested by Andr(C)s Nin and some other members of the League who did not support the call for a new International. This group prioritised regroupment with other communist oppositions, principally the International Communist Opposition (ICO), linked to the Right Opposition in the Soviet Party, a regroupment which eventually led to the formation of the International Bureau for Revolutionary Socialist Unity. Trotsky considered those organisations to be centrist. Despite Trotsky, the Spanish section merged with the Spanish section of ICO, forming the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM). Trotsky claimed the merger was to be a capitulation to centrism.[13] The Socialist Workers' Party of Germany, a left split from the Social Democratic Party of Germany founded in 1931, co-operated with the International Left Opposition briefly in 1933 but soon abandoned the call for a new International.
    In 1935, Trotsky wrote an Open Letter for the Fourth International, reaffirming the Declaration of Four, while documenting the recent course of the Comintern and the Socialist International. In the letter, he called for the urgent formation of a Fourth International.[12] The "First International Conference for the Fourth International" was held in Paris in June 1936, reports giving its location as Geneva for security reasons.[14] This meeting dissolved the International Communist League, founding in its place the Movement for the Fourth International on Trotsky's perspectives.
    The foundation of the Fourth International was seen as more than just the simple renaming of an international tendency that was already in existence. It was argued that the Third International had now degenerated completely and was therefore to be seen as a counter-revolutionary organisation that would in time of crisis defend capitalism. Trotsky believed that the coming World War would produce a revolutionary wave of class and national struggles, rather as World War I had done.[1]
    Stalin reacted to the growing strength of Trotsky's supporters with a major political massacre of people within the Soviet Union, and the assassination of Trotsky's supporters and family abroad.[15] He had agents go through historical documents and photos in order to attempt to erase Trotsky's memory from the history books.[16] According to the historian Mario Kessler, Stalin's supporters turned to anti-semitism to whip up sentiment against Trotsky (as Trotsky was a Jew).[17] Stalin's daughter later claimed that his fight with Trotsky laid the foundations for his later anti-semitic campaigns.[18]
    Founding Congress [ edit ] The International's rationale was to construct new mass revolutionary parties able to lead successful workers' revolutions. It saw these arising from a revolutionary wave which would develop alongside and as a result of the coming World War. Thirty delegates attended a founding conference, held in September 1938, in the home of Alfred Rosmer just outside Paris. Present at the meeting were delegates from all the major countries of Europe, and from North America, although for reasons of cost and distance, few delegates attended from Asia or Latin America. An International Secretariat was established, with many of the day's leading Trotskyists and most countries in which Trotskyists were active represented.[19] Among the resolutions adopted by the conference was the Transitional Programme.[20]
    The Transitional Programme was the central programmatic statement of the congress, summarising its strategic and tactical conceptions for the revolutionary period that it saw opening up as a result of the war which Trotsky had been predicting for some years. It is not, however, the definitive programme of the Fourth International '' as is often suggested '' but instead contains a summation of the conjunctural understanding of the movement at that date and a series of transitional policies designed to develop the struggle for workers' power.[21][22]
    World War II [ edit ] At the outbreak of World War II, in 1939, the International Secretariat was moved to New York City. The resident International Executive Committee failed to meet, largely because of a struggle in the U.S. Socialist Workers Party (SWP) between Trotsky's supporters and the tendency of Max Shachtman, Martin Abern and James Burnham. The secretariat was composed of those committee members who happened to be in the city, most of whom were co-thinkers of Shachtman.[23] The disagreement centred on the Shachtmanites' disagreements with the SWP's internal policy,[24] and over the FI's unconditional defence of the USSR.[25]
    Trotsky opened a public debate with Shachtman and Burnham and developed his positions in a series of polemics written in 1939''1940 and later collected in In Defense of Marxism. Shachtman and Burnham's tendency resigned from the International in early 1940, alongside almost 40% of the SWP's members, many of whom became founder members of the Workers Party.
    Emergency conference [ edit ] In May 1940 an emergency conference of the International met at a secret location "somewhere in the Western Hemisphere". It adopted a manifesto drafted by Trotsky shortly before his murder and a range of policies on the work of the International, including one calling for the reunification of the then-divided Fourth Internationalist groups in Britain.[27]
    Secretariat members who had supported Shachtman were expelled by the emergency conference, with the support of Trotsky himself.[28] While leader of the SWP James P. Cannon later said that he did not believe the split to be definitive and final, the two groups did not reunite. A new International Executive Committee was appointed, which came under the increasing influence of the Socialist Workers Party.[28]
    The Fourth International was hit hard during World War II. Trotsky was assassinated, many of the FI's European affiliates were destroyed by the Nazis and several of its Asian affiliates were destroyed by the Empire of Japan. The survivors, in Europe, Asia and elsewhere, were largely cut off from each other and from the International Secretariat. The new secretary, Jean Van Heijenoort (also known as Gerland), was able to do little more than publish articles in the SWP's theoretical journal Fourth International.[28] Despite this dislocation, the various groups sought to maintain links and some connections were kept up throughout the early part of the war by sailors enlisted in the U.S. Navy who had cause to visit Marseilles.[29] Contact was steady, if irregular, between the SWP and the British Trotskyists, with the result that the Americans exerted what influence they had to encourage the Workers' International League into the International through a fusion with the Revolutionary Socialist League, a union that had been requested by the Emergency Conference.[30]
    In 1942, a debate on the national question in Europe opened up between the majority of the SWP and a movement led by Van Heijenoort, Albert Goldman and Felix Morrow.[31] This minority anticipated that the Nazi dictatorship would be replaced with capitalism rather than by a socialist revolution, leading to the revival of Stalinism and social democracy. In December 1943, they criticised the SWP's view as underestimating the rising prestige of Stalinism and the opportunities for the capitalists to use democratic concessions.[32] The SWP's central committee argued that democratic capitalism could not revive, resulting in either military dictatorship by the capitalists or a workers' revolution.[33] It held that this would reinforce the need for building the Fourth International, and adhered rigidly to their interpretation of Trotsky's works.
    European Conference [ edit ] The
    Fourth International magazine
    The wartime debate about post-war perspectives was accelerated by the resolution of the February 1944 European Conference of the Fourth International. The conference appointed a new European Secretariat and elected Michel Raptis, a Greek resident in France also known as Michel Pablo, the organisational secretary of its European Bureau. Raptis and other bureau members re-established contact between the Trotskyist parties. The European conference extended the lessons of a revolution then unfolding in Italy, and concluded that a revolutionary wave would cross Europe as the war ended.[34] The SWP had a similar perspective.[35] The British Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) disagreed and held that capitalism was not about to plunge into massive crisis but rather that an upturn in the economy was already underway.[36] A group of leaders of the French Internationalist Communist Party (PCI) around Yvan Craipeau argued a similar position until they were expelled from the PCI in 1948.[37]
    International conference [ edit ] In April 1946 delegates from the principal European sections and a number of others attended a "Second International Congress".[38] This set about rebuilding the International Secretariat of the Fourth International with Michel Raptis appointed Secretary and Ernest Mandel, a Belgian, taking a leading role.
    Pablo and Mandel aimed to counter the opposition of the majorities inside the British Revolutionary Communist Party and French Internationalist Communist Party. Initially, they encouraged party members to vote out their leaderships. They supported Gerry Healy's opposition in the RCP. In France, they backed elements, including Pierre Frank and Marcel Bleibtreu, opposed to the new leadership of the PCI '' albeit for differing reasons.[39]
    The Stalinist occupation of Eastern Europe was the issue of prime concern, and it raised many problems of interpretation. At first, the International held that, while the USSR was a degenerated workers' state, the post-World War II East European states were still bourgeois entities, because revolution from above was not possible, and capitalism persisted.[40]
    Another issue that needed to be dealt with was the possibility that the economy would revive. This was initially denied by Mandel (who was quickly forced to revise his opinion, and later devoted his PhD dissertation to late capitalism, analysing the unexpected "third age" of capitalist development). Mandel's perspective mirrored uncertainty at that time about the future viability and prospects of capitalism, not just among all Trotskyist groups, but also among leading economists. Paul Samuelson had envisaged in 1943 the probability of a "nightmarish combination of the worst features of inflation and deflation", worrying that "there would be ushered in the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced".[41] Joseph Schumpeter for his part claimed that "[t]he general opinion seems to be that capitalist methods will be unequal to the task of reconstruction". He regarded it as "not open to doubt that the decay of capitalist society is very far advanced".[42]
    Second World Congress [ edit ] The Second World Congress in April 1948 was attended by delegates from 22 sections. It debated a range of resolutions on the Jewish Question, Stalinism, the colonial countries and the specific situations facing sections in certain countries.[43] By this point the FI was united around the view that the Eastern European "buffer states" were still capitalist countries.[44]
    The Congress was especially notable for bringing the International into much closer contact with Trotskyist groups from across the globe. These included such significant groups as the Revolutionary Workers' Party of Bolivia and the Lanka Sama Samaja Party in what was then Ceylon,[45] but the previously large Vietnamese Trotskyist groups had mostly been eliminated or absorbed by the supporters of Ho Chi Minh.[46]
    After the Second World Congress in 1948, the International Secretariat attempted to open communications with Josip Broz Tito's regime in Yugoslavia.[47] In their analysis, it differed from the rest of the Eastern Bloc because it was established by the partisans of World War II who had fought against Nazi occupation, as opposed to by Stalin's invading armies. The British RCP, led by Jock Haston and supported by Ted Grant, were highly critical of this move.[39]
    Third World Congress [ edit ] The Third World Congress in 1951 resolved that the economies of the East European states and their political regimes had come to resemble that of the USSR more and more. These states were then described as deformed workers states in an analogy with the degenerated workers state in Russia. The term deformed was used rather than degenerated, because no workers' revolution had led to the foundation of these states.[48]
    The Third World Congress envisaged the real possibility of an "international civil war" in the near future.[49] It argued that the mass Communist parties "may, under certain favourable conditions, go beyond the aims set for them by the Soviet bureaucracy and project a revolutionary orientation". Given the supposed closeness of war, the FI thought that the Communist Parties and social democratic parties would be the only significant force that could defend the workers of the world against the imperialist camp in those countries where there were mass forces.[50]
    In line with this geopolitical perspective, Pablo argued that the only way the Trotskyists could avoid isolation was for various sections of the Fourth International to undertake long-term entryism in the mass Communist or Social Democratic parties.[51] This tactic was known as entrism sui generis, to distinguish it from the short-term entry tactic employed before World War II. For example, it meant that the project of building an open and independent Trotskyist party was shelved in France, because it was regarded as not politically feasible alongside entry into the French Communist Party.
    This perspective was accepted within the Fourth International, yet sowed the seeds for the split in 1953. At the Third World Congress, the sections agreed with the perspective of an international civil war. The French section disagreed with the associated tactic of entryism sui generis, and held that Pablo was underestimating the independent role of the working class parties in the Fourth International. The leaders of the majority of the Trotskyist organisation in France, Marcel Bleibtreu and Pierre Lambert, refused to follow the line of the International. The International leadership had them replaced by a minority, leading to a permanent split in the French section.[52]
    In the wake of the World Congress, the line of the International Leadership was generally accepted by groups around the world, including the U.S. SWP whose leader, James P. Cannon, corresponded with the French majority to support the tactic of entrism sui generis.[52] At the same time, however, Cannon, Healy and Mandel were deeply concerned by Pablo's political evolution. Cannon and Healy were also alarmed by Pablo's intervention into the French section, and by suggestions that Pablo might use the International's authority in this way in other sections of the Fourth International that felt entrism "sui generis" was not a suitable tactic in their own countries. In particular, minority tendencies, exemplified in Britain by John Lawrence and in the U.S. by Bert Cochran, to support entrism "sui generis" hinted that Pablo's support for their views indicated that the International might also demand Trotskyists in those countries adopt that tactic.[53]
    Formation of the International Committee of the Fourth International [ edit ] In 1953, the SWP's national committee issued an Open Letter to Trotskyists Throughout the World[54] and organised the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). This was a public faction which initially included, in addition to the SWP, Gerry Healy's British section The Club, the Internationalist Communist Party in France (then led by Lambert who had expelled Bleibtreu and his grouping), Nahuel Moreno's party in Argentina and the Austrian and Chinese sections of the FI. The sections of the ICFI withdrew from the International Secretariat, which suspended their voting rights. Both sides claimed they constituted a majority of the former International.[55]
    Sri Lanka's Lanka Sama Samaja Party, then the country's leading workers' party, took a middle position during this dispute. It continued to participate in the ISFI but argued for a joint congress, for reunification with the ICFI.[56]
    An excerpt from the Open Letter explains the split as follows:
    To sum up: The lines of cleavage between Pablo's revisionism and orthodox Trotskyism are so deep that no compromise is possible either politically or organizationally. The Pablo faction has demonstrated that it will not permit democratic decisions truly reflecting majority opinion to be reached. They demand complete submission to their criminal policy. They are determined to drive all orthodox Trotskyists out of the Fourth International or to muzzle and handcuff them.Their scheme has been to inject their Stalinist conciliationism piecemeal and likewise in piecemeal fashion, get rid of those who come to see what is happening and raise objections.[54]
    From the Fourth World Congress to reunification [ edit ] Over the following decade, the IC referred to the rest of the International as the "International Secretariat of the Fourth International", emphasising its view that the Secretariat did not speak for the International as a whole.[57] The Secretariat continued to view itself as the leadership of the International. It held a Fourth World Congress in 1954 to regroup and to recognise reorganised sections in Britain, France and the U.S.
    Parts of the International Committee were divided over whether the split with "Pabloism" was permanent or temporary,[58] and it was perhaps as a result of this that it did not declare itself to be the Fourth International. Those sections that considered the split permanent embarked on a discussion about the history of the split and its meanings.
    The sections of the International that recognised the leadership of the International Secretariat remained optimistic about the possibilities for increasing the International's political influence and extended the entrism into social democratic parties which was already underway in Britain, Austria and elsewhere. The 1954 congress emphasised entrism into communist parties and nationalist parties in the colonies, pressing for democratic reforms, ostensibly to encourage the left-wing they perceived to exist in the communist parties to join with them in a revolution.[59] Tensions developed between those who subscribed to the mainstream views of Pablo and a minority that argued unsuccessfully against open work. A number of these delegates walked out of the World Congress, and would eventually leave the International, including the leader of the new British section, John Lawrence, George Clarke, Michele Mestre (a leader of the French section), and Murray Dowson (a leader of the Canadian group).[60]
    The Secretariat organised a Fifth World Congress in October 1957. Mandel and Pierre Frank appraised the Algerian revolution and surmised that it was essential to reorient in the colonial states and neocolonies towards the emerging guerrilla-led revolutions.[61] According to Robert Alexander, Ernest Mandel has written that an organisation in Indonesia, the Partai Acoma, was affiliate to the FI from 1959 until the 1965 coup in that country.[62]
    The Sixth World Congress in 1961 marked a lessening of the political divisions between the majority of supporters of the International Secretariat and the leadership of the SWP in the United States. In particular, the congress stressed support for the Cuban revolution and a growing emphasis on building parties in the imperialist countries. The sixth congress also criticised the Lanka Sama Samaja Party, its Sri Lankan section, for seeming to support the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, which they saw as bourgeois nationalists; the U.S. SWP made similar criticisms.[63]
    In 1962 the IC and IS formed a Parity Commission to organise a common World Congress. The supporters of Michel Pablo and Juan Posadas opposed the convergence. The supporters of Posadas left the International in 1962.[63] At the 1963 reunification congress, the sections of the IC and IS reunified (with two exceptions: the British and French sections of the IC).[64] This was largely a result of their mutual support for Ernest Mandel and Joseph Hansen's resolution Dynamics of World Revolution Today and for the Cuban Revolution. This document distinguished between different revolutionary tasks in the imperialist countries, the "workers' states", and the colonial and semi-colonial countries.[65] In 1963, the reunified Fourth International elected a United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI), by which name the organisation as a whole is often still referred.
    Since reunification [ edit ] Since the 1963 reunification, a number of approaches have developed within international Trotskyism towards the Fourth International.
    The reunified Fourth International is the only current with direct organisational continuity to the original Fourth International at an international level. The International Committee and International Secretariat reunified at the 1963 congress, but without the Socialist Labour League and Internationalist Communist Organisation.[64] It is sometimes known as the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI) after the name of its leading committee, although that committee was replaced in 2003. It is also the only current to have continuously presented itself as "the" Fourth International. It is the largest current and leaders of some other Trotskyist Internationals occasionally refer to it as "the Fourth International": ICFI secretary Gerry Healy, when proposing reunification discussions in the 1970s, described it as "the Fourth International";[66] the International Socialist Tendency also usually refers to it in this way.[67]The International Committee of the Fourth International member groups customarily describe themselves as sections of the Fourth International, and the organisation as a whole describes itself as the "leadership of the Fourth International".[68] However, the ICFI presents itself as the political continuity of the Fourth International and Trotskyism, not as the FI itself. It clearly dates its creation as 1953, rather than from 1938.[69]Some tendencies argue that the Fourth International became dislocated politically during the years between Trotsky's murder and the establishment of the ICFI in 1953; they consequently work to "reconstruct", "reorganise" or "rebuild" it. This view originated with Lutte Ouvriere and the international Spartacist tendency and is shared by others who diverged from the ICFI. For example, the Committee for a Workers' International, whose founders dropped out of the reunified FI after 1965, call for a new "revolutionary Fourth International".[70] Indeed, the Fourth International (ICR) reproclaimed the Fourth International at a congress attended by ICR sections in June 1993.[71]Other Trotskyist groups argue that the Fourth International is dead. They call for the establishment of a new "workers' international" or a Fifth International.[72]Impact [ edit ] In uniting the large majority of Trotskyists in one organisation, the Fourth International created a tradition which has since been claimed by many Trotskyist organisations.
    Echoing Marx's Communist Manifesto, the Transitional Programme ended with the declaration "Workers '' men and women '' of all countries, place yourselves under the banner of the Fourth International. It is the banner of your approaching victory!". It declared demands to be placed on capitalists, opposition to the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, and support for workers' action against fascism.[1] Most of the demands on capitalists remain unfulfilled. The collapse of the Soviet Union occurred, but through a social revolution leading to the restoration of capitalism, rather than the political revolution proposed by the Trotskyists. Many Trotskyist groups have been active in anti-fascist campaigns, but the Fourth International has never played a major role in the toppling of a regime.
    Those groups which follow traditions that left the Fourth International in its early years argue that, despite initially correct positions, it had little impact. Lutte Ouvriere claims that it "did not survive the Second World War".[73] Workers Liberty, which follows in the third camp tradition established by the Workers Party, holds that "Trotsky and everything he represented was defeated and '' as we have to recognise in retrospect '' defeated for a whole historical period."[74]
    Other groups point to a positive impact. The ICFI claim that "the [early] Fourth International consisted mainly of cadres who remained true to their aims"[75] and describes much of the Fourth International's early activity as "correct and principled".[76] The reunified FI claim that "the Fourth International refused to compromise with capitalism either in its fascist or democratic variants." In its view, "many of the predictions made by Trotsky when he founded the Fourth International were proved wrong by history. But what was absolutely vindicated were his key political judgements."[77]
    See also [ edit ] List of left-wing internationalsList of Trotskyist internationalsList of Trotskyist organizations by countryInternationals:
    First InternationalSecond InternationalThird InternationalFifth InternationalReferences [ edit ] ^ a b c d e The Transitional Program. Retrieved November 5, 2008. ^ Ernest Mandel, Trotskyists and the Resistance in World War Two ^ Leon Trotsky, In Defence of October ^ a b "Manifesto of the Fourth International on the Dissolution of the Comintern", Fourth International, July 1943. ^ Serge, Victor, From Lenin to Stalin, p70 ff, Pathfinder, (1973) ^ Deutscher, Isaac, Stalin, p381, Pelican (1966) ^ Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment, Oxford University Press, 1991, ISBN 0-19-507132-8, p. 418. ^ Working-class Internationalism & Organisation ^ Joseph Stalin, "Industrialisation of the country and the right deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.)", Works, Vol.11, pp. 255-302. ^ Leon Trotsky, "Open Letter For The Fourth International", New Militant, August 3, 1935. ^ "Declaration of the Four" Archived 2011-07-18 at the Wayback Machine , The Militant, September 23, 1933. ^ a b George Breitman, The Rocky Road to the Fourth International, 1933''38 ^ John G. Wright, "Trotsky's Struggle for the Fourth International", Fourth International, August 1946. ^ CLR James Interview ^ "Trotskyists at Vorkuta: An Eyewitness Report", International Socialist Review, Summer 1963. ^ Propaganda in the Propaganda State, PBS ^ Mario Kessler, "Leon Trotsky's Position on Anti-Semitism, Zionism and the Perspectives of the Jewish Question", New Interventions, Vol. 5 No. 2, 1994 (transcript of a talk at the AGM of Revolutionary History magazine in October 1993. ^ Arnold Beichman, "How Stalin, the 'breaker of nations,' hated, murdered Jews", Washington Times, August 16, 2003. ^ M. S., "Foreword", Founding Conference of the Fourth International] ^ Socialist Workers Party, The Founding Conference of the Fourth International ^ Charlie van Gelderen, Sixty years of the Fourth International Archived 2008-09-28 at the Wayback Machine ^ Richard Price The Transitional Programme in perspective ^ "Declaration on the status of the resident International Executive Committee", in Documents of the Fourth International, Vol. 1, pp. 351''355 ^ Duncan Hallas, Fourth International in Decline Archived 2008-02-20 at Archive.today ^ Trotsky, In Defense of Marxism, New York 1942. ^ "Emergency Conference of the Fourth International", International Bulletin, Nos. 1 & 2, 1940. ^ a b c Michel Pablo, "Report on the Fourth International Since the Outbreak of War, 1939''48" Fourth International, December 1948 & January 1949. ^ Rodolphe Prager, "The Fourth International during the Second World War" Archived 2005-12-27 at the Wayback Machine , Revolutionary History, Vol. 1 No. 3, Autumn 1988. ^ "Resolution On The Unification of the British Section", International Bulletin, Nos. 1 & 2, 1940. ^ The Fourth International During World War II (immediately afterward). ^ Felix Morrow, "The First Phase of the Coming European Revolution", Fourth International, December 1944. ^ "Perspectives and Tasks of the Coming European Revolution", Fourth International, December 1943. ^ "Theses on the Liquidation of World War II and the Revolutionary Upsurge", Fourth International, March & May 1945. ^ "The European Revolution and the Tasks of the Revolutionary Party", Fourth International, December 1944. ^ Martin Upham, The History of British Trotskyism to 1949 (PhD thesis publische online on the Revolutionary History Website). ^ Peter Schwarz, "The politics of opportunism: the 'radical left' in France", World Socialist Web Site. ^ "The Conference of the Fourth International", Fourth International, June 1946. ^ a b Sam Bornstein and Al Richardson, War and the International, London 1986. ^ Alex Callinicos, Trotskyism, Maidenhead 1990. ^ Paul Samuelson, "Full Employment after the war," in S. Harris (ed.), Post war Economic Problems, London & New York 1943. ^ Joseph Schumpeter, "Capitalism in the post-war world". in S. Harris (ed.), Post war Economic Problems, London & New York 1943. ^ 2nd Congress of the Fourth International ^ "The USSR and Stalinism", Fourth International, June 1948. ^ "The Third World Congress of the Fourth International" Archived 2006-03-09 at the Wayback Machine , Fourth International, November 1951. ^ "The Fourth International in Vietnam" Archived 2006-02-18 at the Wayback Machine , Revolutionary History, Vol. 3 No. 2, Autumn 1990. ^ International Secretariat of the Fourth International, "An Open Letter to Congress, Central Committee and Members of the Yugoslav Communist Party", Fourth International, July 1948. ^ Pierre Frank, "Evolution of Eastern Europe", Fourth International, November 1951. ^ "Theses on Orientation and Perspectives", Fourth International, November 1951. ^ "The International Situation and Tasks in the Struggle against Imperialist War", Fourth International, November 1951. ^ Michel Pablo, "World Trotskism Rearms", Fourth International, November 1951. ^ a b Letters exchanged between Daniel Renard and James P. Cannon, February 16 and May 9, 1952 ^ International Committee Documents 1951''1954, Vol. 1, Section 4, (Education for Socialists) ^ a b SWP, "Open Letter to Trotskyists Throughout the World", Militant, November 16, 1953. ^ "Resolution forming the International Committee", SWP Internal Bulletin; Michel Pablo, Pierre Frank and Ernest Germain, "Letter from the Bureau of the IS to the leaderships of all sections", November 15, 1953, Education for Socialists Bulletin. ^ "David North addresses Sri Lankan Trotskyists on the 50th anniversary of the ICFI", World Socialist Web Site, November 21, 2003. ^ "Resolution of the International Committee instructing publication of the documents", August 24, 1973, Workers Press, August 29, 1973. ^ International Secretariat: "To all Members and All Organizations of the International Committee", Education for Socialists Bulletin. ^ Michel Pablo, "The Post-Stalin 'New Course'", Fourth International, March 1953; Michel Pablo, The 4th International: What it is, What it aims at, Publications of the Fourth International, 1958. ^ John McIlroy, "The Revolutionary Odyssey of John Lawrence", What Next, No. 26, 2003. ^ Pierre Frank, The Fourth International: The Long March of the Trotskyists, London 1979. ^ Robert Alexander https://books.google.com/books?id=_eUtQjseKaIC&lpg=PA534&ots=AdRQT__QNJ&dq=%22Fourth%20International%22%20%22tan%20malaka%22&pg=PA534#v=onepage&q=%22Fourth%20International%22%20%22tan%20malaka%22&f=false ^ a b "Trotskyism and the Cuban Revolution: A Debate", Intercontinental Press, May 11, 1981, on the What Next? website. ^ a b Farrell Dobbs and Joseph Hansen, Reunification of the Fourth International, International Socialist Review 1963. ^ Ernest Mandel and Joseph Hansen, "Dynamics of World Revolution Today" Archived 2011-07-28 at the Wayback Machine , International Socialist Review, Fall 1963. ^ Gerry Healy, "Letter to the Fourth International", in Marxism vs. ultraleftism : the record of Healy's break with Trotskyism. Edited by Joseph Hansen ^ Alex Callinicos, "Regroupment, Realignment, and the Revolutionary Left" Archived 2006-05-15 at the Wayback Machine , IST Discussion Bulletin, No. 1, July 2002. ^ "About the International Committee of the Fourth International" Archived 2006-05-15 at the Wayback Machine , World Socialist Web Site. ^ Peter Schwarz, "Meetings on 50 years of the International Committee of the Fourth International", World Socialist Web Site. ^ Peter Taaffe, A Socialist World is Possible: The history of the CWI Archived 2005-07-22 at the Wayback Machine , Committee for a Workers' International. ^ "Manifesto of the 4th World Congress", on the Socialist Organizer website. ^ "Forward to the Fifth International!" Archived 2006-05-19 at the Wayback Machine , on the League for the Fifth International website. ^ "Les fondements programmatiques de notre politique", Lutte de classe, No. 77, December 2003. (in French) ^ Sean Matgamna, "What we are, what we do and why we do it" , Solidarity 3/72, April 28, 2005. ^ Peter Schwarz, "The politics of opportunism: the 'radical left' in France", World Socialist Web Site. ^ David North, "Ernest Mandel, 1923''1995: A critical assessment of his role in the history of the Fourth International" Archived 2006-06-26 at the Wayback Machine , World Socialist Web Site. ^ "The Fourth International" Archived 2008-09-28 at the Wayback Machine , International Socialist Group website. Further reading [ edit ] Death Agony of the Fourth International. Workers Power and the Irish Workers Group. 1983. On the League for a Fifth International Website. Retrieved June 21, 2008.Robert J. Alexander, International Trotskyism, 1929''1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement. Duke University Press, 1991.The Organizer [Alan Benjamin], Toward a Balance Sheet of the Fourth International in the United States. Retrieved April 26, 2014.Alex Callinicos, Trotskyism, Open University Press, 1990. Retrieved June 21, 2008.Pierre Frank, The Fourth International: The Long March of the Trotskyists, Ink Links, 1979. Retrieved June 21, 2008.Livio Maitan, Memoirs of a critical communist. Towards a History of The Fourth International, 2019, Amsterdam, Brill.Ernest Mandel, "The Reasons for Founding the Fourth International And Why They Remain Valid Today", from E. Mandel, Revolutionary Marxism and social reality in the 20th century. Humanities Press, 1994. Retrieved June 21, 2008.Francois Moreau, Combats et d(C)bats de la Quatri¨me Internationale. Qu(C)bec, Vents d'Ouest, 1993.David North, The Heritage We Defend [1] (1988) ISBN 0-929087-00-3, 539pp., a history of the Fourth International.Jean van Heijenoort, "The Origins of the Fourth International", on the Socialist Organizer Website; also at Marxists.org. Retrieved June 21, 2008.
  Pulitzer Prize Board Announces New Audio Reporting Category - The Pulitzer Prizes
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 15:55
    (C) The Pulitzer Prizes '-- Columbia University, 709 Pulitzer Hall, 2950 Broadway, New York, NY 10027
  Frequently Asked Questions - The Pulitzer Prizes
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 15:54
    (C) The Pulitzer Prizes '-- Columbia University, 709 Pulitzer Hall, 2950 Broadway, New York, NY 10027
  Nikole Hannah-Jones, Shell Oil and mass killings in Africa - World Socialist Web Site
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 15:50
    The New York Times' ''1619 Project'' By Tr(C)von Austin and Bill Van Auken 18 December 2019On Wednesday, December 11, Nikole Hannah-Jones, lead author of the New York Times ' ''1619 Project,'' delivered a speech in Houston to inaugurate the Emancipation Park Conservancy's lecture series depicting the ''Black Experience.''
    The appearance was part of a nationwide lecture tour in which Hannah-Jones is promoting the 1619 Project's ''reframing'' of the history of the United States as an unending racial struggle of whites against African Americans. The American Revolution of 1775 to 1783 and the Civil War of 1861 to 1865, according to Hannah-Jones, were sham events, unrelated to the struggle for equality and the eventual destruction of slavery. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were racist hypocrites dedicated to the defense of white supremacy.
    Hannah-Jones' appearance in Texas was sponsored by the Houston-based Shell Oil Company. This is the US subsidiary of the oil and gas corporate giant Royal Dutch Shell, which is confronting international public outrage over its involvement in massive human rights abuses in the African country of Nigeria. The focus of protests has been Shell's collaboration with the Nigerian government in the suppression of the Ogoni ethnic group. The company currently faces multiple court cases over its complicity in the murder of thousands, including the Nigerian dictatorship's hanging in 1995 of the well-known Ogoni writer and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa.
    Poster for the Houston eventHannah-Jones is unsparing in her condemnation of the moral failings of the democratic revolutionaries of the 18th and 19th centuries. She can barely contain her contempt for those who failed to leap out of the historical epoch in which they lived and embrace the rhetoric of 21st century middle-class identity politics. But the unforgiving code of ethics she imposes upon the historic figures of the past does not seem to apply to herself. Her own personal moral compass does not seem to be in working order.
    Shell's history in Africa has long made it an international pariah. In the 1980s, it was described as ''the worst corporate collaborator'' of apartheid South Africa, systematically violating sanctions to provide oil that fueled the racist regime's repressive apparatus. It also carried out mining operations in the country, including at its Rietspruit coal mine, where striking workers were beaten and forced back to work at gunpoint. Its support for apartheid provoked an international boycott movement against the oil giant.
    Just two years ago, Amnesty International released an 89-page report titled '' A Criminal Enterprise? Shell's Involvement in Human Rights Violations in Nigeria in the 1990s. '' Based on the testimony of survivors, internal company documents and minutes of meetings between Shell and Nigerian security forces, Amnesty's report declared:
    In November 1995, the Nigerian state arbitrarily executed nine men after a blatantly unfair trial. The executions led to global condemnation. The United States and the European Union imposed sanctions on Nigeria, and the Commonwealth group of nations suspended the country's membership. Officially accused of involvement in murder, the men had in fact been put on trial for confronting the Anglo-Dutch oil giant, Shell, over its devastating impact on the Ogoniland region of Nigeria's oil-producing Niger Delta.
    The executions were the culmination of a brutal campaign by Nigeria's military to silence the protests of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), led by Ken Saro-Wiwa, one of the men executed. MOSOP said that others had grown rich on the oil that was pumped from under their soil, while pollution from oil spills and gas flaring had, ''led to the complete degradation of the Ogoni environment, turning our homeland into an ecological disaster.'' In January 1993, MOSOP declared that Shell was no longer welcome to operate in Ogoniland. The military's subsequent campaign directly led to widespread and serious human rights violations, including the unlawful killing of hundreds of Ogonis, as well as torture and other ill-treatment, including rape, and the destruction of homes and livelihoods. Many of these violations also amounted to criminal offences.
    Ken Saro-Wiwa (C) Tim Lambon / GreenpeaceShell's exploitation of oil in Nigeria goes back to the period of British colonial rule. After independence, it became the most important economic actor in the country, with immense power over its government. Shell's operations centered in Ogoniland, located in the southernmost part of the country along the Gulf of Guinea. Fifty years of exploitation and Shell's continuous oil spills have left the region an ecological disaster, with its soil no longer viable for agriculture and its ground water massively contaminated with carcinogens. The Ogoni people saw their livelihoods destroyed, while they received nothing from the billions of dollars that Shell extracted from the region.
    In the early 1990s, under the leadership of Saro-Wiwa, MOSOP emerged to challenge the destruction of the region by Shell and the Nigerian government.
    As the protests grew, Shell called upon the government to provide ''security protection'' for its facilities, while the company offered ''logistical'' support in deploying heavily armed police and troops against the Ogoni people, providing them with transportation, salaries and even weapons. In some cases, those sent in to ''murder, rape and torture'' wore uniforms bearing the Shell logo.
    Over the course of these operations, it is estimated that 27 Ogoni villages were raided, leading to the deaths of as many as 2,000 people and the forced displacement of 80,000 more. Rape was employed as a weapon to intimidate the population, and prisoners were routinely tortured.
    In May 1994, Saro-Wiwa and other prominent leaders of MOSOP were arrested for killings of which they were patently innocent. After imprisonment and torture, he and eight others were brought to a kangaroo court organized by the military dictatorship of General Sani Abacha, found guilty and sentenced to hang.
    In his final words to the sham tribunal that convicted him, Saro-Wiwa said that Shell itself would face its own day in court.
    In a moving testimonial to his father published in The Guardian on November 10, 2015, Ken Wiwa, Saro-Wiwa's son, wrote:
    Twenty years ago today my father and eight other Ogoni men were woken from their sleep and hanged in a prison yard in southern Nigeria. When the news filtered out, shock and outrage reverberated around the world, and everyone from the Queen to Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela condemned the executions. '...
    That it was a kangaroo court is no longer in dispute. The trial and execution were consistent with the way Nigeria's military regimes summarily dealt with people they regarded as a threat to their authority. A UN fact-finding mission led by eminent jurists vigorously condemned the process, and John Major, Britain's prime minister, described the trial as ''fraudulent'', the convictions as a ''bad verdict'', and the executions as ''judicial murder''. '...
    If my father were alive today he would be dismayed that Ogoniland still looks like the devastated region that spurred him to action. There is little evidence to show that it sits on one of the world's richest deposits of oil and gas.
    The New York Times'--which has promoted the 1619 Project and selected Hannah-Jones as its principal mouthpiece'--is thoroughly familiar with this history, having published numerous articles on the life and death of Saro-Wiwa. In an editorial written in the aftermath of his execution, the Times noted that, after the MOSOP leader's conviction, Shell issued a statement that ''it is not for a commercial organization to interfere with the legal processes of a sovereign state.'' Clearly worried about the oil giant's reputation, the Times concluded tepidly, ''Summary executions, fraudulent trials and brutal suppression of dissent are not practices a responsible corporation can ignore.'' Shell was not ignoring anything; it was entirely complicit in these crimes.
    The crimes committed by Shell in Ogoniland did not occur in the 18th, 19th or even the early decades of the 20th centuries. This is a contemporary event and an ongoing crime. Shell is now on trial at a court in The Hague, charged with complicity in murder, rape and burning down villages by the Nigerian regime. The plaintiffs are the widows of four of the nine Ogoni leaders who were hung after being falsely convicted by the dictatorship's sham tribunal. Shell fought an earlier attempt to try the company in the US all the way to Supreme Court, where the case was thrown out on jurisdictional grounds.
    A report by The Guardian published on February 12, 2019 quoted Mark Dummett, a researcher at Amnesty International, who stated that the widows of the executed Ogoni leaders ''believe that their husbands would still be alive today were it not for the brazen self-interest of Shell.'' The trial, Dummett continued, ''is an historic moment which has huge significance for people everywhere who have been harmed by the greed and recklessness of global corporations.''
    The oil giant is facing a second criminal prosecution in the Netherlands on charges of bribery and corruption for its part in handing out $1.1 billion that went into the pockets of Nigerian politicians and middlemen to secure lucrative offshore drilling rights.
    Meanwhile, another lawsuit brought by Ogoni villagers and Friends of the Earth Netherlands over the environmental devastation of the Niger Delta region has been fought by the company for the past decade, with two of the plaintiffs dying in the meantime.
    In November Jacobin magazine conducted an interview with two academic experts on conditions in Ogoniland, Roy Doron and Toyin Falola, who stated that Shell and other oil companies devote far more time to ''public relations aimed at Western audiences and allaying investor guilt than actually making a difference to the communities impacted by years of oil spills, gas flaring, and systematic land dispossession.''
    Protest outside of US court where Shell was on trial (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)Shell used Hannah-Jones, who was only too willing to be used, as part of its public relations operation aimed at diverting attention from the company's crimes as they face fresh exposure. Sponsoring an appearance by Hannah-Jones allows Shell to posture as an intrepid corporate fighter against racism. Moreover, the 1619 Project's obsessive focus on race conceals the essential economic interests that underlie the business practices of Shell.
    Shell executives obviously sponsored the event in the expectation that endorsement of the 1619 Project would counteract the impact of ongoing lawsuits; and they could not have been disappointed by the results of their investment. Everything went exactly as planned. Shell basked in a moment of public adulation as the event moderator, Melanie Lawson, a local media personality, prefaced her introduction of Hannah-Jones with a shout-out:
    I want to take a moment first to recognize tonight's presenting sponsor. And you might know this name, it's a giant in our community, Shell Oil. And if someone is here from Shell Oil will you please stand or wave or all of the above? Do we have some Shell folks? There we go.
    The audience responded with an ovation, in which Hannah-Jones joined in. Lawson continued:
    Yeah, don't be shy about this. Shell people stand up so we can thank you. We appreciate you. We know this event would not be possible without your very generous donation and we appreciate your continued support of Emancipation Park Conservancy.
    It should not come as surprise that Lawson did not ask the audience to stand and observe a minute of silence to honor the memories of Saro-Wiwa and other victims of Shell's criminal activity.
    The event in Houston underscores the fraudulent and class character of the 1619 Project. Hannah-Jones' appearance on a platform paid for by Shell Oil makes her politically and morally complicit in the oppression of the Ogoni people. Her staggering hypocrisy and moral blindness is not merely a personal characteristic. It is typical of an ultra-egotistical, self-absorbed and affluent petty-bourgeois social stratum, determined to make as much money as possible, regardless of where it is coming from.
    It is not at all clear how Hannah-Jones' racialist interpretation of history, which claims that North American slavery and all subsequent forms of discrimination in the United States stem from white people's allegedly inbred and intractable hatred of African Americans, would serve to explain her own apparent indifference to the crimes of Shell Oil against modern-day Africans. Moreover, Hannah-Jones' association with Shell is of an entirely voluntary character. Jefferson and Lincoln were born and lived in a historical situation in which slavery was a major element of the economic structure of the North American and world economy. What objective historical factors have compelled Hannah-Jones to associate herself with, and profit from, collaboration with Shell Oil? What excuse does she have, other than personal self-interest, for appearing on a platform provided by Shell Oil?
    Having promoted herself as the avenging angel of American history, Hannah-Jones is obligated to reveal all the facts related to her participation at an event sponsored by Shell. Did she receive any form of remuneration for her appearance in Houston? Why is she serving the publicity needs of a corporation branded as a ''criminal enterprise,'' complicit in the ''murder, rape and torture'' of African men, women and children?
    '];var html = htmlArray.join(''); if ( location.href.indexOf('/en/articles/2019/12/21/bynu-d22.html') > -1 || location.href.indexOf('/en/articles/2019/12/28/nytr-d28.html') > -1 ) { $('#content > .campaign').before(html); } else { var pos = 1 * Math.floor($('#content > p').length / 3); $('#content > p').slice(pos,pos+1).before(html); } } };
  Zaid Jilani, Author at The Federalist
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 15:41
    ZaidJilani
    Zaid Jilani is journalist originally from Atlanta; he has worked as a reporter for The Intercept and as a reporter-blogger for ThinkProgress, United Republic, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Alternet. He is currently a writing fellow researching and writing on social and political polarization at UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center.
    American Muslims were once natural allies with the Republican Party. The question is whether they can be again. A battle raging in Texas's Tarrant County Republican Party may provide an answer.
  Allen C. Guelzo - Wikipedia
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 15:33
    Allen Carl Guelzo (born 1953) is an American historian who serves as Senior Research Scholar in the Council of the Humanities and Director of the Initiative on Politics and Statesmanship in the James Madison Program at Princeton University.[3]
    Rachel A. Shelden wrote that for two decades, Guelzo "has been at the forefront of Civil War''era scholarship. In particular, he has focused his analytical efforts on the life and legacy of Abraham Lincoln, publishing books covering the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the origins of the Emancipation Proclamation, and Lincoln's presidential leadership, among others."[4]
    Early life and education [ edit ] Guelzo was born in Yokohama, Japan,[1] the son of a US Army soldier stationed in the occupation of Japan.[5][6] He grew up in Pennsylvania.[7] His earliest degrees were a BS in Biblical Studies from Cairn University and a MDiv from Reformed Episcopal Seminary, where he later taught church history.[8] He earned an MA and PhD in history from the University of Pennsylvania.[2] He joined the History department of Eastern University (St. Davids, Pennsylvania) in 1991. He was the Grace F. Kea Professor of American History at Eastern, where he was also Moderator of the Faculty Senate (1996''98). From 1998 to 2004, he served as Dean of the Templeton Honors College at Eastern. He joined the History department at Gettysburg College in 2004.
    Career [ edit ] Academic focus [ edit ] Guelzo's principal specialty is American intellectual history, from 1750 to 1865. His doctoral dissertation, "The Unanswered Question: Jonathan Edwards's 'Freedom of the Will' in Early American Religious Philosophy", was published in 1989 as Edwards On the Will: A Century of American Philosophical Debate, 1750''1850, by Wesleyan University Press, and won an American Library Association Choice Award. In 1995, he contributed a volume in the St. Martin's Press American History textbook series, The Crisis of the American Republic: A New History of the Civil War and Reconstruction.
    One of Guelzo's early works, For the Union of Evangelical Christendom: The Irony of the Reformed Episcopalians, 1873''1930, won the Albert C. Outler Prize in Ecumenical Church History from the American Society of Church History in 1993.[9] He began work in 1996 on an 'intellectual biography' of Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President (1999), which won the Lincoln Prize for 2000 and the 2000 Book Prize of the Abraham Lincoln Institute. He followed this with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America (2004), which became the first two-time winner of the Lincoln Prize (for 2005) and the Book Prize of the Lincoln Institute.[2] Guelzo won his third Lincoln Prize for his book Gettysburg: The Last Invasion (2013), making him the first three-time recipient of the prize.[10]
    His interest in the American Civil War was partially motivated by his grandmother, who had attended lectures by the Grand Army of the Republic as a child.[5]
    Guelzo differs notably from most contemporary scholars of the American Civil War in that he disagrees with the "Self-emancipation" thesis, which posits that the Confederates' slaves freed themselves during the war.[11] To that effect, he cites the ex-slaves themselves, who testified that Lincoln, specifically his Emancipation Proclamation, was responsible for freeing them.[11] In addition, Guelzo does not consider Lincoln to have been a competent military commander during his presidency and disagrees with several military decisions he made on the grounds that they were unsound.[11]
    In addition to those books, he has produced editions of Manning Ferguson Force's From Fort Henry to Corinth (1989) and Josiah Gilbert Holland's Life of Abraham Lincoln (1998), as well as co-editing a volume of essays on Jonathan Edwards, Edwards In Our Time: Jonathan Edwards and the Shaping of American Religion (with Sang Hyun Lee, 1999) and The New England Theology: From Jonathan Edwards to Edwards Amasa Park, an anthology of primary sources on the New England theology from 1750 to 1850, with Douglas R. Sweeney (2006). His latest books include Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates That Defined America (2008), which led to an appearance on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" on February 27, 2008; Abraham Lincoln as a Man of Ideas (2009), collection of his previously-published essays; and "Lincoln" (2009), a volume in Oxford University Press's "Very Short Introduction" series.
    Criticism [ edit ] Matthew Pinsker notes that Guelzo, with his religious training, often emphasizes religious themes that other historians have neglected. Guelzo argues that Lincoln championed the cause of individual rights partly because of his profound fatalism and what Guelzo identifies as "a lifelong dalliance with Old School Calvinism."[12]
    Guelzo created a controversy among younger historians of the Civil War when Earl J. Hess reported that Guelzo believed that scholarly blogging was "entirely negative. I consider blogging to be a pernicious waste of scholarly time."[13]
    Rachel Shelden has noted that Guelzo's Fateful Lightning: A New History of the Civil War and Reconstruction (2012) is heavily focused on Lincoln. She asserts that little in the book is new, and much is based on old-fashioned historiography. She says he underplays the recent scholarship on the home front, environmental concerns, and medical issues and gives only cursory attention to the black experience or to the complexities of Reconstruction.[14]
    Affiliations [ edit ] Guelzo has been an American Council of Learned Societies Fellow (1991''1992), a Visiting Research Fellow at the McNeil Center for Early American Studies at the University of Pennsylvania (1992''1993), a Fellow of the Charles Warren Center for the Study of American History at Harvard University (1994''1995), and a Visiting Fellow, Department of Politics, Princeton University (2002''2003 and 2010''2011).[15] He was appointed by President George W. Bush to the National Council on the Humanities in 2006.[2] He is a board member of the Abraham Lincoln Association.
    Awards and honors [ edit ] Guelzo received the 2013 Guggenheim-Lehrman Prize in Military History for Gettysburg: The Last Invasion at an awards ceremony in New York on March 17, 2014.[16][17]
    Guelzo was inducted as a Laureate of The Lincoln Academy of Illinois and awarded the Order of Lincoln (the State's highest honor) by the Governor of Illinois in 2009 as a Bicentennial Laureate.[18]
    The chapter of the Rho Kappa National Social Studies Honor Society at Boyd County High School named the Allen C. Guelzo Chair of History position in Guelzo's honor in 2015.[19]
    Guelzo was a recipient of the 2018 Bradley Prize for his "contributions [which] have shaped important debate, thought and research on one of the most critical periods of American history."[20]
    Personal life [ edit ] Guelzo has two daughters[7] and a son who is a career army officer.
    Publications [ edit ] Guelzo, Allen C. (1989). Edwards on the Will: A Century of Theological Debate. Middletown, Conn: Wesleyan University Press. ISBN 978-0-8195-5193-1. Guelzo, Allen C. (1994). For the Union of Evangelical Christendom: The Irony of the Reformed Episcopalians. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-0-271-01002-1. Guelzo, Allen C. (1995). The Crisis of the American Republic: A History of the Civil War and Reconstruction Era. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-09515-4. Holland, J. (1998). Holland's Life of Abraham Lincoln. introduction by Allen C. Guelzo. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-7303-0. Guelzo, Allen C. "Defending Emancipation: Abraham Lincoln and the Conkling Letter, 1863," Civil War History (2002) 48#4 pp. 313''337Guelzo, Allen C. (2003). Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President (Library of Religious Biography). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-8028-4293-0. Guelzo, Allen C. (2004). Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America . New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-2182-5. Guelzo, Allen C.; Sweeney, Douglas A. (2006). The New England Theology: From Jonathan Edwards to Edwards Amasa Park. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic. ISBN 978-0-8010-2709-3. Guelzo, Allen C. (2008). Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates That Defined America. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-7320-6. Lind, Michael; Guelzo, Allen C. (2009). Abraham Lincoln as a Man of Ideas. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. ISBN 978-0-8093-2861-1. Guelzo, Allen C. (2009). Lincoln: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions). Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0-19-536780-5. Guelzo, Allen C. (2012). Fateful Lightning: A New History of the Civil War and Reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 593. ISBN 978-0-19-984328-2. Guelzo, Allen C. (2013). Gettysburg: The Last Invasion. Knopf. p. 656. ISBN 978-0-307-59408-2. References [ edit ] ^ a b c "Allen C. Guelzo '' W.E.B. Du Bois Institute". The President and Fellows of Harvard College. 2009-06-28. ^ a b c d "New Members Join Humanities Endowment's National Council". National Endowment for the Humanities. 2006-11-15. Archived from the original on 2009-08-13 . Retrieved 2009-06-29 . ^ https://jmp.princeton.edu/announcements/allen-c-guelzo-joins-princeton-university ^ Rachel A. Shelden , review in Civil War History (June 2013) 59#2 p 237 ^ a b "Reconstruction, Race, and Andrew Johnson". C-SPAN.org. ^ "Lincoln, Slavery, and the Dred Scott Case". C-SPAN.org. Army brat ^ a b "The Reputation of Abraham Lincoln". C-SPAN.org. ^ "Illinois Wesleyan: Lincoln Scholar to Speak at Founders' Day Convocation". Iwu.edu. 2013-02-14 . Retrieved 2014-06-10 . ^ "Award winning titles from the Penn State University Press". Psupress.org. Archived from the original on 2014-07-14 . Retrieved 2014-06-10 . ^ "Previous Winners". Gettysburg College. 2014-08-10. Archived from the original on 2018-09-25 . Retrieved 2018-10-23 . ^ a b c Guelzo, Allen C. (March 3, 2010). "The Bicentennial Lincolns". Claremont Review of Books. California: The Claremont Institute. Archived from the original on February 6, 2018 . Retrieved February 6, 2018 . ^ Matthew Pinsker review in Civil War History (2001) 47#2 pp 173''175 ^ Earl J. Hess, "The Internet and Civil War Studies" in Civil War History (2019) ^ Sheldon (2013) pp 238''9 ^ "Guelzo, Dr. Allen C." Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission. 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-08-13 . Retrieved 2009-06-29 . ^ "Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation". HFG. Archived from the original on 2014-08-25 . Retrieved 2014-06-10 . ^ Schuessler, Jennifer. "Book on Gettysburg Wins $50,000 Military History Prize". ^ "Laureates by Year - The Lincoln Academy of Illinois". The Lincoln Academy of Illinois . Retrieved 2016-03-04 . ^ "Corps of Officers". James Klotter Chapter - Boyd County High School . Retrieved 2016-10-28 . ^ "Allen C. Guelzo, Distinguished Civil War Era Historian, Lincoln Scholar and Gettysburg College Professor Wins Prestigious Bradley Prize" (PDF) . The Bradley Foundation . Retrieved 2019-08-31 . Further reading [ edit ] "Understanding Lincoln: An interview with historian Allen Guelzo" (April 3, 2013), by Tom Mackaman, World Socialist Web SiteExternal links [ edit ] Appearances on C-SPANHistorian Allen Guelzo speaks on the 150th Anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, July 3, 2013.
  Andrew Johnson - Wikipedia
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 15:18
    17th president of the United States
    Andrew Johnson
    17th President of the United States In office April 15, 1865 '' March 4, 1869 Vice President None[a] Preceded by Abraham Lincoln Succeeded by Ulysses S. Grant16th Vice President of the United States In office March 4, 1865 '' April 15, 1865PresidentAbraham Lincoln Preceded by Hannibal Hamlin Succeeded by Schuyler ColfaxUnited States Senatorfrom Tennessee In office March 4, 1875 '' July 31, 1875 Preceded by William Gannaway Brownlow Succeeded by David M. Key In office October 8, 1857 '' March 4, 1862 Preceded by James C. Jones Succeeded by David T. PattersonMilitary Governor of Tennessee In office March 12, 1862 '' March 4, 1865 Appointed by Abraham Lincoln Preceded by Isham G. Harris(Governor of Tennessee) Succeeded by William Gannaway Brownlow(Governor of Tennessee)15th Governor of Tennessee In office October 17, 1853 '' November 3, 1857 Preceded by William B. Campbell Succeeded by Isham G. HarrisMember of the U.S. House of Representatives from Tennessee's 1st district In office March 4, 1843 '' March 3, 1853 Preceded by Thomas Dickens Arnold Succeeded by Brookins CampbellMayor of Greeneville, Tennessee In office 1834''1835Personal detailsBorn ( 1808-12-29 ) December 29, 1808Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.DiedJuly 31, 1875 (1875-07-31) (aged 66)Elizabethton, Tennessee, U.S.Cause of deathStrokeResting placeAndrew Johnson National CemeteryGreeneville, TennesseePolitical partyDemocratic (c.1839''1864; 1868''1875)Other politicalaffiliationsNational Union (1864''1868)Spouse(s)Children5ParentsProfessionTailorSignatureMilitary serviceBranch/service United States ArmyYears of service1862''1865RankBrigadier GeneralBattles/warsAmerican Civil WarAndrew Johnson (December 29, 1808 '' July 31, 1875) was the 17th president of the United States, serving from 1865 to 1869. He assumed the presidency as he was vice president at the time of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Johnson was a Democrat who ran with Lincoln on the National Union ticket, coming to office as the Civil War concluded. He favored quick restoration of the seceded states to the Union without protection for the former slaves. This led to conflict with the Republican-dominated Congress, culminating in his impeachment by the House of Representatives in 1868. He was acquitted in the Senate by one vote. His main accomplishment as president was the Alaska purchase.
    Johnson was born in poverty in Raleigh, North Carolina and never attended school. He was apprenticed as a tailor and worked in several frontier towns before settling in Greeneville, Tennessee. He served as alderman and mayor there before being elected to the Tennessee House of Representatives in 1835. After brief service in the Tennessee Senate, Johnson was elected to the House of Representatives in 1843, where he served five two-year terms. He became governor of Tennessee for four years, and was elected by the legislature to the Senate in 1857. In his congressional service, he sought passage of the Homestead Bill which was enacted soon after he left his Senate seat in 1862. Southern slave states seceded to form the Confederate States of America, including Tennessee, but Johnson remained firmly with the Union. He was the only sitting senator from a Confederate state who did not resign his seat upon learning of his state's secession. In 1862, Lincoln appointed him as military governor of Tennessee after most of it had been retaken. In 1864, Johnson was a logical choice as running mate for Lincoln, who wished to send a message of national unity in his re-election campaign; their ticket easily won. Johnson was sworn in as vice president in March 1865 and gave a rambling speech, after which he secluded himself to avoid public ridicule. Six weeks later, the assassination of Lincoln made him president.
    Johnson implemented his own form of Presidential Reconstruction, a series of proclamations directing the seceded states to hold conventions and elections to reform their civil governments. Southern states returned many of their old leaders and passed Black Codes to deprive the freedmen of many civil liberties, but Congressional Republicans refused to seat legislators from those states and advanced legislation to overrule the Southern actions. Johnson vetoed their bills, and Congressional Republicans overrode him, setting a pattern for the remainder of his presidency.[1] Johnson opposed the Fourteenth Amendment which gave citizenship to former slaves. In 1866, he went on an unprecedented national tour promoting his executive policies, seeking to break Republican opposition. As the conflict grew between the branches of government, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act restricting Johnson's ability to fire Cabinet officials. He persisted in trying to dismiss Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, but ended up being impeached by the House of Representatives and narrowly avoided conviction in the Senate. He did not win the 1868 Democratic presidential nomination and left office the following year.
    Johnson returned to Tennessee after his presidency and gained some vindication when he was elected to the Senate in 1875, making him the only former president to serve in the Senate. He died five months into his term. Johnson's strong opposition to federally guaranteed rights for black Americans is widely criticized. He is regarded by many historians as one of the worst presidents in American history.
    Early life and career Childhood Andrew Johnson was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, on December 29, 1808, to Jacob Johnson (1778''1812) and Mary ("Polly") McDonough (1783''1856), a laundress. He was of English, Scots-Irish, and Irish ancestry.[3] He had a brother William, four years his senior, and an older sister Elizabeth, who died in childhood. Johnson's birth in a two-room shack was a political asset in the mid-19th century, and he would frequently remind voters of his humble origins. Jacob Johnson was a poor man, as had been his father, William Johnson, but he became town constable of Raleigh before marrying and starting a family. Both Jacob and Mary were illiterate, and had worked as tavern servants, while Johnson never attended school and grew up in poverty. Jacob died of an apparent heart attack while ringing the town bell, shortly after rescuing three drowning men, when his son Andrew was three. Polly Johnson worked as a washerwoman and became the sole support of her family. Her occupation was then looked down on, as it often took her into other homes unaccompanied. Since Andrew did not resemble either of his siblings, there are rumors that he may have been fathered by another man. Polly Johnson eventually remarried to a man named Turner Doughtry, who was as poor as she was.
    Johnson's mother apprenticed her son William to a tailor, James Selby. Andrew also became an apprentice in Selby's shop at age ten and was legally bound to serve until his 21st birthday. Johnson lived with his mother for part of his service, and one of Selby's employees taught him rudimentary literacy skills. His education was augmented by citizens who would come to Selby's shop to read to the tailors as they worked. Even before he became an apprentice, Johnson came to listen. The readings caused a lifelong love of learning, and one of his biographers, Annette Gordon-Reed, suggests that Johnson, later a gifted public speaker, learned the art as he threaded needles and cut cloth.
    Johnson was not happy at James Selby's, and after about five years, both he and his brother ran away. Selby responded by placing a reward for their return: "Ten Dollars Reward. Ran away from the subscriber, two apprentice boys, legally bound, named William and Andrew Johnson ... [payment] to any person who will deliver said apprentices to me in Raleigh, or I will give the above reward for Andrew Johnson alone." The brothers went to Carthage, North Carolina, where Andrew Johnson worked as a tailor for several months. Fearing he would be arrested and returned to Raleigh, Johnson moved to Laurens, South Carolina. He found work quickly, met his first love, Mary Wood, and made her a quilt as a gift. However, she rejected his marriage proposal. He returned to Raleigh, hoping to buy out his apprenticeship, but could not come to terms with Selby. Unable to stay in Raleigh, where he risked being apprehended for abandoning Selby, he decided to move west.
    Move to Tennessee Johnson left North Carolina for Tennessee, traveling mostly on foot. After a brief period in Knoxville, he moved to Mooresville, Alabama. He then worked as a tailor in Columbia, Tennessee, but was called back to Raleigh by his mother and stepfather, who saw limited opportunities there and who wished to emigrate west. Johnson and his party traveled through the Blue Ridge Mountains to Greeneville, Tennessee. Andrew Johnson fell in love with the town at first sight, and when he became prosperous purchased the land where he had first camped and planted a tree in commemoration.
    In Greeneville, Johnson established a successful tailoring business in the front of his home. In 1827, at the age of 18, he married 16-year-old Eliza McCardle, the daughter of a local shoemaker. The pair were married by Justice of the Peace Mordecai Lincoln, first cousin of Thomas Lincoln, whose son would become president. The Johnsons were married for almost 50 years and had five children: Martha (1828), Charles (1830), Mary (1832), Robert (1834), and Andrew Jr. (1852). Though she suffered from tuberculosis, Eliza supported her husband's endeavors. She taught him mathematics skills and tutored him to improve his writing. Shy and retiring by nature, Eliza Johnson usually remained in Greeneville during Johnson's political rise. She was not often seen during her husband's presidency; their daughter Martha usually served as official hostess.
    Johnson's tailoring business prospered during the early years of the marriage, enabling him to hire help and giving him the funds to invest profitably in real estate. He later boasted of his talents as a tailor, "my work never ripped or gave way." He was a voracious reader. Books about famous orators aroused his interest in political dialogue, and he had private debates on the issues of the day with customers who held opposing views. He also took part in debates at Greeneville College.
    Johnson's slaves In 1843, Johnson purchased his first slave, Dolly, who was 14 years old at the time. Soon after, he purchased Dolly's half-brother Sam. Dolly had three children'--Liz, Florence and William. In 1857, Andrew Johnson purchased Henry, who was 13 at the time and would later accompany the Johnson family to the White House. Sam Johnson and his wife Margaret had nine children. Sam became a commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau and was known for being a proud man who negotiated the nature of his work with the Johnson family. Notably, he received some monetary compensation for his labors and negotiated with Andrew Johnson to receive a tract of land which Andrew Johnson deeded to him in 1867. Ultimately, Johnson owned at least ten slaves. He was said to have had a compassionate and familial relationship toward them.[21]
    Andrew Johnson's slaves were freed on August 8, 1863. A year later, all of Tennessee's slaves were freed. As a sign of appreciation, Andrew Johnson was given a watch by the newly-emancipated slaves inscribed with "'...for his untiring energy in the cause of Freedom."[22]
    Political rise Tennessee politician Johnson helped organize a mechanics' (working men's) ticket in the 1829 Greeneville municipal election. He was elected town alderman, along with his friends Blackston McDannel and Mordecai Lincoln. Following the 1831 Nat Turner slave rebellion, a state convention was called to pass a new constitution, including provisions to disenfranchise free people of color. The convention also wanted to reform real estate tax rates, and provide ways of funding improvements to Tennessee's infrastructure. The constitution was submitted for a public vote, and Johnson spoke widely for its adoption; the successful campaign provided him with statewide exposure. On January 4, 1834, his fellow aldermen elected him mayor of Greeneville.
    In 1835, Johnson made a bid for election to the "floater" seat which Greene County shared with neighboring Washington County in the Tennessee House of Representatives. According to his biographer, Hans L. Trefousse, Johnson "demolished" the opposition in debate and won the election with almost a two to one margin. During his Greeneville days, Johnson joined the Tennessee Militia as a member of the 90th Regiment. He attained the rank of colonel, though while an enrolled member, Johnson was fined for an unknown offense. Afterwards, he was often addressed or referred to by his rank.
    In his first term in the legislature, which met in the state capital of Nashville, Johnson did not consistently vote with either the Democratic or the newly formed Whig Party, though he revered President Andrew Jackson, a Democrat and fellow Tennessean. The major parties were still determining their core values and policy proposals, with the party system in a state of flux. The Whig Party had organized in opposition to Jackson, fearing the concentration of power in the Executive Branch of the government; Johnson differed from the Whigs as he opposed more than minimal government spending and spoke against aid for the railroads, while his constituents hoped for improvements in transportation. After Brookins Campbell and the Whigs defeated Johnson for reelection in 1837, Johnson would not lose another race for thirty years. In 1839, he sought to regain his seat, initially as a Whig, but when another candidate sought the Whig nomination, he ran as a Democrat and was elected. From that time he supported the Democratic party and built a powerful political machine in Greene County. Johnson became a strong advocate of the Democratic Party, noted for his oratory, and in an era when public speaking both informed the public and entertained it, people flocked to hear him.
    In 1840, Johnson was selected as a presidential elector for Tennessee, giving him more statewide publicity. Although Democratic President Martin Van Buren was defeated by former Ohio senator William Henry Harrison, Johnson was instrumental in keeping Tennessee and Greene County in the Democratic column. He was elected to the Tennessee Senate in 1841, where he served a two-year term.[34] He had achieved financial success in his tailoring business, but sold it to concentrate on politics. He had also acquired additional real estate, including a larger home and a farm (where his mother and stepfather took residence), and among his assets numbered eight or nine slaves.
    United States Representative (1843''1853) Having served in both houses of the state legislature, Johnson saw election to Congress as the next step in his political career. He engaged in a number of political maneuvers to gain Democratic support, including the displacement of the Whig postmaster in Greeneville, and defeated Jonesborough lawyer John A. Aiken by 5,495 votes to 4,892. In Washington, he joined a new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. Johnson advocated for the interests of the poor, maintained an anti-abolitionist stance, argued for only limited spending by the government and opposed protective tariffs. With Eliza remaining in Greeneville, Congressman Johnson shunned social functions in favor of study in the Library of Congress. Although a fellow Tennessee Democrat, James K. Polk, was elected president in 1844, and Johnson had campaigned for him, the two men had difficult relations, and President Polk refused some of his patronage suggestions.
    Johnson believed, as did many Southern Democrats, that the Constitution protected private property, including slaves, and thus prohibited the federal and state governments from abolishing slavery. He won a second term in 1845 against William G. Brownlow, presenting himself as the defender of the poor against the aristocracy. In his second term, Johnson supported the Polk administration's decision to fight the Mexican War, seen by some Northerners as an attempt to gain territory to expand slavery westward, and opposed the Wilmot Proviso, a proposal to ban slavery in any territory gained from Mexico. He introduced for the first time his Homestead Bill, to grant 160 acres (65 ha) to people willing to settle the land and gain title to it. This issue was especially important to Johnson because of his own humble beginnings.
    In the presidential election of 1848, the Democrats split over the slavery issue, and abolitionists formed the Free Soil Party, with former president Van Buren as their nominee. Johnson supported the Democratic candidate, former Michigan senator Lewis Cass. With the party split, Whig nominee General Zachary Taylor was easily victorious, and carried Tennessee. Johnson's relations with Polk remained poor; the President recorded of his final New Year's reception in 1849 that
    Among the visitors I observed in the crowd today was Hon. Andrew Johnson of the Ho. Repts. [House of Representatives] Though he represents a Democratic District in Tennessee (my own State) this is the first time I have seen him during the present session of Congress. Professing to be a Democrat, he has been politically, if not personally hostile to me during my whole term. He is very vindictive and perverse in his temper and conduct. If he had the manliness and independence to declare his opposition openly, he knows he could not be elected by his constituents. I am not aware that I have ever given him cause for offense.[46]
    Johnson, due to national interest in new railroad construction and in response to the need for better transportation in his own district, also supported government assistance for the East Tennessee and Virginia Railroad.
    In his campaign for a fourth term, Johnson concentrated on three issues: slavery, homesteads and judicial elections. He defeated his opponent, Nathaniel G. Taylor, in August 1849, with a greater margin of victory than in previous campaigns. When the House convened in December, the party division caused by the Free Soil Party precluded the formation of the majority needed to elect a Speaker. Johnson proposed adoption of a rule allowing election of a Speaker by a plurality; some weeks later others took up a similar proposal, and Democrat Howell Cobb was elected.
    Once the Speaker election had concluded and Congress was ready to conduct legislative business, the issue of slavery took center stage. Northerners sought to admit California, a free state, to the Union. Kentucky's Henry Clay introduced in the Senate a series of resolutions, the Compromise of 1850, to admit California and pass legislation sought by each side. Johnson voted for all the provisions except for the abolition of slavery in the nation's capital. He pressed resolutions for constitutional amendments to provide for popular election of senators (then elected by state legislatures) and of the president (chosen by the Electoral College), and limiting the tenure of federal judges to 12 years. These were all defeated.
    A group of Democrats nominated Landon Carter Haynes to oppose Johnson as he sought a fifth term; the Whigs were so pleased with the internecine battle among the Democrats in the general election that they did not nominate a candidate of their own. The campaign included fierce debates: Johnson's main issue was the passage of the Homestead Bill; Haynes contended it would facilitate abolition. Johnson won the election by more than 1600 votes. Though he was not enamored of the party's presidential nominee in 1852, former New Hampshire senator Franklin Pierce, Johnson campaigned for him. Pierce was elected, but he failed to carry Tennessee. In 1852, Johnson managed to get the House to pass his Homestead Bill, but it failed in the Senate. The Whigs had gained control of the Tennessee legislature, and, under the leadership of Gustavus Henry, redrew the boundaries of Johnson's First District to make it a safe seat for their party. The Nashville Union termed this "Henry-mandering";[b] lamented Johnson, "I have no political future."
    Governor of Tennessee (1853''1857) If Johnson considered retiring from politics upon deciding not to seek reelection, he soon changed his mind. His political friends began to maneuver to get him the nomination for governor. The Democratic convention unanimously named him, though some party members were not happy at his selection. The Whigs had won the past two gubernatorial elections, and still controlled the legislature. That party nominated Henry, making the "Henry-mandering" of the First District an immediate issue. The two men debated in county seats the length of Tennessee before the meetings were called off two weeks before the August 1853 election due to illness in Henry's family. Johnson won the election by 63,413 votes to 61,163; some votes for him were cast in return for his promise to support Whig Nathaniel Taylor for his old seat in Congress.
    Tennessee's governor had little power: Johnson could propose legislation but not veto it, and most appointments were made by the Whig-controlled legislature. Nevertheless, the office was a "bully pulpit" that allowed him to publicize himself and his political views. He succeeded in getting the appointments he wanted in return for his endorsement of John Bell, a Whig, for one of the state's U.S. Senate seats. In his first biennial speech, Johnson urged simplification of the state judicial system, abolition of the Bank of Tennessee, and establishment of an agency to provide uniformity in weights and measures; the last was passed. Johnson was critical of the Tennessee common school system and suggested funding be increased via taxes, either statewide or county by county'--a mixture of the two was passed. Reforms carried out during Johnson's time as governor included the foundation of the State's public library (making books available to all) and its first public school system, and the initiation of regular state fairs to benefit craftsmen and farmers.[62]
    Although the Whig Party was on its final decline nationally, it remained strong in Tennessee, and the outlook for Democrats there in 1855 was poor. Feeling that reelection as governor was necessary to give him a chance at the higher offices he sought, Johnson agreed to make the run. Meredith P. Gentry received the Whig nomination. A series of more than a dozen vitriolic debates ensued. The issues in the campaign were slavery, the prohibition of alcohol, and the nativist positions of the Know Nothing Party. Johnson favored the first, but opposed the others. Gentry was more equivocal on the alcohol question, and had gained the support of the Know Nothings, a group Johnson portrayed as a secret society. Johnson was unexpectedly victorious, albeit with a narrower margin than in 1853.
    When the presidential election of 1856 approached, Johnson hoped to be nominated; some Tennessee county conventions designated him a "favorite son". His position that the best interests of the Union were served by slavery in some areas made him a practical compromise candidate for president. He was never a major contender; the nomination fell to former Pennsylvania senator James Buchanan. Though he was not impressed by either, Johnson campaigned for Buchanan and his running mate, John C. Breckinridge, who were elected.
    Johnson decided not to seek a third term as governor, with an eye towards election to the U.S. Senate. In 1857, while returning from Washington, his train derailed, causing serious damage to his right arm. This injury would trouble him in the years to come.
    United States Senator Homestead Bill advocate The victors in the 1857 state legislative campaign would, once they convened in October, elect a United States Senator. Former Whig governor William B. Campbell wrote to his uncle, "The great anxiety of the Whigs is to elect a majority in the legislature so as to defeat Andrew Johnson for senator. Should the Democrats have the majority, he will certainly be their choice, and there is no man living to whom the Americans[c] and Whigs have as much antipathy as Johnson." The governor spoke widely in the campaign, and his party won the gubernatorial race and control of the legislature. Johnson's final address as governor gave him the chance to influence his electors, and he made proposals popular among Democrats. Two days later the legislature elected him to the Senate. The opposition was appalled, with the Richmond Whig newspaper referring to him as "the vilest radical and most unscrupulous demagogue in the Union".
    Johnson gained high office due to his proven record as a man popular among the small farmers and self-employed tradesmen who made up much of Tennessee's electorate. He called them the "plebeians"; he was less popular among the planters and lawyers who led the state Democratic Party, but none could match him as a vote-getter. After his death, one Tennessee voter wrote of him, "Johnson was always the same to everyone ... the honors heaped upon him did not make him forget to be kind to the humblest citizen." Always seen in impeccably tailored clothing, he cut an impressive figure, and had the stamina to endure lengthy campaigns with daily travel over bad roads leading to another speech or debate. Mostly denied the party's machinery, he relied on a network of friends, advisers, and contacts. One friend, Hugh Douglas, stated in a letter to him, "you have been in the way of our would be great men for a long time. At heart many of us never wanted you to be Governor only none of the rest of us Could have been elected at the time and we only wanted to use you. Then we did not want you to go to the Senate but the people would send you."
    The new senator took his seat when Congress convened in December 1857 (the term of his predecessor, James C. Jones, had expired in March). He came to Washington as usual without his wife and family; Eliza would visit Washington only once during Johnson's first time as senator, in 1860. Johnson immediately set about introducing the Homestead Bill in the Senate, but as most senators who supported it were Northern (many associated with the newly founded Republican Party), the matter became caught up in suspicions over the slavery issue. Southern senators felt that those who took advantage of the provisions of the Homestead Bill were more likely to be Northern non-slaveholders. The issue of slavery had been complicated by the Supreme Court's ruling earlier in the year in Dred Scott v. Sandford that slavery could not be prohibited in the territories. Johnson, a slaveholding senator from a Southern state, made a major speech in the Senate the following May in an attempt to convince his colleagues that the Homestead Bill and slavery were not incompatible. Nevertheless, Southern opposition was key to defeating the legislation, 30''22. In 1859, it failed on a procedural vote when Vice President Breckinridge broke a tie against the bill, and in 1860, a watered-down version passed both houses, only to be vetoed by Buchanan at the urging of Southerners. Johnson continued his opposition to spending, chairing a committee to control it.
    He argued against funding to build infrastructure in Washington, D.C., stating that it was unfair to expect state citizens to pay for the city's streets, even if it was the seat of government. He opposed spending money for troops to put down the revolt by the Mormons in Utah Territory, arguing for temporary volunteers as the United States should not have a standing army.
    Secession crisis In October 1859, abolitionist John Brown and sympathizers raided the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia (today West Virginia). Tensions in Washington between pro- and anti-slavery forces increased greatly. Johnson gave a major speech in the Senate in December, decrying Northerners who would endanger the Union by seeking to outlaw slavery. The Tennessee senator stated that "all men are created equal" from the Declaration of Independence did not apply to African Americans, since the Constitution of Illinois contained that phrase'--and that document barred voting by African Americans. Johnson, by this time, was a wealthy man who owned a few household slaves, 14 slaves, according to the 1860 Federal Census.[80]
    Johnson hoped that he would be a compromise candidate for the presidential nomination as the Democratic Party tore itself apart over the slavery question. Busy with the Homestead Bill during the 1860 Democratic National Convention in Charleston, South Carolina, he sent two of his sons and his chief political adviser to represent his interests in the backroom deal-making. The convention deadlocked, with no candidate able to gain the required two-thirds vote, but the sides were too far apart to consider Johnson as a compromise. The party split, with Northerners backing Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas while Southerners, including Johnson, supported Vice President Breckinridge for president. With former Tennessee senator John Bell running a fourth-party candidacy and further dividing the vote, the Republican Party elected its first president, former Illinois representative Abraham Lincoln. The election of Lincoln, known to be against the spread of slavery, was unacceptable to many in the South. Although secession from the Union had not been an issue in the campaign, talk of it began in the Southern states.
    Johnson took to the Senate floor after the election, giving a speech well received in the North, "I will not give up this government ... No; I intend to stand by it ... and I invite every man who is a patriot to ... rally around the altar of our common country ... and swear by our God, and all that is sacred and holy, that the Constitution shall be saved, and the Union preserved." As Southern senators announced they would resign if their states seceded, he reminded Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis that if Southerners would only hold to their seats, the Democrats would control the Senate, and could defend the South's interests against any infringement by Lincoln. Gordon-Reed points out that while Johnson's belief in an indissoluble Union was sincere, he had alienated Southern leaders, including Davis, who would soon be the president of the Confederate States of America, formed by the seceding states. If the Tennessean had backed the Confederacy, he would have had small influence in its government.
    Johnson returned home when his state took up the issue of secession. His successor as governor, Isham G. Harris, and the legislature organized a referendum on whether to have a constitutional convention to authorize secession; when that failed, they put the question of leaving the Union to a popular vote. Despite threats on Johnson's life, and actual assaults, he campaigned against both questions, sometimes speaking with a gun on the lectern before him. Although Johnson's eastern region of Tennessee was largely against secession, the second referendum passed, and in June 1861, Tennessee joined the Confederacy. Believing he would be killed if he stayed, Johnson fled through the Cumberland Gap, where his party was in fact shot at. He left his wife and family in Greeneville.
    As the only member from a seceded state to remain in the Senate and the most prominent Southern Unionist, Johnson had Lincoln's ear in the early months of the war. With most of Tennessee in Confederate hands, Johnson spent congressional recesses in Kentucky and Ohio, trying in vain to convince any Union commander who would listen to conduct an operation into East Tennessee.
    Military Governor of Tennessee Johnson's first tenure in the Senate came to a conclusion in March 1862 when Lincoln appointed him military governor of Tennessee. Much of the central and western portions of that seceded state had been recovered. Although some argued that civil government should simply resume once the Confederates were defeated in an area, Lincoln chose to use his power as commander in chief to appoint military governors over Union-controlled Southern regions. The Senate quickly confirmed Johnson's nomination along with the rank of brigadier general. In response, the Confederates confiscated his land and his slaves, and turned his home into a military hospital. Later in 1862, after his departure from the Senate and in the absence of most Southern legislators, the Homestead Bill was finally enacted. Along with legislation for land-grant colleges and for the transcontinental railroad, the Homestead Bill has been credited with opening the American West to settlement.
    As military governor, Johnson sought to eliminate rebel influence in the state. He demanded loyalty oaths from public officials, and shut down all newspapers owned by Confederate sympathizers. Much of eastern Tennessee remained in Confederate hands, and the ebb and flow of war during 1862 sometimes brought Confederate control again close to Nashville. However, the Confederates allowed his wife and family to pass through the lines to join him. Johnson undertook the defense of Nashville as well as he could, though the city was continually harassed by cavalry raids led by General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Relief from Union regulars did not come until General William S. Rosecrans defeated the Confederates at Murfreesboro in early 1863. Much of eastern Tennessee was captured later that year.
    When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863, declaring freedom for all slaves in Confederate-held areas, he exempted Tennessee at Johnson's request. The proclamation increased the debate over what should become of the slaves after the war, as not all Unionists supported abolition. Johnson finally decided that slavery had to end. He wrote, "If the institution of slavery ... seeks to overthrow it [the Government], then the Government has a clear right to destroy it." He reluctantly supported efforts to enlist former slaves into the Union Army, feeling that African Americans should perform menial tasks to release white Americans to do the fighting. Nevertheless, he succeeded in recruiting 20,000 black soldiers to serve the Union.
    Vice President (1865) In 1860, Lincoln's running mate had been Maine Senator Hannibal Hamlin. Vice President Hamlin had served competently, was in good health, and was willing to run again. Nevertheless, Johnson emerged as running mate for Lincoln's reelection bid in 1864.
    Lincoln considered several War Democrats for the ticket in 1864, and sent an agent to sound out General Benjamin Butler as a possible running mate. In May 1864, the President dispatched General Daniel Sickles to Nashville on a fact-finding mission. Although Sickles denied he was there either to investigate or interview the military governor, Johnson biographer Hans L. Trefousse believes Sickles's trip was connected to Johnson's subsequent nomination for vice president. According to historian Albert Castel in his account of Johnson's presidency, Lincoln was impressed by Johnson's administration of Tennessee. Gordon-Reed points out that while the Lincoln-Hamlin ticket might have been considered geographically balanced in 1860, "having Johnson, the southern War Democrat, on the ticket sent the right message about the folly of secession and the continuing capacity for union within the country." Another factor was the desire of Secretary of State William Seward to frustrate the vice-presidential candidacy of his fellow New Yorker, former senator Daniel S. Dickinson, a War Democrat, as Seward would probably have had to yield his place if another New Yorker became vice president. Johnson, once he was told by reporters the likely purpose of Sickles' visit, was active on his own behalf, giving speeches and having his political friends work behind the scenes to boost his candidacy.
    To sound a theme of unity, Lincoln in 1864 ran under the banner of the National Union Party, rather than the Republicans. At the party's convention in Baltimore in June, Lincoln was easily nominated, although there had been some talk of replacing him with a Cabinet officer or one of the more successful generals. After the convention backed Lincoln, former Secretary of War Simon Cameron offered a resolution to nominate Hamlin, but it was defeated. Johnson was nominated for vice president by C.M. Allen of Indiana with an Iowa delegate as seconder. On the first ballot, Johnson led with 200 votes to 150 for Hamlin and 108 for Dickinson. On the second ballot, Kentucky switched to vote for Johnson, beginning a stampede. Johnson was named on the second ballot with 491 votes to Hamlin's 17 and eight for Dickinson; the nomination was made unanimous. Lincoln expressed pleasure at the result, "Andy Johnson, I think, is a good man." When word reached Nashville, a crowd assembled and the military governor obliged with a speech contending his selection as a Southerner meant that the rebel states had not actually left the Union.
    1865 cartoon showing Lincoln and Johnson using their talents as rail-splitter and tailor to repair the Union
    Although it was unusual at the time for a national candidate to actively campaign, Johnson gave a number of speeches in Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana. He also sought to boost his chances in Tennessee while reestablishing civil government by making the loyalty oath even more restrictive, in that voters would now have to swear they opposed making a settlement with the Confederacy. The Democratic candidate for president, George McClellan, hoped to avoid additional bloodshed by negotiation, and so the stricter loyalty oath effectively disenfranchised his supporters. Lincoln declined to override Johnson, and their ticket took the state by 25,000 votes. Congress refused to count Tennessee's electoral votes, but Lincoln and Johnson did not need them, having won in most states that had voted, and easily secured the election.
    Now Vice President-elect, Johnson was anxious to complete the work of reestablishing civilian government in Tennessee, although the timetable for the election of a new governor did not allow it to take place until after Inauguration Day, March 4. He hoped to remain in Nashville to complete his task, but was told by Lincoln's advisers that he could not stay, but would be sworn in with Lincoln. In these months, Union troops finished the retaking of eastern Tennessee, including Greeneville. Just before his departure, the voters of Tennessee ratified a new constitution, abolishing slavery, on February 22, 1865. One of Johnson's final acts as military governor was to certify the results.
    Johnson traveled to Washington to be sworn in, although according to Gordon-Reed, "in light of what happened on March 4, 1865, it might have been better if Johnson had stayed in Nashville." He may have been ill; Castel cited typhoid fever, though Gordon-Reed notes that there is no independent evidence for that diagnosis. On the evening of March 3, Johnson attended a party in his honor; he drank heavily. Hung over the following morning at the Capitol, he asked Vice President Hamlin for some whiskey. Hamlin produced a bottle, and Johnson took two stiff drinks, stating "I need all the strength for the occasion I can have." In the Senate Chamber, Johnson delivered a rambling address as Lincoln, the Congress, and dignitaries looked on. Almost incoherent at times, he finally meandered to a halt, whereupon Hamlin hastily swore him in as vice president. Lincoln, who had watched sadly during the debacle, then went to his own swearing-in outside the Capitol, and delivered his acclaimed Second Inaugural Address.
    In the weeks after the inauguration, Johnson only presided over the Senate briefly, and hid from public ridicule at the Maryland home of a friend, Francis Preston Blair. When he did return to Washington, it was with the intent of leaving for Tennessee to reestablish his family in Greeneville. Instead, he remained after word came that General Ulysses S. Grant had captured the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia, presaging the end of the war. Lincoln stated, in response to criticism of Johnson's behavior, that "I have known Andy Johnson for many years; he made a bad slip the other day, but you need not be scared; Andy ain't a drunkard."
    Presidency (1865''1869) Accession Contemporary woodcut of Johnson being sworn in by Chief Justice Chase as Cabinet members look on, April 15, 1865
    On the afternoon of April 14, 1865, Lincoln and Johnson met for the first time since the inauguration. Trefousse states that Johnson wanted to "induce Lincoln not to be too lenient with traitors"; Gordon-Reed agrees.
    That night, President Lincoln was shot and mortally wounded by John Wilkes Booth, a Confederate sympathizer. The shooting of the President was part of a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln, Johnson, and Seward the same night. Seward barely survived his wounds, while Johnson escaped attack as his would-be assassin, George Atzerodt, got drunk instead of killing the vice president. Leonard J. Farwell, a fellow boarder at the Kirkwood House, awoke Johnson with news of Lincoln's shooting at Ford's Theatre. Johnson rushed to the President's deathbed, where he remained a short time, on his return promising, "They shall suffer for this. They shall suffer for this." Lincoln died at 7:22 am the next morning; Johnson's swearing-in occurred between 10 and 11 am with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding in the presence of most of the Cabinet. Johnson's demeanor was described by the newspapers as "solemn and dignified". Some Cabinet members had last seen Johnson, apparently drunk, at the inauguration. At noon, Johnson conducted his first Cabinet meeting in the Treasury Secretary's office, and asked all members to remain in their positions.
    The events of the assassination resulted in speculation, then and subsequently, concerning Johnson and what the conspirators might have intended for him. In the vain hope of having his life spared after his capture, Atzerodt spoke much about the conspiracy, but did not say anything to indicate that the plotted assassination of Johnson was merely a ruse. Conspiracy theorists point to the fact that on the day of the assassination, Booth came to the Kirkwood House and left one of his cards with Johnson's private secretary, William A. Browning. The message on it was: "Don't wish to disturb you. Are you at home? J. Wilkes Booth."
    Johnson presided with dignity over Lincoln's funeral ceremonies in Washington, before his predecessor's body was sent home to Springfield, Illinois, for interment. Shortly after Lincoln's death, Union General William T. Sherman reported he had, without consulting Washington, reached an armistice agreement with Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston for the surrender of Confederate forces in North Carolina in exchange for the existing state government remaining in power, with private property rights (slaves) to be respected. This did not even grant freedom to those in slavery. This was not acceptable to Johnson or the Cabinet, who sent word for Sherman to secure the surrender without making political deals, which he did. Further, Johnson placed a $100,000 bounty (equivalent to $1.67 million in 2019) on Confederate President Davis, then a fugitive, which gave Johnson the reputation of a man who would be tough on the South. More controversially, he permitted the execution of Mary Surratt for her part in Lincoln's assassination. Surratt was executed with three others, including Atzerodt, on July 7, 1865.
    Reconstruction Background Upon taking office, Johnson faced the question of what to do with the Confederacy. President Lincoln had authorized loyalist governments in Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee as the Union came to control large parts of those states and advocated a ten percent plan that would allow elections after ten percent of the voters in any state took an oath of future loyalty to the Union. Congress considered this too lenient; its own plan, requiring a majority of voters to take the loyalty oath, passed both houses in 1864, but Lincoln pocket vetoed it.
    Johnson had three goals in Reconstruction. He sought a speedy restoration of the states, on the grounds that they had never truly left the Union, and thus should again be recognized once loyal citizens formed a government. To Johnson, African-American suffrage was a delay and a distraction; it had always been a state responsibility to decide who should vote. Second, political power in the Southern states should pass from the planter class to his beloved "plebeians". Johnson feared that the freedmen, many of whom were still economically bound to their former masters, might vote at their direction. Johnson's third priority was election in his own right in 1868, a feat no one who had succeeded a deceased president had managed to accomplish, attempting to secure a Democratic anti-Congressional Reconstruction coalition in the South.
    The Republicans had formed a number of factions. The Radical Republicans sought voting and other civil rights for African Americans. They believed that the freedmen could be induced to vote Republican in gratitude for emancipation, and that black votes could keep the Republicans in power and Southern Democrats, including former rebels, out of influence. They believed that top Confederates should be punished. The Moderate Republicans sought to keep the Democrats out of power at a national level, and prevent former rebels from resuming power. They were not as enthusiastic about the idea of African-American suffrage as their Radical colleagues, either because of their own local political concerns, or because they believed that the freedman would be likely to cast his vote badly. Northern Democrats favored the unconditional restoration of the Southern states. They did not support African-American suffrage, which might threaten Democratic control in the South.
    Presidential Reconstruction Johnson was initially left to devise a Reconstruction policy without legislative intervention, as Congress was not due to meet again until December 1865. Radical Republicans told the President that the Southern states were economically in a state of chaos and urged him to use his leverage to insist on rights for freedmen as a condition of restoration to the Union. But Johnson, with the support of other officials including Seward, insisted that the franchise was a state, not a federal matter. The Cabinet was divided on the issue.
    Johnson's first Reconstruction actions were two proclamations, with the unanimous backing of his Cabinet, on May 29. One recognized the Virginia government led by provisional Governor Francis Pierpont. The second provided amnesty for all ex-rebels except those holding property valued at $20,000 or more; it also appointed a temporary governor for North Carolina and authorized elections. Neither of these proclamations included provisions regarding black suffrage or freedmen's rights. The President ordered constitutional conventions in other former rebel states.
    As Southern states began the process of forming governments, Johnson's policies received considerable public support in the North, which he took as unconditional backing for quick reinstatement of the South. While he received such support from the white South, he underestimated the determination of Northerners to ensure that the war had not been fought for nothing. It was important, in Northern public opinion, that the South acknowledge its defeat, that slavery be ended, and that the lot of African Americans be improved. Voting rights were less important'--after all, only a handful of Northern states (mostly in New England) gave African-American men the right to vote on the same basis as whites, and in late 1865, Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Minnesota voted down African-American suffrage proposals by large margins. Northern public opinion tolerated Johnson's inaction on black suffrage as an experiment, to be allowed if it quickened Southern acceptance of defeat. Instead, white Southerners felt emboldened. A number of Southern states passed Black Codes, binding African-American laborers to farms on annual contracts they could not quit, and allowing law enforcement at whim to arrest them for vagrancy and rent out their labor. Most Southerners elected to Congress were former Confederates, with the most prominent being Georgia Senator-designate and former Confederate vice president Alexander Stephens. Congress assembled in early December 1865; Johnson's conciliatory annual message to them was well received. Nevertheless, Congress refused to seat the Southern legislators and established a committee to recommend appropriate Reconstruction legislation.
    Northerners were outraged at the idea of unrepentant Confederate leaders, such as Stephens, rejoining the federal government at a time when emotional wounds from the war remained raw. They saw the Black Codes placing African Americans in a position barely above slavery. Republicans also feared that restoration of the Southern states would return the Democrats to power. In addition, according to David O. Stewart in his book on Johnson's impeachment, "the violence and poverty that oppressed the South would galvanize the opposition to Johnson".
    Break with the Republicans: 1866 Congress was reluctant to confront the President, and initially only sought to fine-tune Johnson's policies towards the South. According to Trefousse, "If there was a time when Johnson could have come to an agreement with the moderates of the Republican Party, it was the period following the return of Congress". The President was unhappy about the provocative actions of the Southern states, and about the continued control by the antebellum elite there, but made no statement publicly, believing that Southerners had a right to act as they did, even if it was unwise to do so. By late January 1866, he was convinced that winning a showdown with the Radical Republicans was necessary to his political plans '' both for the success of Reconstruction and for reelection in 1868. He would have preferred that the conflict arise over the legislative efforts to enfranchise African Americans in the District of Columbia, a proposal that had been defeated overwhelmingly in an all-white referendum. A bill to accomplish this passed the House of Representatives, but to Johnson's disappointment, stalled in the Senate before he could veto it.
    Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, leader of the Moderate Republicans and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was anxious to reach an understanding with the President. He ushered through Congress a bill extending the Freedmen's Bureau beyond its scheduled abolition in 1867, and the first Civil Rights Bill, to grant citizenship to the freedmen. Trumbull met several times with Johnson and was convinced the President would sign the measures (Johnson rarely contradicted visitors, often fooling those who met with him into thinking he was in accord). In fact, the President opposed both bills as infringements on state sovereignty. Additionally, both of Trumbull's bills were unpopular among white Southerners, whom Johnson hoped to include in his new party. Johnson vetoed the Freedman's Bureau bill on February 18, 1866, to the delight of white Southerners and the puzzled anger of Republican legislators. He considered himself vindicated when a move to override his veto failed in the Senate the following day. Johnson believed that the Radicals would now be isolated and defeated and that the moderate Republicans would form behind him; he did not understand that Moderates also wanted to see African Americans treated fairly.
    On February 22, 1866, Washington's Birthday, Johnson gave an impromptu speech to supporters who had marched to the White House and called for an address in honor of the first president. In his hour-long speech, he instead referred to himself over 200 times. More damagingly, he also spoke of "men ... still opposed to the Union" to whom he could not extend the hand of friendship he gave to the South. When called upon by the crowd to say who they were, Johnson named Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner, and abolitionist Wendell Phillips, and accused them of plotting his assassination. Republicans viewed the address as a declaration of war, while one Democratic ally estimated Johnson's speech cost the party 200,000 votes in the 1866 congressional midterm elections.
    Although strongly urged by moderates to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Johnson broke decisively with them by vetoing it on March 27. In his veto message, he objected to the measure because it conferred citizenship on the freedmen at a time when 11 out of 36 states were unrepresented in the Congress, and that it discriminated in favor of African Americans and against whites. Within three weeks, Congress had overridden his veto, the first time that had been done on a major bill in American history. The veto, often seen as a key mistake of Johnson's presidency, convinced moderates there was no hope of working with him. Historian Eric Foner, in his volume on Reconstruction, views it as "the most disastrous miscalculation of his political career". According to Stewart, the veto was "for many his defining blunder, setting a tone of perpetual confrontation with Congress that prevailed for the rest of his presidency".
    Congress also proposed the Fourteenth Amendment to the states. Written by Trumbull and others, it was sent for ratification by state legislatures in a process in which the president plays no part, though Johnson opposed it. The amendment was designed to put the key provisions of the Civil Rights Act into the Constitution, but also went further. The amendment extended citizenship to every person born in the United States (except Indians on reservations), penalized states that did not give the vote to freedmen, and most importantly, created new federal civil rights that could be protected by federal courts. It also guaranteed that the federal debt would be paid and forbade repayment of Confederate war debts. Further, it disqualified many former Confederates from office, although the disability could be removed '-- by Congress, not the president. Both houses passed the Freedmen's Bureau Act a second time, and again the President vetoed it; this time, the veto was overridden. By the summer of 1866, when Congress finally adjourned, Johnson's method of restoring states to the Union by executive fiat, without safeguards for the freedmen, was in deep trouble. His home state of Tennessee ratified the Fourteenth Amendment despite the President's opposition. When Tennessee did so, Congress immediately seated its proposed delegation, embarrassing Johnson.
    Efforts to compromise failed, and a political war ensued between the united Republicans on one side, and on the other, Johnson and his Northern and Southern allies in the Democratic Party. He called a convention of the National Union Party. Republicans had returned to using their previous identifier; Johnson intended to use the discarded name to unite his supporters and gain election to a full term, in 1868. The battleground was the election of 1866; Southern states were not allowed to vote. Johnson campaigned vigorously, undertaking a public speaking tour, known as the "Swing Around the Circle". The trip, including speeches in Chicago, St. Louis, Indianapolis, and Columbus, proved politically disastrous, with the President making controversial comparisons between himself and Christ, and engaging in arguments with hecklers. These exchanges were attacked as beneath the dignity of the presidency. The Republicans won by a landslide, increasing their two-thirds majority in Congress, and made plans to control Reconstruction. Johnson blamed the Democrats for giving only lukewarm support to the National Union movement.
    Radical Reconstruction Even with the Republican victory in November 1866, Johnson considered himself in a strong position. The Fourteenth Amendment had been ratified by none of the Southern or border states except Tennessee, and had been rejected in Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland. As the amendment required ratification by three-quarters of the states to become part of the Constitution, he believed the deadlock would be broken in his favor, leading to his election in 1868. Once it reconvened in December 1866, an energized Congress began passing legislation, often over a presidential veto; this included the District of Columbia voting bill. Congress admitted Nebraska to the Union over a veto, and the Republicans gained two senators and a state that promptly ratified the amendment. Johnson's veto of a bill for statehood for Colorado Territory was sustained; enough senators agreed that a district with a population of 30,000 was not yet worthy of statehood to win the day.
    In January 1867, Congressman Stevens introduced legislation to dissolve the Southern state governments and reconstitute them into five military districts, under martial law. The states would begin again by holding constitutional conventions. African Americans could vote for or become delegates; former Confederates could not. In the legislative process, Congress added to the bill that restoration to the Union would follow the state's ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and completion of the process of adding it to the Constitution. Johnson and the Southerners attempted a compromise, whereby the South would agree to a modified version of the amendment without the disqualification of former Confederates, and for limited black suffrage. The Republicans insisted on the full language of the amendment, and the deal fell through. Although Johnson could have pocket vetoed the First Reconstruction Act as it was presented to him less than ten days before the end of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, he chose to veto it directly on March 2, 1867; Congress overruled him the same day. Also on March 2, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act over the President's veto, in response to statements during the Swing Around the Circle that he planned to fire Cabinet secretaries who did not agree with him. This bill, requiring Senate approval for the firing of Cabinet members during the tenure of the president who appointed them and for one month afterwards, was immediately controversial, with some senators doubting that it was constitutional or that its terms applied to Johnson, whose key Cabinet officers were Lincoln holdovers.
    Impeachment "The Situation", a
    Harper's Weekly editorial cartoon, shows Secretary of War Stanton aiming a cannon labeled "Congress" to defeat Johnson. The rammer is "Tenure of Office Bill" and cannonballs on the floor are "Justice".
    Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was an able and hard-working man, but difficult to deal with. Johnson both admired and was exasperated by his War Secretary, who, in combination with General of the Army Grant, worked to undermine the president's Southern policy from within his own administration. Johnson considered firing Stanton, but respected him for his wartime service as secretary. Stanton, for his part, feared allowing Johnson to appoint his successor and refused to resign, despite his public disagreements with his president.
    The new Congress met for a few weeks in March 1867, then adjourned, leaving the House Committee on the Judiciary behind, charged with reporting back to the full House whether there were grounds for Johnson to be impeached. This committee duly met, examined the President's bank accounts, and summoned members of the Cabinet to testify. When a federal court released former Confederate president Davis on bail on May 13 (he had been captured shortly after the war), the committee investigated whether the President had impeded the prosecution. It learned that Johnson was eager to have Davis tried. A bipartisan majority of the committee voted down impeachment charges; the committee adjourned on June 3.
    Later in June, Johnson and Stanton battled over the question of whether the military officers placed in command of the South could override the civil authorities. The President had Attorney General Henry Stanbery issue an opinion backing his position that they could not. Johnson sought to pin down Stanton either as for, and thus endorsing Johnson's position, or against, showing himself to be opposed to his president and the rest of the Cabinet. Stanton evaded the point in meetings and written communications. When Congress reconvened in July, it passed a Reconstruction Act against Johnson's position, waited for his veto, overruled it, and went home. In addition to clarifying the powers of the generals, the legislation also deprived the President of control over the Army in the South. With Congress in recess until November, Johnson decided to fire Stanton and relieve one of the military commanders, General Philip Sheridan, who had dismissed the governor of Texas and installed a replacement with little popular support. Johnson was initially deterred by a strong objection from Grant, but on August 5, the President demanded Stanton's resignation; the secretary refused to quit with Congress out of session. Johnson then suspended him pending the next meeting of Congress as permitted under the Tenure of Office Act; Grant agreed to serve as temporary replacement while continuing to lead the Army.
    Grant, under protest, followed Johnson's order transferring Sheridan and another of the district commanders, Daniel Sickles, who had angered Johnson by firmly following Congress's plan. The President also issued a proclamation pardoning most Confederates, exempting those who held office under the Confederacy, or who had served in federal office before the war but had breached their oaths. Although Republicans expressed anger with his actions, the 1867 elections generally went Democratic. No seats in Congress were directly elected in the polling, but the Democrats took control of the Ohio General Assembly, allowing them to defeat for reelection one of Johnson's strongest opponents, Senator Benjamin Wade. Voters in Ohio, Connecticut, and Minnesota turned down propositions to grant African Americans the vote.
    The adverse results momentarily put a stop to Republican calls to impeach Johnson, who was elated by the elections. Nevertheless, once Congress met in November, the Judiciary Committee reversed itself and passed a resolution of impeachment against Johnson. After much debate about whether anything the President had done was a high crime or misdemeanor, the standard under the Constitution, the resolution was defeated by the House of Representatives on December 7, 1867, by a vote of 57 in favor to 108 opposed.
    Johnson notified Congress of Stanton's suspension and Grant's interim appointment. In January 1868, the Senate disapproved of his action, and reinstated Stanton, contending the President had violated the Tenure of Office Act. Grant stepped aside over Johnson's objection, causing a complete break between them. Johnson then dismissed Stanton and appointed Lorenzo Thomas to replace him. Stanton refused to leave his office, and on February 24, 1868, the House impeached the President for intentionally violating the Tenure of Office Act, by a vote of 128 to 47. The House subsequently adopted eleven articles of impeachment, for the most part alleging that he had violated the Tenure of Office Act, and had questioned the legitimacy of Congress.
    On March 5, 1868, the impeachment trial began in the Senate and lasted almost three months; Congressmen George S. Boutwell, Benjamin Butler and Thaddeus Stevens acted as managers for the House, or prosecutors, and William M. Evarts, Benjamin R. Curtis and former Attorney General Stanbery were Johnson's counsel; Chief Justice Chase served as presiding judge.
    The defense relied on the provision of the Tenure of Office Act that made it applicable only to appointees of the current administration. Since Lincoln had appointed Stanton, the defense maintained Johnson had not violated the act, and also argued that the President had the right to test the constitutionality of an act of Congress. Johnson's counsel insisted that he make no appearance at the trial, nor publicly comment about the proceedings, and except for a pair of interviews in April, he complied.
    Johnson maneuvered to gain an acquittal; for example, he pledged to Iowa Senator James W. Grimes that he would not interfere with Congress's Reconstruction efforts. Grimes reported to a group of Moderates, many of whom voted for acquittal, that he believed the President would keep his word. Johnson also promised to install the respected John Schofield as War Secretary. Kansas Senator Edmund G. Ross received assurances that the new, Radical-influenced constitutions ratified in South Carolina and Arkansas would be transmitted to the Congress without delay, an action which would give him and other senators political cover to vote for acquittal.
    One reason senators were reluctant to remove the President was that his successor would have been Ohio Senator Wade, the president pro tempore of the Senate. Wade, a lame duck who left office in early 1869, was a Radical who supported such measures as women's suffrage, placing him beyond the pale politically in much of the nation. Additionally, a President Wade was seen as an obstacle to Grant's ambitions.
    With the dealmaking, Johnson was confident of the result in advance of the verdict, and in the days leading up to the ballot, newspapers reported that Stevens and his Radicals had given up. On May 16, the Senate voted on the 11th article of impeachment, accusing Johnson of firing Stanton in violation of the Tenure of Office of Act once the Senate had overturned his suspension. Thirty-five senators voted "guilty" and 19 "not guilty", thus falling short by a single vote of the two-thirds majority required for conviction under the Constitution. Seven Republicans'--Senators Grimes, Ross, Trumbull, William Pitt Fessenden, Joseph S. Fowler, John B. Henderson, and Peter G. Van Winkle'--voted to acquit the President. With Stevens bitterly disappointed at the result, the Senate then adjourned for the Republican National Convention; Grant was nominated for president. The Senate returned on May 26 and voted on the second and third articles, with identical 35''19 results. Faced with those results, Johnson's opponents gave up and dismissed proceedings. Stanton "relinquished" his office on May 26, and the Senate subsequently confirmed Schofield. When Johnson renominated Stanbery to return to his position as Attorney General after his service as a defense manager, the Senate refused to confirm him.
    Allegations were made at the time and again later that bribery dictated the outcome of the trial. Even when it was in progress, Representative Butler began an investigation, held contentious hearings, and issued a report, unendorsed by any other congressman. Butler focused on a New York''based "Astor House Group", supposedly led by political boss and editor Thurlow Weed. This organization was said to have raised large sums of money from whiskey interests through Cincinnati lawyer Charles Woolley to bribe senators to acquit Johnson. Butler went so far as to imprison Woolley in the Capitol building when he refused to answer questions, but failed to prove bribery.
    Foreign policy Soon after taking office as president, Johnson reached an accord with Secretary of State William H. Seward that there would be no change in foreign policy. In practice, this meant that Seward would continue to run things as he had under Lincoln. Seward and Lincoln had been rivals for the nomination in 1860; the victor hoped that Seward would succeed him as president in 1869. At the time of Johnson's accession, the French had intervened in Mexico, sending troops there. While many politicians had indulged in saber rattling over the Mexican matter, Seward preferred quiet diplomacy, warning the French through diplomatic channels that their presence in Mexico was not acceptable. Although the President preferred a more aggressive approach, Seward persuaded him to follow his lead. In April 1866, the French government informed Seward that its troops would be brought home in stages, to conclude by November 1867.
    Seward was an expansionist, and sought opportunities to gain territory for the United States. By 1867, the Russian government saw its North American colony (today Alaska) as a financial liability, and feared losing control as American settlement reached there. It instructed its minister in Washington, Baron Eduard de Stoeckl, to negotiate a sale. De Stoeckl did so deftly, getting Seward to raise his offer from $5 million (coincidentally, the minimum that Russia had instructed de Stoeckl to accept) to $7 million, and then getting $200,000 added by raising various objections. This sum of $7.2 million is equivalent to $132 million in present-day terms.[174] On March 30, 1867, de Stoeckl and Seward signed the treaty, working quickly as the Senate was about to adjourn. Johnson and Seward took the signed document to the President's Room in the Capitol, only to be told there was no time to deal with the matter before adjournment. The President summoned the Senate into session to meet on April 1; that body approved the treaty, 37''2. Emboldened by his success in Alaska, Seward sought acquisitions elsewhere. His only success was staking an American claim to uninhabited Wake Island in the Pacific, which would be officially claimed by the U.S. in 1898. He came close with the Danish West Indies as Denmark agreed to sell and the local population approved the transfer in a plebiscite, but the Senate never voted on the treaty and it expired.[176]
    Another treaty that fared badly was the Johnson-Clarendon convention, negotiated in settlement of the Alabama Claims, for damages to American shipping from British-built Confederate raiders. Negotiated by the United States Minister to Britain, former Maryland senator Reverdy Johnson, in late 1868, it was ignored by the Senate during the remainder of the President's term. The treaty was rejected after he left office, and the Grant administration later negotiated considerably better terms from Britain.
    Administration and Cabinet BEP engraved portrait of Johnson as President
    Judicial appointments Johnson appointed nine Article III federal judges during his presidency, all to United States district courts; he did not appoint a justice to serve on the Supreme Court. In April 1866, he nominated Henry Stanbery to fill the vacancy left with the death of John Catron, but Congress eliminated the seat to prevent the appointment, and to ensure that he did not get to make any appointments eliminated the next vacancy as well, providing that the court would shrink by one justice when one next departed from office. Johnson appointed his Greeneville crony, Samuel Milligan, to the United States Court of Claims, where he served from 1868 until his death in 1874.
    Reforms initiated In June 1866, Johnson signed the Southern Homestead Act into law, believing that the legislation would assist poor whites. Around 28,000 land claims were successfully patented, although few former slaves benefitted from the law, fraud was rampant, and much of the best land was off-limits, reserved for grants to veterans or railroads.[182] In June 1868, Johnson signed an eight-hour law passed by Congress that established an eight-hour workday for laborers and mechanics employed by the Federal Government.[183] Although Johnson told members of a Workingmen's party delegation in Baltimore that he could not directly commit himself to an eight-hour day, he nevertheless told the same delegation that he greatly favoured the "shortest number of hours consistent with the interests of all".[184] According to Richard F. Selcer, however, the good intentions behind the law were "immediately frustrated" as wages were cut by 20%.[183]
    Completion of term Johnson sought nomination by the 1868 Democratic National Convention in New York in July 1868. He remained very popular among Southern whites, and boosted that popularity by issuing, just before the convention, a pardon ending the possibility of criminal proceedings against any Confederate not already indicted, meaning that only Davis and a few others still might face trial. On the first ballot, Johnson was second to former Ohio representative George H. Pendleton, who had been his Democratic opponent for vice president in 1864. Johnson's support was mostly from the South, and fell away as the ballots passed. On the 22nd ballot, former New York governor Horatio Seymour was nominated, and the President received only four votes, all from Tennessee.
    "Farewell, a long farewell, to all my greatness!":
    Harper's Weekly cartoon mocking Johnson on leaving office
    The conflict with Congress continued. Johnson sent Congress proposals for amendments to limit the president to a single six-year term and make the president and the Senate directly elected, and for term limits for judges. Congress took no action on them. When the President was slow to officially report ratifications of the Fourteenth Amendment by the new Southern legislatures, Congress passed a bill, again over his veto, requiring him to do so within ten days of receipt. He still delayed as much as he could, but was required, in July 1868, to report the ratifications making the amendment part of the Constitution.
    Seymour's operatives sought Johnson's support, but he long remained silent on the presidential campaign. It was not until October, with the vote already having taken place in some states, that he mentioned Seymour at all, and he never endorsed him. Nevertheless, Johnson regretted Grant's victory, in part because of their animus from the Stanton affair. In his annual message to Congress in December, Johnson urged the repeal of the Tenure of Office Act and told legislators that had they admitted their Southern colleagues in 1865, all would have been well. He celebrated his 60th birthday in late December with a party for several hundred children, though not including those of President-elect Grant, who did not allow his to go.
    On Christmas Day 1868, Johnson issued a final amnesty, this one covering everyone, including Davis. He also issued, in his final months in office, pardons for crimes, including one for Dr. Samuel Mudd, controversially convicted of involvement in the Lincoln assassination (he had set Booth's broken leg) and imprisoned in Fort Jefferson on Florida's Dry Tortugas.
    On March 3, the President hosted a large public reception at the White House on his final full day in office. Grant had made it known that he was unwilling to ride in the same carriage as Johnson, as was customary, and Johnson refused to go to the inauguration at all. Despite an effort by Seward to prompt a change of mind, he spent the morning of March 4 finishing last-minute business, and then shortly after noon rode from the White House to the home of a friend.
    Post-presidency and return to Senate Senator Andrew Johnson in 1875 (age 66)
    After leaving the presidency, Johnson remained for some weeks in Washington, then returned to Greeneville for the first time in eight years. He was honored with large public celebrations along the way, especially in Tennessee, where cities hostile to him during the war hung out welcome banners. He had arranged to purchase a large farm near Greeneville to live on after his presidency.
    Some expected Johnson to run for Governor of Tennessee or for the Senate again, while others thought that he would become a railroad executive. Johnson found Greeneville boring, and his private life was embittered by the suicide of his son Robert in 1869. Seeking vindication for himself, and revenge against his political enemies, he launched a Senate bid soon after returning home. Tennessee had gone Republican, but court rulings restoring the vote to some whites and the violence of the Ku Klux Klan kept down the African-American vote, leading to a Democratic victory in the legislative elections in August 1869. Johnson was seen as a likely victor in the Senate election, although hated by Radical Republicans, and also by some Democrats because of his wartime activities. Although he was at one point within a single vote of victory in the legislature's balloting, the Republicans eventually elected Henry Cooper over Johnson, 54''51. In 1872, there was a special election for an at-large congressional seat for Tennessee; Johnson initially sought the Democratic nomination, but when he saw that it would go to former Confederate general Benjamin F. Cheatham, decided to run as an independent. The former president was defeated, finishing third, but the split in the Democratic Party defeated Cheatham in favor of an old Johnson Unionist ally, Horace Maynard.
    In 1873, Johnson contracted cholera during an epidemic but recovered; that year he lost about $73,000, when the First National Bank of Washington went under, though he was eventually repaid much of the sum. He began looking towards the next Senate election, to take place in the legislature in early 1875. Johnson began to woo the farmers' Grange movement; with his Jeffersonian leanings, he easily gained their support. He spoke throughout the state in his final campaign tour. Few African Americans outside the large towns were now able to vote as Reconstruction faded in Tennessee, setting a pattern that would be repeated in the other Southern states; the white domination would last almost a century. In the Tennessee legislative elections in August, the Democrats elected 92 legislators to the Republicans' eight, and Johnson went to Nashville for the legislative session. When the balloting for the Senate seat began on January 20, 1875, he led with 30 votes, but did not have the required majority as three former Confederate generals, one former colonel, and a former Democratic congressman split the vote with him. Johnson's opponents tried to agree on a single candidate who might gain majority support and defeat him, but failed, and he was elected on January 26 on the 54th ballot, with a margin of a single vote. Nashville erupted in rejoicing; remarked Johnson, "Thank God for the vindication."
    Johnson's comeback garnered national attention, with the St. Louis Republican calling it, "the most magnificent personal triumph which the history of American politics can show". At his swearing-in in the Senate on March 5, 1875, he was greeted with flowers and sworn in with his predecessor as vice president, Hamlin, by that office's current incumbent, Henry Wilson, who as senator had voted for his ousting. Many Republicans ignored Senator Johnson, though some, such as Ohio's John Sherman (who had voted for conviction), shook his hand. Johnson remains the only former president to serve in the Senate. He spoke only once in the short session, on March 22 lambasting President Grant for his use of federal troops in support of Louisiana's Reconstruction government. The former president asked, "How far off is military despotism?" and concluded his speech, "may God bless this people and God save the Constitution."
    Death Johnson returned home after the special session concluded. In late July 1875, convinced some of his opponents were defaming him in the Ohio gubernatorial race, he decided to travel there to give speeches. He began the trip on July 28, and broke the journey at his daughter Mary's farm near Elizabethton, where his daughter Martha was also staying. That evening he suffered a stroke, but refused medical treatment until the next day, when he did not improve and two doctors were sent for from Elizabethton. He seemed to respond to their ministrations, but suffered another stroke on the evening of July 30, and died early the following morning at the age of 66. President Grant had the "painful duty" of announcing the death of the only surviving past president. Northern newspapers, in their obituaries, tended to focus on Johnson's loyalty during the war, while Southern ones paid tribute to his actions as president. Johnson's funeral was held on August 3 in Greeneville. He was buried with his body wrapped in an American flag and a copy of the U.S. Constitution placed under his head, according to his wishes. The burial ground was dedicated as the Andrew Johnson National Cemetery in 1906, and with his home and tailor's shop, is part of the Andrew Johnson National Historic Site.
    Historical reputation and legacy According to Castel, "historians [of Johnson's presidency] have tended to concentrate to the exclusion of practically everything else upon his role in that titanic event [Reconstruction]". Through the remainder of the 19th century, there were few historical evaluations of Johnson and his presidency. Memoirs from Northerners who had dealt with him, such as former vice president Henry Wilson and Maine Senator James G. Blaine, depicted him as an obstinate boor who tried to favor the South in Reconstruction, but who was frustrated by Congress. According to historian Howard K. Beale in his journal article about the historiography of Reconstruction, "Men of the postwar decades were more concerned with justifying their own position than they were with painstaking search for truth. Thus [Alabama congressman and historian] Hilary Herbert and his corroborators presented a Southern indictment of Northern policies, and Henry Wilson's history was a brief for the North."
    The turn of the 20th century saw the first significant historical evaluations of Johnson. Leading the wave was Pulitzer Prize-winning historian James Ford Rhodes, who wrote of the former president:
    Johnson acted in accordance with his nature. He had intellectual force but it worked in a groove. Obstinate rather than firm it undoubtedly seemed to him that following counsel and making concessions were a display of weakness. At all events from his December message to the veto of the Civil Rights Bill he yielded not a jot to Congress. The moderate senators and representatives (who constituted a majority of the Union party) asked him for only a slight compromise; their action was really an entreaty that he would unite with them to preserve Congress and the country from the policy of the radicals ... His quarrel with Congress prevented the readmission into the Union on generous terms of the members of the late Confederacy ... His pride of opinion, his desire to beat, blinded him to the real welfare of the South and of the whole country.
    Rhodes ascribed Johnson's faults to his personal weaknesses, and blamed him for the problems of the postbellum South. Other early 20th-century historians, such as John Burgess, Woodrow Wilson (who later became president himself) and William Dunning, all Southerners, concurred with Rhodes, believing Johnson flawed and politically inept, but concluding that he had tried to carry out Lincoln's plans for the South in good faith. Author and journalist Jay Tolson suggests that Wilson "depict[ed Reconstruction] as a vindictive program that hurt even repentant southerners while benefiting northern opportunists, the so-called Carpetbaggers, and cynical white southerners, or Scalawags, who exploited alliances with blacks for political gain".
    The grave of Andrew Johnson, Greeneville, Tennessee
    Even as Rhodes and his school wrote, another group of historians was setting out on the full rehabilitation of Johnson, using for the first time primary sources such as his papers, provided by his daughter Martha before her death in 1901, and the diaries of Johnson's Navy Secretary, Gideon Welles, first published in 1911. The resulting volumes, such as David Miller DeWitt's The Impeachment and Trial of President Andrew Johnson (1903), presented him far more favorably than they did those who had sought to oust him. In James Schouler's 1913 History of the Reconstruction Period, the author accused Rhodes of being "quite unfair to Johnson", though agreeing that the former president had created many of his own problems through inept political moves. These works had an effect; although historians continued to view Johnson as having deep flaws which sabotaged his presidency, they saw his Reconstruction policies as fundamentally correct.
    Castel writes:
    at the end of the 1920s, an historiographical revolution took place. In the span of three years five widely read books appeared, all highly pro-Johnson....They differed in general approach and specific interpretations, but they all glorified Johnson and condemned his enemies. According to these writers, Johnson was a humane, enlightened, and liberal statesman who waged a courageous battle for the Constitution and democracy against scheming and unscrupulous Radicals, who were motivated by a vindictive hatred of the South, partisanship, and a desire to establish the supremacy of Northern "big business". In short, rather than a boor, Johnson was a martyr; instead of a villain, a hero.
    Beale wondered in 1940, "is it not time that we studied the history of Reconstruction without first assuming, at least subconsciously, that carpetbaggers and Southern white Republicans were wicked, that Negroes were illiterate incompetents, and that the whole white South owes a debt of gratitude to the restorers of 'white supremacy'?" Despite these doubts, the favorable view of Johnson survived for a time. In 1942, Van Heflin portrayed the former president as a fighter for democracy in the Hollywood film Tennessee Johnson. In 1948, a poll of his colleagues by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger deemed Johnson among the average presidents; in 1956, one by Clinton L. Rossiter named him as one of the near-great Chief Executives. Foner notes that at the time of these surveys, "the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting black men the right to vote".[211]
    Earlier historians, including Beale, believed that money drove events, and had seen Reconstruction as an economic struggle. They also accepted, for the most part, that reconciliation between North and South should have been the top priority of Reconstruction. In the 1950s, historians began to focus on the African-American experience as central to Reconstruction. They rejected completely any claim of black inferiority, which had marked many earlier historical works, and saw the developing civil rights movement as a second Reconstruction; some writers stated they hoped their work on the postbellum era would advance the cause of civil rights. These authors sympathized with the Radical Republicans for their desire to help the African American, and saw Johnson as callous towards the freedman. In a number of works from 1956 onwards by such historians as Fawn Brodie, the former president was depicted as a successful saboteur of efforts to better the freedman's lot. These volumes included major biographies of Stevens and Stanton. Reconstruction was increasingly seen as a noble effort to integrate the freed slaves into society.[211]
    In the early 21st century, Johnson is among those commonly mentioned as the worst presidents in U.S. history. According to historian Glenn W. Lafantasie, who believes Buchanan the worst president, "Johnson is a particular favorite for the bottom of the pile because of his impeachment ... his complete mishandling of Reconstruction policy ... his bristling personality, and his enormous sense of self-importance." Tolson suggests that "Johnson is now scorned for having resisted Radical Republican policies aimed at securing the rights and well-being of the newly emancipated African-Americans". Gordon-Reed notes that Johnson, along with his contemporaries Pierce and Buchanan, are generally listed among the five worst presidents, but states, "there have never been more difficult times in the life of this nation. The problems these men had to confront were enormous. It would have taken a succession of Lincolns to do them justice."
    Trefousse considers Johnson's legacy to be "the maintenance of white supremacy. His boost to Southern conservatives by undermining Reconstruction was his legacy to the nation, one that would trouble the country for generations to come." Gordon-Reed states of Johnson:
    We know the results of Johnson's failures'--that his preternatural stubbornness, his mean and crude racism, his primitive and instrumental understanding of the Constitution stunted his capacity for enlightened and forward-thinking leadership when those qualities were so desperately needed. At the same time, Johnson's story has a miraculous quality to it: the poor boy who systematically rose to the heights, fell from grace, and then fought his way back to a position of honor in the country. For good or ill, 'only in America,' as they say, could Johnson's story unfold in the way that it did.
    Notes ^ Johnson was vice president under Abraham Lincoln and became president on April 15, 1865 after Lincoln's death. A vacancy in the office of vice president was not filled until the next election prior to the adoption of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment in 1967. ^ Wordplay on gerrymandering. ^ The Know Nothings, who were then formally known as the American Party. References Citations ^ Johnson saw 15 of his vetoes overridden by Congress, more than any other President. ^ Robert A. Nowlan (2016). The American Presidents From Polk to Hayes: What They Did, What They Said & What Was Said About Them. Outskirts Press. p. 387. ISBN 9781478765721. Archived from the original on December 23, 2016. ^ "Slaves of Andrew Johnson". ^ " " Freeding Dolly " ". ^ United States Congress. "Andrew Johnson (id: J000116)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. ^ James Knox Polk (1910). Milo M. Quaife (ed.). The diary of James K. Polk during his presidency, 1845 to 1849: now first printed from the original manuscript in the Collections of the Chicago Historical Society. 4. A.C. McClurg & Co. p. 265. Archived from the original on September 16, 2015. ^ Smalley, Ruth (2003). An Interview with Andrew Johnson. Johnson City, TN: Overmountain Press. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-57072-257-8. Archived from the original on February 23, 2018. ^ 1860 U.S. Federal Census, Slave Schedule for Nashville's 7th ward, Davidson County, Tennessee ^ Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800''" . Retrieved January 1, 2020 . ^ David M. Pletcher (1998). The Diplomacy of Trade and Investment: American Economic Expansion in the Hemisphere, 1865''1900 . University of Missouri Press. p. 160. ISBN 9780826211279. ^ Zuczek, Richard (2006). Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era: M''Z and primary documents. ISBN 9780313330759. Archived from the original on February 23, 2018 . Retrieved April 6, 2016 . ^ a b Selcer, Richard F. (May 14, 2014). Civil War America, 1850 To 1875. ISBN 9781438107974. Archived from the original on May 15, 2016 . Retrieved April 6, 2016 . ^ Smalley, Ruth (April 2003). An Interview with Andrew Johnson. ISBN 9781570722578. Archived from the original on February 23, 2018 . Retrieved April 6, 2016 . ^ a b Foner column. Sources Beale, Howard K. (July 1940). "On rewriting Reconstruction history". American Historical Review. 45 (4): 807''827. doi:10.2307/1854452. JSTOR 1854452. Benedict, Michael Les. The impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson (1973) onlineCastel, Albert E. (1979). The Presidency of Andrew Johnson. American Presidency. Lawrence, Kan.: The Regents Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-0190-5. Castel, Albert E. (2002). "Andrew Johnson". In Graff, Henry (ed.). The Presidents: A Reference History (7th ed.). pp. 225''239. ISBN 978-0-684-80551-1. CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Federal Judiciary Center. "Samuel Milligan". Biographical Dictionary of Federal Judges. Fitzgerald, Michael W. (2007). Splendid Failure: Postwar Reconstruction in the American South. American Ways (paperback ed.). Chicago: Ivan R. Dee. ISBN 978-1-56663-739-8. Foner, Eric (2002) [1988]. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution (0-06-093716-5 ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Foner, Eric (December 3, 2006). "He's The Worst Ever". The Washington Post. Gordon-Reed, Annette (2011). Andrew Johnson. The American Presidents Series. New York: Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 978-0-8050-6948-8. Lafantasie, Glenn (February 21, 2011). "Who's the worst president of them all?". Salon.com. McKitrick, Eric L. Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction (1960) onlineRhodes, James Ford (1904). History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850. New York: The Macmillan Company. vol 5 1864''66 online and vol 6 1866''72 onlineSchroeder-Lein, Glenna R.; Zuczuk, Richard (2001). Andrew Johnson: A Biographical Companion. Santa Barbara, Cal.: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-57607-030-7. CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Sefton, James E. Andrew Johnson and the uses of constitutional power (1980) onlineStewart, David O. (2009). Impeached: the Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy. New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4165-4749-5. Swanson, Ryan A., "Andrew Johnson and His Governors: An Examination of Failed Reconstruction Leadership," Tennessee Historical Quarterly (2012), 71#1 pp 16''45.Tolson, Jay (February 16, 2007). "The 10 Worst Presidents: No. 3 Andrew Johnson (1865''1869)". U.S. News & World Report. Trefousse, Hans L. (1989). Andrew Johnson: A Biography. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-31742-8. Primary sourcesJohnson, Andrew; Moore, Frank (1865). Speeches of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company. Further reading External links White House biographyUnited States Congress. "Andrew Johnson (id: J000116)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Andrew Johnson National Historic SiteAndrew Johnson: A Resource Guide '' Library of CongressEssays on Andrew Johnson and shorter essays on each member of his cabinet and First Lady, from the Miller Center of Public Affairs"Life Portrait of Andrew Johnson", from C-SPAN's American Presidents: Life Portraits, July 9, 1999Text of a number of Johnson's speeches at the Miller Center of Public AffairsAndrew Johnson Personal Manuscripts and Letters '' Shapell Manuscript FoundationResolutions of Impeachment from the National ArchivesTennessee State Library and Archives/Tennessee Virtual Archive/Andrew Johnson Collection/Andrew Johnson Bicentennial, 1808''2008Works by Andrew Johnson at Project GutenbergArticles related to Andrew Johnson
  Special Field Orders No. 15 - Wikipedia
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 15:17
    Special Field Orders, No. 15 (series 1865) were military orders issued during the American Civil War, on January 16, 1865, by General William Tecumseh Sherman, commander of the Military Division of the Mississippi of the United States Army.[1] They provided for the confiscation of 400,000 acres (1,600 km2) of land along the Atlantic coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and the dividing of it into parcels of not more than 40 acres (0.16 km2),[2] on which were to be settled approximately 18,000 formerly enslaved African American families and other Africans then living in the area.
    The orders were issued following Sherman's March to the Sea. They were intended to address the immediate problem of dealing with the tens of thousands of African refugees who had joined Sherman's march in search of protection and sustenance, and "to assure the harmony of action in the area of operations".[3] His intention was for the order to be a temporary measure to address an immediate problem, and not to grant permanent ownership of the land to the freedmen, although most of the recipients assumed otherwise.[4] General Sherman issued his orders four days after meeting in Savannah, Georgia with twenty local African ministers and lay leaders and with U.S. Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. Brig. Gen. Rufus Saxton, an abolitionist from Massachusetts who had previously organized the recruitment of African soldiers for the Union Army, was put in charge of implementing the orders.[5]
    The orders had little concrete effect, and President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation that returned the lands to southern owners that took a loyalty oath. General Saxton and his staff at the Charleston SC Freedmen Bureau's office refused to carry out President Johnson's wishes and denied all applications to have lands returned. In the end, Johnson and his allies removed General Saxton and his staff, but not before Congress was able to provide legislation to assist some families in keeping their lands.
    Although mules are not mentioned in the orders, they were a main source for the expression "forty acres and a mule". A historical marker commemorating the order is in Savannah, near the corner of Harris and Bull streets, in Madison Square.[6]
    Special Field Orders No. 15.
    Headquarters Military Division of the Mississippi,In the Field, Savannah, Ga., January 16, 1865.
    I. The islands from Charleston south, the abandoned rice-fields along the rivers for thirty miles back from the sea, and the country bordering the Saint Johns River, Fla., are reserved and set apart for the settlement of the BLACKS now made free by the acts of war and the proclamation of the President of the United States.
    II. At Beaufort, Hilton Head, Savannah, Fernandina, Saint Augustine, and Jacksonville the blacks may remain in their chosen or accustomed vocations; but on the islands, and in the settlements hereafter to be established, no white person whatever, unless military officers and soldiers detailed for duty, will be permitted to reside; and the sole and exclusive management of affairs will be left to the freed people themselves, subject only to the United States military authority and the acts of Congress. By the laws of war and orders of the President of the United States the negro is free, and must be dealt with as such. He cannot be subjected to conscription or forced military service, save by the written orders of the highest military authority of the Department, under such regulations as the President or Congress may prescribe; domestic servants, blacksmiths, carpenters, and other mechanics will be free to select their own work and residence, but the young and able-bodied negroes must be encouraged to enlist as soldiers in the service of the United States, to contribute their share toward maintaining their own freedom and securing their rights as citizens of the United States. Negroes so enlisted will be organized into companies, battalions, and regiments, under the orders of the United States military authorities, and will be paid, fed, and clothed according to law. The bounties paid on enlistment may, with the consent of the recruit, go to assist his family and settlement in procuring agricultural implements, seed, tools, boats, clothing, and other articles necessary for their livelihood.
    III. Whenever three respectable negroes, heads of families, shall desire to settle on land, and shall have selected for that purpose an island, or a locality clearly defined within the limits above designated, the inspector of settlements and plantations will himself, or by such sub-ordinate officer as he may appoint, give them a license to settle such island or district, and afford them such assistance as he can to enable them to establish a peaceable agricultural settlement. The three parties named will subdivide the land, under the supervision of the inspector, among themselves and such others as may choose to settle near them, so that each family shall have a plot of not more than forty acres of tillable ground, and when it borders on some water channel with not more than 800 feet water front, in the possession of which land the military authorities will afford them protection until such time as they can protect themselves or until Congress shall regulate their title. The quartermaster may, on the requisition of the inspector of settlements and plantations, place at the disposal of the inspector one or more of the captured steamers to ply between the settlements and one or more of the commercial points, heretofore named in orders, to afford the settlers the opportunity to supply their necessary wants and to sell the products of their land and labor.
    IV. Whenever a negro has enlisted in the military service of the United States he may locate his family in any one of the settlements at pleasure and acquire a homestead and all other rights and privileges of a settler as though present in person. In like manner negroes may settle their families and engage on board the gunboats, or in fishing, or in the navigation of the inland waters, without losing any claim to land or other advantages derived from this system. But no one, unless an actual settler as above defined, or unless absent on Government service, will be entitled to claim any right to land or property in any settlement by virtue of these orders.
    V. In order to carry out this system of settlement a general officer will be detailed as inspector of settlements and plantations, whose duty it shall be to visit the settlements, to regulate their police and general management, and who will furnish personally to each head of a family, subject to the approval of the President of the United States, a possessory title in writing, giving as near as possible the description of boundaries, and who shall adjust all claims or conflicts that may arise under the same, subject to the like approval, treating such titles altogether as possessory. The same general officer will also be charged with the enlistment and organization of the negro recruits and protecting their interests while absent from their settlements, and will be governed by the rules and regulations prescribed by the War Department for such purpose.
    VI. Brig. Gen. R. Saxton is hereby appointed inspector of settlements and plantations and will at once enter on the performance of his duties. No change is intended or desired in the settlement now on Beaufort Island, nor will any rights to property heretofore acquired be affected thereby.
    By order of Maj. Gen. W. T. Sherman:
    L. N. DAYTON, Assistant Adjutant-General.
    '--'‰
    William T. Sherman, Military Division of the Mississippi; 1865 series - Special Field Order 15, January 16, 1865.[2]This order is part of the Official Records of the American Civil War. It can be found in Series I '-- Military Operations, Volume XLVII, Part II, Pages 60''62. The volume was published in 1895.[2]
  Disturbing effects of low frequency sound immissions and vibrations in residential buildings Findeis H, Peters E - Noise Health
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 15:12
    Noise immissions with predominant low frequency sound components may exert considerably disturbing effects in dwellings. This applies in particular to sounds which are excitated by transmission of structure-borne noise, and to low frequency sounds emitted by ventilators. Exposed persons usually declare such immissions as being "intolerable" even at very low A‚­weighted sound levels.If mechanical vibrations in the frequency range below 20 Hz (ground-borne vibrations) affect dwelling rooms, the annoying effects are perceived only by a small portion of exposed individuals as a physical effect. For the most part the immissions are observed as vibratory effects on the building and on objects inside the dwelling. The disturbing effects of vibration frequencies above 20 Hz (structure-borne sound) are determined by the airborne sound field generated inside a particular room and its given surface and extension.
    Keywords: Low frequency sound, structure-borne sound, annoying effects, sensibilisation, low frequency vibrations, road traffic induced vibrations, disturbing factors
    How to cite this article:Findeis H, Peters E. Disturbing effects of low frequency sound immissions and vibrations in residential buildings. Noise Health 2004;6:29-35 Introduction As early as in the seventies, sound level measurements carried out to verify complaints about annoying noises in dwellings have shown the following: Noises which in many cases induced vehement complaints were to a large extent of rather low sound levels, whereas the effects of simultaneous other noise immissions of higher sound levels like the ticking of a clock or intermittent traffic noise did not cause annoyance (Findeis and Thielebeule, 1979).
    These findings gave rise to investigations designed to answer the following questions:
    (1) Are the differences in the perception of different noises just accidental occurrences, or do they follow a systematical pattern?
    (2) Which noise characteristics are responsible for differences in noise perception?
    In order to clarify these questions the complaints were therefore analysed, on the one hand by evaluating spontaneous statements on the effects of noise immissions by the persons involved, and on the other hand by taking measurements of A‚­weighted noise levels and additionally carrying out acoustical measurements. The same method was used in cases of vibrations.
    Method As a first step in answering question (1) quoted above, the measured values obtained from the initial input evaluation were categorised according to their sources:
    * Measured values of road traffic noise
    * Measured values of ventilator noise
    '‚¬ Measured values of other airborne transmitted sounds
    * Measured values of airborne sounds emanating from structure-borne sound immissions.
    In most cases, structure-borne sound sources were circulator pumps in heating systems and other technical building equipment, refrigerators and ventilators in commercially used premises of dwelling buildings.
    Secondly, the distribution functions of the measuring data regarding the various noises were taken under consideration. Discussion of the results included statements of the affected persons on the respective effects of the immissions.
    To clarify question (2) quoted above, lin‚­weighted noise levels were initially assessed in addition to A-weighted levels. The technique of the measuring devices ensured that frequency components distinctly below 20 Hz (infrasound) did not interfere with the measuring results. In addition, third octave sound levels and, in the case of structure-borne sound immissions, also the vibration velocity levels of the indoor wall surfaces were frequently measured.
    Parallel to measurements of floor vibrations connected with vibration immissions of frequencies below 20 Hz, not only the statements of the exposed persons regarding the immissions, but also observations made by the persons performing the measurements with regard to the immissions were documented and correlated with the measurement results.
    Study results Airborne sound immissionsResults of measurements and evaluationsThe results given in the following are based on the evaluation of measurements gathered in response to 204 complaints about noise disturbance in the city of Potsdam and the western districts of the Federal State of Brandenburg in Germany. [Table - 1] gives the distribution of the statements made in the complaints over the different kinds of airborne sound immissions. Complaints containing several overlapping immissions were not included.
    It may be noted that the quota of complaints regarding road traffic noise immissions is relatively small with respect to the large number of persons complaining about the noise immissions under concern. In contrast, the number of complaints about structure-borne sound immissions is surprisingly high.
    The sound pressure levels measured for the noise immissions showed, as a rule, a normal distribution of sufficient approximation. The assessed distributions were evaluated following the exemption of that sound level which either exceeded or fell short of 50% of the measurement values (50%-level). Further, that sound level was determined which fell short of 5% of the measurement values (5%-level), and which may be considered as the immission threshold of complaints regarding the noise in question. The results of these evaluations are listed in [Table - 2]. The traffic noise data are daytime values; night-time values are expected to be lower. The effects of the other noises were of a permanent or intermittent nature day and night.
    A t-test with a given error rate of 5% (Sachs, 1984) yielded highly significant differences between outside 50%-levels of road traffic immissions and 50%-levels of other noises. This is also true for 50%-levels of the respective indoor noise. Equally significant, though less distinct, are the differences between mean values of noise levels generated indoors and those from outside. No differences were, however, found between the distributions over daytime and night-time measurement values and the noise of ventilators which only run indoors during the daytime. This also applies to noise initiated by structure-borne noise.
    In 58% of exposures to structure-borne sound immission at day and night, the complainants stated sleep disturbances among other reasons. The distribution functions of the respective measuring values did not differ from the remaining measuring values of this kind of noise.
    In summing up, the answer to question (1) quoted above is that particularly indoor ventilator noise as well as noises generated by structure-borne sound transmission exert distinctly higher disturbing effects than road traffic noise.
    First causative indicators of increased annoyance due to these noises are considerable differences in levels L lin - L A which prove to be distinctly higher with regard to indoor levels compared with outdoor levels. They suggest rather strong effects of noise components of frequencies below 100 Hz.
    Out of 33 frequency analyses carried out for indoor noise, 31 exhibited predominating octave and third octave band levels between 20 and 100 Hz. Ten out of twenty third octave band level measurements additionally showed tonal components because there appeared third octave band levels which surplussed adjoining third octave band levels by at least 5 dB (DIN 45680, 1997). In parallel, and to a similar extent, spatial level fluctuations were assessed in the rooms, indicating the presence of stationary waves.
    Vibration measurements taken in relation perpendicular to the wall in cases of structure‚­borne sound immissions had the following results: In the majority of cases the vibration velocity levels L v as related to v o = 5 ‚· 10 -8 m/s were near to identical with the airborne sound level assessed inside the room. In several cases airborne sound levels exceeded the structure‚­borne sound levels by up to 10 dB.
    If vibrations of the wall surfaces inside a room are, according to (Cremer and Heckl, 1967), assumed to be bending waves, then this mechanism principally suggests a tangential radiation of airborne sound is from the vibrating walls. This again enhances the development of stationary waves in closed rooms.
    The close association between vibrations and airborne sound immissions in dwelling rooms and their respective effects may be illustrated by the following case report:
    A compressor unit was causing extreme annoyance to the occupants of a flat within a distance of 50 m, complaining about "vibrations". Vibration measurements of the floor and the walls exhibited a vibration velocity of 0.1 mm/s, or other a vibration velocity level of 66 dB with a frequency of 33 Hz. Vertical vibrations of this magnitude are as a rule not perceptible as ground-borne vibrations. For this reason, the strong vibrations of the window panes remained inexplicable at first. Then the problem was then solved by measuring the airborne sound levels in the same room which yielded the following results:
    In the centre of the room 26 dB(A) resp. 66 dB(lin), and near to the wall surfaces 44 dB(A) resp. 84 dB(lin).
    The exposed persons stated that the vibrations near to the walls left an uneasy feeling in their stomachs which very quickly increased to the point of feeling sick. The measuring staff experienced similar symptoms. The highly exceeding level values near the to walls were in all probability promoted by the fact that the distance between the window and the opposite wall was 5 m which was equal to exactly half the wave length of the airborne sound, or resonance.
    The severe effects of these low frequency stationary airborne sound waves could, according to the statements of the measuring team, not be explained by auditory sensations alone.
    Question (2), quoted above as to specific characteristics of the most disturbing noise immissions in dwelling rooms, can according to the given results be answered as follows: The main cause of increased disturbances due to the quoted noises obviously consists in the high unweighted sound pressure levels of low frequency noise components. In A-weighted measurements these components remain widely disregarded. An additional characteristic increasing the annoyance seem to be narrow banded noise components which in closed rooms are often associated with the development of stationary waves. The effect of airborne sound‚­induced stationary waves on the exposed persons seems to represent a specific factor of the annoyance effect.
    Disturbing effects of noise immissions In the preceding paragraphs it has been pointed out that as regards noise immissions with a considerable proportion of low frequency sounds in private dwellings, more than half of the complaints were made on the grounds of sleep disturbance. Quite often symptoms like "a roaring in the head, especially when lying down" were brought forward. Time and again, "a feeling of riding a lift" was reported, and over and again the measuring team had the impression that the reported immissions meant a nerve‚­racking experience for the exposed persons. Several complainants even got into a state of being aggressive. There were reports by a number of trustworthy persons on how they at first - for instance when moving into the flat - did not even notice any immissions. But in the course of a few weeks they began to perceive them distinctly and became intolerable after continued exposure. It was obvious that in these cases a sensibility of specific noise components had developed. Thus, it is understandable that non-exposed persons were at a difficulty to even acknowledge such noise immissions.
    Excitation of vibrations by airborne sound Apart from sound emissions of vibrating building elements, secondary phenomena were induced in some cases by very strong low frequency airborne sound immissions which are typical of ground-borne vibration immissions (see section on 'Ground-borne vibration immissions'). We may point out the clattering of glass panes in cupboards and of doors in their locks. In an dwelling situated above a discotheque not only the airborne sound immission was assessed but in addition the floor vibrations which were clearly detectable as they created an awkward feeling in the feet.
    Recommendations on immission assessment In conclusion of the results mentioned above, when estimating noise immissions from noise sources with a high proportion of strong low frequency sound components, as for instance exhausters, it is advised to take measurements not only from the outside but also the inside of exposed rooms. As a rule it is not sufficient, though, to measure from a random measuring site in a room because, as has been demonstrated, considerable sound level fluctuations due to stationary waves are to be expected. In this context, the respective normative regulations of the German standard DIN 45680 (1997) will be heeded.
    Ground-borne vibration immissions: Definition and propagation of ground-borne vibrations According to the German standard DIN 4150 (1999) ground-borne vibrations are defined as mechanical vibrations of corporeal substances in the frequency range 1 to 80 Hz, with potentially detrimental or annoying effects.
    In the paragraph 'Results of measurements and evaluations' it has been demonstrated that according to present experience the essential cause of annoyance, in association with an exposure of the outer walls of a room to mechanical vibrations with frequencies above 20 Hz (structure-borne sounds), is the build-up of an airborne sound field generated by sound emissions into the premises. In the following paragraph, the effects of vibration immissions with frequencies below 20 Hz (ground-borne vibrations in a proper sense) will be discussed.
    If from very low-revving machinery very low frequency vibrations are transmitted into the ground, these are known to propagate over rather great distances along the upper layers of the ground.
    Such vibrations may induce inclining or shearing vibrations in buildings which as a main effect induce horizontal vibrations of walls and ceilings. The dominating frequencies of such vibrations are generally found in the interval of 3 to 8 Hz. In the case of vertical ceiling vibrations, the frequency range was from 8 to 22 Hz. The immission circumstances were in most cases influenced by resonance phenomena.
    Horizontal ceiling vibrations at steady time‚­periods The data given in this paragraph are mainly obtained from vibration immissions caused by running frame saws. As a rule, the immissions affected the dwellings only at certain periods of time during the day, with nearly constant amplitudes.
    Based on the statements of the exposed persons and on observations made by the measuring team, together with the results of stationary vibrations of frequencies from 4.5 to 5.5 Hz, [Table - 3] shows the correlations between the magnitude of the vibrations and the disturbing effects exerted by them.
    [Table - 3] shows that annoyance due to horizontal vibrations is realised as a body reaction only by a small percentage of exposed persons. A highly disturbing effect is that of the observed effects on the building and household equipment. The same holds for feelings of frightfulness. In some cases, vibrations aroused alarm as soon as ripples appeared on the otherwise smooth surface of fluids or when indoor plants started trembling.
    Traffic induced vibrations Road traffic induced ground-borne vibrations are likely to cause extreme annoyance, especially in parts of Northern Germany which are geologically marked by the glacial epoch. Ground-borne vibrations excitated by road traffic are equally assessed and evaluated according to DIN 4150 (1999). There is some difficulty because the normative regulations do not specifically include the estimation of stochastically occurring vibrations. In addition, road traffic induced ground-borne vibrations are established between "singular vibrations" (by bus traffic regarding low traffic residential side‚­streets) and approximately "constant ground‚­borne vibrations" (from near-by highway) (Peters, 2001).
    In the Federal State of Brandenburg, more than 100 measurements were carried out during the last 10 years. In most cases, vertically oriented vibrations were predominant. The maximum values obtained were of a weighted vibration severity KB Fmax ranging between 0.04 and 4.1, or tact maximum r.m.s. values of the evaluated vibration severity KB Ftm (DIN 4150, 1999) ranging between 0 and 1.23. There is a fixed relation between the two quantitiesKB Ftm and KB Fmax (Peters, 2001). A spasmodic increase of complaints occurs between KB FTm = 0.10 and 0.13. As regards road traffic, the values are KB Fmax = 0.4...0.6 ‚·v max
    Road traffic induced ground-borne vibrations are generally associated with road traffic noise. At present, the general state of knowledge about combined effects of ground-borne vibrations, direct airborne sound and structure-borne sound radiated by the wall or floor, low frequency sound and noticeable vibrations of objects or their audible noises and other effects (as for instance shadow phenomena of passing-by heavy-load lorries) is small. But it is the combined effects of the quoted disturbing factors which makes up the grade of total disturbance in a residential area. Only with these factors in mind complaints lodged for ground-borne immissions with measuring values below the threshold of perception KB = 0.1 can be explained.
    In addition, complaints about road traffic induced ground-borne vibrations are quite often influenced by concerns about possible damage to one's own dwelling due to road traffic. In the majority of inspected damages such as ruptures or enlarging ruptures there were, however, other causes such as an acute lowering of the ground‚­water level or deficiencies in building construction had to be made responsible.
    Delimitation of vibration perceptions in rooms According to the observations quoted above, [Figure - 1] gives the following grades of differently percepted vibrations in rooms, depending upon their frequency and magnitude.
    It is emphasised that in the frequency range above approximately 20 Hz there may occur, due to sound radiation from the inner wall surfaces of a room, highly disturbing effects even if the magnitude of the vibrations is distinctly below the perceptive threshold of humans. According to the observations as demonstrated, these immissions ought to be given special attention in the future.[7]
    References 1.Cremer, L., Heckl, M. (1967): Korperschall. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York 2.DIN 45680 (March 1997): Messung und Bewertung tieffrequenter Gerauschimmissionen in der Nachbarschaft. Beuth Verlag Berlin 3.DIN 4150, part 2 (June 1999): Erschiitterungen im Bauwesen - Einwirkungen auf Menschen in Gebauden. Beuth Verlag Berlin 4.Findeis, H., Thielebeule, U. (1979): Zur Lastigkeit spezieller Gerausche. Z. d. gesamten Hygiene 25, 180-185 5.Findeis, H., Peters, E. (1997): Erschiitterungsimmissionen in Wohnungen - Ein Erfahrungsbericht mit Schlussfolgerungen fir die Normung. VDI Berichte 1345, VDI Verlag Diisseldorf 6.Peters, E. (2001): Besonderheiten bei der Beurteilung von Stral3enverkehrserschiitterungen. Z. f. Larmbekampfung 48 Nr. 5, 159-165 7.Sachs, L. (1984): Angewandte Statistik. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo Correspondence Address:H FindeisLandesumweltamt Brandenburg, Potsdamer Straƒe 21-25, D-14467 Potsdam GermanySource of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
    CheckPMID: 15273022
    [Figure - 1] [Table - 1], [Table - 2], [Table - 3]
  Nikole Hannah-Jones - Wikipedia
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 15:07
    Nikole Hannah-Jones (born April 9, 1976)[1][2] is a Pulitzer Prize-winning[3][4] American investigative journalist[5] known for her coverage of civil rights in the United States. In April 2015, she became a staff writer for The New York Times.[6]
    Early life [ edit ] Hannah-Jones was born in Waterloo, Iowa, to father Milton Hannah, who is African-American, and mother Cheryl A. Novotny, who is of Czech and English descent.[7] Hannah-Jones is the second of three sisters.[8] In 1947, when her father was two years old, his family moved north to Iowa from Greenwood, Mississippi, in the Mississippi Delta region, as did many other African-American families.[9]
    Hannah-Jones and her sister attended almost all-white schools as part of a voluntary program of desegregation busing.[10] She attended Waterloo West High School, where she wrote for the high school newspaper and graduated in 1994.[11]
    Hannah-Jones has a bachelor's degree in History and African-American Studies from the University of Notre Dame, which she received in 1998. She graduated from the University of North Carolina Hussman School of Journalism and Media with a master's degree in 2003, where she was a Roy H. Park Fellow.[12][13]
    Career [ edit ] In 2003, Hannah-Jones began her writing career covering the education beat, which included the predominantly African American Durham Public Schools, for the Raleigh News & Observer, a position she held for three years.[10]
    In 2006, Hannah-Jones moved to Portland, Oregon, where she wrote for The Oregonian for six years. During this time she covered an enterprise assignment that included feature work, then the demographics beat, and then the government & census beats.[7]
    In 2007, to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the 1965 Watts Riots, Hannah-Jones wrote about its impact on the community for the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, also known as the Kerner Commission.[14]
    From 2008 to 2009, Hannah-Jones received a fellowship from the Institute for Advanced Journalism Studies which enabled her to travel to Cuba to study universal healthcare and Cuba's educational system under Raul Castro.[15][16]
    In 2011, she joined the nonprofit news organization ProPublica, which is based in New York City, where she covered civil rights and continued research she started in Oregon on redlining and in-depth investigative reporting on the lack of enforcement of the Fair Housing Act for minorities.[5] Hannah-Jones also spent time in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, where the decision in Brown v. Board of Education had little effect.[17]
    In 2015, she became a staff reporter for The New York Times.[6] Hannah-Jones wrote the first essay published in the 1619 Project, "an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019 . . . [which] aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative." [18]
    Hannah-Jones is recognized as an authority on topics such as racial segregation, desegregation and resegregation in American schools[19][20] and housing discrimination, and has spoken about these issues on national public radio broadcasts.[21][22]
    She writes to discover and expose the systemic and institutional racism perpetuated by official laws and acts.[23]
    Her stories have been quoted in numerous other publications as being particularly important regarding race relations.[24] Hannah-Jones reported on the school district where teenager Michael Brown had been shot, one of the "most segregated, impoverished districts in the entire state" of Missouri.[25][26] Reviewer Laura Moser of Slate magazine praised her report on school resegregation, which showed how educational inequality may have been a factor in the unfortunate death of Brown.[27]
    Hannah-Jones is a 2017 Emerson Fellow at the New America Foundation,[28] where she is working on a book on school segregation.[29] The book, The Problem We All Live With, is due out in June 2020 from Chris Jackson's One World imprint at Random House.[30]
    Hannah-Jones is a 2017 award winner of the MacArthur Foundation "Genius Award."[31]
    In 2020, she won a Pulitzer Prize for her commentary.[4]
    Ida B. Wells Society for Investigative Reporting [ edit ] In early 2015, Nikole Hannah-Jones, along with Ron Nixon, Corey Johnson, and Topher Sanders, began dreaming of creating the Ida B. Wells Society for Investigative Reporting.[32] This organization was launched in Memphis, Tennessee, in 2016, with the purpose of promoting investigative journalism, which is the least common type of reporting.[32] Following in the footsteps of Ida B. Wells, this society encourages minority journalists to expose injustices perpetuated by the government and defend people who are susceptible to being taken advantage of.[32] This organization was created with much support from the Open Society Foundations, Ford Foundation, and CUNY Graduate School of Journalism.[32]
    Personal life [ edit ] Hannah-Jones lives in the Bedford''Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn with her husband, Faraji Hannah-Jones, and their daughter.[33]
    Awards [ edit ] 2007, 2008, 2010: Society of Professional Journalists, Pacific Northwest, Excellence in Journalism Award[5]2012: Gannett Foundation Innovation in Watchdog Journalism Award[5]2013: Sidney Award[34]2013: Columbia University, Paul Tobenkin Memorial Award[35]2015: National Awards for Education Reporting, first prize, beat reporting2015: National Association of Black Journalists, Journalist of the Year[36][37]2015: National Magazine Award finalist, public interest2015: Education Writers Association, Fred M. Hechinger Grand Prize for Distinguished Education Reporting[38]2015: Emerson College President's Award for Civic Leadership2015: The Root 100[39]2016: George Polk Award, radio reporting[40]2017: MacArthur Foundation Fellowship [31]2017: National Magazine Award winner, public interest [41]2020: 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary[4]Works [ edit ] Hannah-Jones, Nikole (2012). Living Apart How the Government Betrayed a Landmark Civil Rights Law. New York: ProPublica. ISBN 978-1-453-25444-8. OCLC 825553231. See also [ edit ] The 1619 ProjectReferences [ edit ] ^ Deutch, Gabrielle (April 2, 2018). "Writer Hannah-Jones discusses black education, desegregation, and privilege". YaleNews . Retrieved April 10, 2019 . ^ Hannah-Jones, Nikole (April 9, 2019). "It's my birthday today and I really want you to celebrate with me by watching this amazing documentary on Reconstruction that I had the honor of taking part in. And, yes, I was born on the anniversary of the end of the Civil War. I mean, of course". Twitter . Retrieved April 10, 2019 . ^ "Nikole Hannah-Jones of The New York Times". The Pulitzer Prizes . Retrieved May 4, 2020 . ^ a b c Tracy, Marc (May 4, 2020). "The New York Times and the Anchorage Daily News Win Pulitzer Prizes". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved May 4, 2020 . ^ a b c d "About Us: Nikole Hannah-Jones". ProPublica . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ a b Silverstein, Jake (April 1, 2015). "Nikole Hannah-Jones Joins The New York Times Magazine". The New York Times Company . Retrieved June 12, 2016 . ^ a b Rede, George (January 17, 2009). "Two faces of the black American experience". The Oregonian . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ "Life Legacy: Milton Hannah". Hagarty-Waychoff-Grarup . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Hannah-Jones, Nikole (July 8, 2014). "Ghosts of Greenwood". ProPublica . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ a b Glass, Ira; Hannah-Jones, Nikole (July 31, 2015). "562: The Problem We All Live With". This American Life. WBEZ . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ "About". Nikole Hannah-Jones . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ McCoy, Nilagia (October 15, 2015). "Investigating racial injustice with Nikole Hannah-Jones". Journalist's Resource. Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Hannah-Jones, Nikole (October 15, 2015). "Investigating Racial Injustice". Shorenstein Center. Harvard University . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Hannah-Jones, Nikole (Spring 2008). "Part Three: Los Angeles/Watts - In 1965, Watts burned '' and the people cheered" (PDF) . Kerner Plus 40 Report. University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication and Center for Africana Studies & the Institute for Advanced Journalism Studies at North Carolina A&T State University. pp. 28''32 . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Hannah-Jones, Nikole (2009). "Stories Inside the Black-White Achievement Gap. Part 1: What it is and why it persists: Closing the achievement gap: A matter of national survival". Institute for Advanced Journalism Studies . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Hannah-Jones, Nikole (2009). "Stories Inside the Black-White Achievement Gap. Part 3: Cuba: How all children learn in a mostly-black land: Cuban School Officials Put Premium On Health Of Students". Institute for Advanced Journalism Studies . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Shaikh, Nermeen; Goodman, Amy; Hannah-Jones, Nikole (April 23, 2014). "Jim Crow in the Classroom: New Report Finds Segregation Lives on in U.S. Schools". Democracy Now . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ The 1619 Project (August 14, 2019). "The 1619 Project" . Retrieved May 5, 2020 '' via NYTimes.com. ^ Oputu, Edirin (May 2, 2014). "A laurel to ProPublica: A superlative investigative piece examines the resegregation of America's schools". Columbia Journalism Review . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Hannah-Jones, Nikole (February 27, 2015). "Gentrification doesn't fix inner-city schools". Grist . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Demby, Gene (December 2, 2013). "A Battle For Fair Housing Still Raging, But Mostly Forgotten". NPR . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Howard, Marcus E. (August 8, 2015). "Minnesota's achievement gap debated at NABJ conference". Star Tribune . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Silverstein, Jake (October 13, 2017). "A Chat With MacArthur Genius Nikole Hannah-Jones". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved February 26, 2018 . ^ Hannah-Jones, Nikole (November 5, 2015). " ' Apostrophes': Nikole Hannah-Jones on Race, Education and Inequality, at Longreads Story Night". Longreads Story Night . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Hannah-Jones, Nikole (August 12, 2014). "How the Media Missed the Mark in Coverage of Michael Brown's Killing". Essence . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Brown, Jeffrey; Hannah-Jones, Nikole; Cashin, Sheryll (August 11, 2015). "Why school districts like Michael Brown's have suffered 'rapid resegregation ' ". PBS . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Moser, Laura (August 4, 2015). "There's Another Racist Tragedy in St. Louis That Nobody Talks About". Slate . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ "Previous Classes". New America . Retrieved October 4, 2017 . ^ "Nikole Hannah-Jones". New America . Retrieved October 4, 2017 . ^ Hannah-Jones, Nikole (June 2, 2020). The Problem We All Live with. One World. ISBN 9780399180569. ^ a b Gibson, Caitlin (October 11, 2017). "MacArthur 'genius' grant winners step into the spotlight: 'Is this really happening? ' " . Retrieved May 5, 2020 '' via www.washingtonpost.com. ^ a b c d "Our Creation Story '' IDA B. Wells Society". idabwellssociety.org . Retrieved February 26, 2018 . ^ Hannah-Jones, Nikole (March 2015). "A Letter From Black America: Yes, we fear the police. Here's why". Politico . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ "This American Life Wins December Sidney for Shining a Light on Racial Profiling in the Housing Market". The Sidney Hillman Foundation. December 2013 . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ "Tobenkin Award: Past Winners - 2013". Columbia University . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Turner, Aprill (April 23, 2015). "Nikole Hannah-Jones Named NABJ 2015 Journalist of the Year". National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Prince, Richard (August 10, 2015). "NABJ "Journalist of Year" Says to Tell Blacks' Stories". Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Education . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Walsh, Mark (April 21, 2015). "ProPublica Report on Resegregation Takes Top Education Writers' Award". Education Week . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ "61. Nikole Hannah-Jones". The Root. 2015 . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ Barron, James (February 14, 2016). "New York Times Journalists Among Winners of 2015 Polk Awards". The New York Times . Retrieved March 22, 2016 . ^ "2017 National Magazine Awards | ASME". asme.magazine.org. Archived from the original on March 6, 2019 . Retrieved August 18, 2019 . External links [ edit ] Official website Nikole Hannah-Jones on Twitter Nikole Hannah-Jones on IMDb"School Segregation in 2018 with Nikole Hannah-Jones". Why Is This Happening with Chris Hayes (Podcast). Podbean.com. July 31, 2018 . Retrieved August 1, 2018 .
  Robert Woodson - Wikipedia
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 15:06
    Robert L. Woodson Sr. (born April 8, 1937) is an author and former campaign advisor to President George W. Bush.[1] He founded the Woodson Center in 1981.[2][3]
    Life and career [ edit ] Woodson was born in Philadelphia. In 1954, he joined the United States Air Force, and earned his G.E.D. He graduated from Cheyney University with a B.S., and from the University of Pennsylvania with a M.S.W.
    He was a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute from 1977 to 1982.[4][5] In 1995, he resigned after the publication of Dinesh D'Souza's The End of Racism.[6]
    On February 8, 2003, his son, Robert L. Woodson Jr., was killed in a car crash.[1] An award has been named for Woodson Jr. by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, where he had previously been employed before joining his father at NCNE (now the Woodson Center).[7] Woodson Sr. also has a younger son Jamal, younger daughter Tanya, and older son Ralph.[1]
    Awards [ edit ] 1990 MacArthur Fellows ProgramWorks [ edit ] 'The Left Forgets What Martin Luther King Stood For', The Wall Street Journal, January 17, 2020"Ganging Up for Good", The Washington Post, August 21, 2005Youth Crime and Urban Policy, A View From the Inner City, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1981, ISBN 978-0-8447-2210-8On the Road to Economic Freedom: An Agenda for Black Progress, Editor Robert L. Woodson, Regnery Gateway, 1987, ISBN 978-0-89526-578-4A Summons to Life, Mediating Structures and the Prevention of Youth Crime, Ballinger Pub. Co., 1981, ISBN 978-0-88410-826-9The Triumphs of Joseph: How Today's Community Healers are Reviving Our Streets and Neighborhoods, Simon and Schuster, 1998, ISBN 978-0-684-82742-1Black perspectives on crime and the criminal justice system: a symposium, editor Robert L. Woodson, G. K. Hall, 1977, ISBN 978-0-8161-8039-4References [ edit ] ^ a b c Robert L. Woodson Jr., Community Group's Vice President, Dies, The Washington Post, February 11, 2003 ^ Princeton archives ^ "Robert L. Woodson, Sr. - Woodson Center". Woodson Center . Retrieved 2017-02-14 . ^ G. K. Hall, Black perspectives on crime and the criminal justice system: a symposium, National Urban League, 1977 [1] ^ Steven Teles, 'Compassionate Conservatism, Domestic Policy, and the Politics of Ideational Change', in Crisis of Conservatism? The Republican Party, the Conservative Movement, & American Politics After Bush, Gillian Peele, Joel D. Aberbach (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 193 ^ Christopher DeMuth, Not quite the end of racism, The Wall Street Journal, November 03, 1995 ^ The Robert L. Woodson Jr. Award/ External links [ edit ] Appearances on C-SPANRobert Woodson on Charlie RoseRobert Woodson on IMDbWorks by or about Robert Woodson in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
  The 1619 Project - Wikipedia
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 15:04
    A New York Times project launched in August 2019
    The 1619 Project is an ongoing project developed by The New York Times Magazine in 2019 with the goal of re-examining the legacy of slavery in the United States and timed for the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first Africans in Virginia. It is an interactive project by Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for The New York Times, with contributions by the paper's writers, including essays on the history of different aspects of contemporary American life which the authors believe have "roots in slavery and its aftermath."[1] It also includes poems, short fiction, and a photo essay.[2] Originally conceived of as a special issue for August 20, 2019, it was soon turned into a full-fledged project, including a special broadsheet section in the newspaper, live events, and a multi-episode podcast series.[3]
    The New York Times has said that the contributions were deeply researched, and arguments verified by a team of fact-checkers in consultation with historians.[4] Civil War historians Gordon S. Wood, James M. McPherson, and Richard Carwardine are among those who have criticized the 1619 Project, stating that the project has put forward misleading and historically inaccurate claims.[5][6][7]
    Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for the 1619 Project.[8][9]
    Beginning of American slavery [ edit ] The New York Times Magazine says the project addresses "the beginning of American slavery".[10] American slavery began with slavery among Native Americans in the United States before Europeans arrived; slaves might or might not be adopted eventually, especially if enslaved as children; and the enslavement might or might not be hereditary.[11][12]Native Americans also captured and enslaved some early European explorers and colonists, and they were enslaved themselves by the colonists, starting in Spanish Florida in the 1500s[11] under the encomienda system.[13][14]
    The first African slaves in what would become the present day United States of America arrived in 1526 with Lucas Vzquez de Ayll"n's establishment of San Miguel de Gualdape on the current Georgia or Carolina coast.[15][16][17]They rebelled and lived with indigenous people, destroying the colony in less than 2 months.[15][18]More African slaves arrived in Florida in 1539 with Hernando de Soto, and in the 1565 founding of St. Augustine, Florida.[17][18]African slaves escaping to Spanish Florida were freed by royal proclamation in 1693 if the slaves were willing to convert to Catholicism,[19]and it became a place of refuge for slaves fleeing Colonial America.[19][20]
    The first African slaves in Colonial America arrived in August of 1619. A ship carrying 20-30 people who had been enslaved by a joint African-Portuguese war[21] on Ndongo in modern Angola, landed at Port Comfort in the colony of Virginia.[22][23] These enslaved Africans had been part of a larger group heading to Mexico and were taken to Virginia after English privateers captured their Portuguese slave ship. The 400th anniversary of their arrival has been commemorated in Virginia[24][25]and through the Year of Return in Ghana.[26]
    Institutional racism [ edit ] The authors argue[citation needed ] that the African-American citizens who make up 13 percent of the United States population[27] face institutional racism and a disproportionate amount of socio-economic and political challenges in 2019.[23][28]
    History of the project [ edit ] Based on a proposal by Hannah-Jones to have an issue of the magazine dedicated to re-examination of the legacy of slavery in America, at the anniversary of the arrival of the first slaves to Virginia, in order to challenge the notion that American history began in 1776, the initiative quickly grew into a larger project.[22] The project encompasses multiple issues of the magazine, accompanied by related materials on multiple other publications of the Times as well as a project curriculum developed in collaboration with the Pulitzer Center, for use in schools.[22] The project employed a panel of historians and support from the Smithsonian, for fact-checking, research and development.[29] The project was envisioned with the condition that almost all of the contributions would be from African-American contributors, deeming the perspective of black writers an essential element of the story to be told.[30]
    August 14 magazine issue [ edit ] The first edition, published in The New York Times Magazine on August 14, published in 100 pages with ten essays, a photo essay, and a collection of poems and fiction by an additional sixteen writers,[31] included the following works:[10][32]
    "America Wasn't a Democracy Until Black Americans Made It One", essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones"American Capitalism Is Brutal. You Can Trace That to the Plantation", essay by Matthew Desmond"A New Literary Timeline of African-American History", a collection of original poems and stories from 16 different writers, including Clint Smith, Yusef Komunyakaa, Eve L. Ewing, Reginald Dwayne Betts, Barry Jenkins and Jesmyn Ward, among others[32]"How False Beliefs in Physical Racial Difference Still Live in Medicine Today", essay by Linda Villarosa"What the Reactionary Politics of 2019 Owe to the Politics of Slavery", essay by Jamelle Bouie"Why Is Everyone Always Stealing Black Music?", essay by Wesley Morris"How Segregation Caused Your Traffic Jam", essay by Kevin Kruse"Why Doesn't America Have Universal Healthcare? One word: Race", essay by Jeneen Interlandi"Why American Prisons Owe Their Cruelty to Slavery", essay by Bryan Stevenson"The Barbaric History of Sugar in America", essay by Khalil Gibran Muhammad"How America's Vast Racial Wealth Gap Grew: By Plunder", essay by Trymaine Lee"Their Ancestors Were Enslaved by Law. Now They're Lawyers", photo essay by Djeneba Aduayom, with text from Nikole Hannah-Jones and Wadzanai MhuteThe essays explore the details of modern American society, such as traffic jams and American affinity for sugar, and explore their connections to slavery and segregation.[33] Matthew Desmond's essay explores the way in which slavery has shaped modern capitalism and workplace norms. Jamelle Bouie's essay explores the parallels between pro-slavery politics and the modern right-wing politics.[30] Bouie argues that America still has not let go of the assumption that some people inherently deserve more power than others.[34]
    Accompanying material and activities [ edit ] The magazine issue was accompanied by a special section on the Sunday newspaper, in partnership with the Smithsonian, examining the beginnings of the transatlantic slave trade, written by Mary Elliott and Jazmine Hughes. Beginning on August 20, a multi-episode audio series titled "1619" was started,[33] published by The Daily, the morning news podcast of the Times.[22] The Sunday sports section had an essay that explored slavery's impact on professional sports in America, "Is Slavery's Legacy in the Power Dynamics of Sports?".[22][35] The Times plans to take the project to schools, with the 1619 Project Curriculum developed in collaboration with the Pulitzer Center.[36] Hundreds of thousands of extra copies of the magazine issue were printed for distribution to schools, museums and libraries.[23]
    The Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting has made available free online lesson plans, is collecting further lesson plans from teachers, and helps arrange for speakers to visit classes.[37]The Center considers most of the lessons usable by all grades from elementary school through college.[38]The Pulitzer Center lists Common Core standards the lessons can advance in English Language Arts Literacy. Common Core does not have standards in History,[39]and the Center does not link to any standards in History.
    Accolades [ edit ] Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for the 1619 Project.[40][41]
    Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris praised the project, via a tweet.[30] Alexandria Neason, analysing the project for the Columbia Journalism Review, said that slavery is commonly mischaracterized in American media and schools as a marginal event in American history that has little influence on the present day, and she lauded the efforts of the 1619 project to challenge this picture.[22] Fortune magazine also published a positive review, writing that the project was "wide-reaching and collaborative, unflinching, and insightful" and a "dramatic and necessary corrective to the fundamental lie of the American origin story".[32]
    In a blog post for The Cato Institute, libertarian Jonathan Blanks states that, despite his reservations about historical inaccuracies in the 1619 issue, he expresses regret that "the 1619 Project is receiving over-the-top criticisms," and he describes The 1619 Project as "an important endeavor to fill the gaps in American's understanding of the nation's history."[42]
    Critical response [ edit ] The 1619 Project has been criticized by some American historians, including historians of the American Revolution Gordon Wood[6] and Sean Wilentz,[43] and Civil War experts Richard Carwardine[5] and James McPherson.[7] McPherson stated in an interview that he was "disturbed" by the project's "unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective on the complexity of slavery, which was clearly, obviously, not an exclusively American institution, but existed throughout history." McPherson continued, "slavery in the United States was only a small part of a larger world process that unfolded over many centuries. And in the United States, too, there was not only slavery but also an antislavery movement."[7]
    Wood told an interviewer, "I read the first essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones, which alleges that the Revolution occurred primarily because of the Americans' desire to save their slaves. She claims the British were on the warpath against the slave trade and slavery and that rebellion was the only hope for American slavery. This made the American Revolution out to be like the Civil War, where the South seceded to save and protect slavery, and that the Americans 70 years earlier revolted to protect their institution of slavery. I just couldn't believe this." He continued, "I was surprised, as many other people were, by the scope of this thing, especially since it's going to become the basis for high school education and has the authority of the New York Times behind it, and yet it is so wrong in so many ways."[6]
    Both Wood's and McPherson's remarks were published by the World Socialist Website, which claims that the 1619 project's "aim is to create a historical narrative that legitimizes the effort of the Democratic Party to construct an electoral coalition based on the prioritizing of personal 'identities''--i.e., gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, and, above all, race."[44] The site has also published interviews on the project with historians Victoria Bynum[45] and James Oakes,[46] and promoted a lecture series critiquing the project's alleged "racialist falsification of American and world history."[44]
    Professor Oakes criticized Hannah-Jones's assertion that "Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country."[47] He stated, "These are really dangerous tropes.... they're actually anti-historical. The function of those tropes is to deny change over time. It goes back to those analogies. They say, 'look at how terribly black people were treated under slavery. And look at the incarceration rate for black people today. It's the same thing.' Nothing changes. There has been no industrialization. There has been no Great Migration. We're all in the same boat we were back then. And that's what original sin is. It's passed down. Every single generation is born with the same original sin. And the worst thing about it is that it leads to political paralysis. It's always been here. There's nothing we can do to get out of it. If it's the DNA, there's nothing you can do. What do you do? Alter your DNA?"[46]
    Historian Victoria Bynum, author of the historical book behind the film Free State of Jones, has also been critical of the project. She said, "regardless of how successful slaveholders were in inculcating the common people with racism, the idea that anyone 'that harbored racial prejudice was a priori historically responsible for slavery,' appears to be a rhetorical device aimed at rendering racism timeless and immutable."[45]
    Historian Leslie M. Harris, who was consulted by the New York Times during development of the 1619 Project, spoke out about the misinformation used. She wrote in Politico[48] that despite her warnings as to the historical inaccuracy of the idea that the 13 colonies went to war to protect slavery, that "Despite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway.''
    The project has also received criticism from conservatives.[30] Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich criticized the project as "brainwashing" "propaganda", in a tweet,[30][49] and called it "a lie" in a subsequent media appearance.[29][30] Senator Ted Cruz has also equated it with propaganda.[33] Conservative commentator Byron York, writing for the Washington Examiner, characterized the project as an attempt to reframe American history in accordance with the values of New York Times editors, as part of an alleged ongoing campaign by the paper to shift the narrative of the Trump presidency from the Trump''Russia affair toward race, in the re-election year.[36] Conservative pundit Erick Erickson also criticized the "racial lenses" deployed in revisiting history.[30] President Donald Trump, Senator Cruz and Newt Gingrich have echoed the opinions expressed by the conservative commentators.[29][30][34] The August 18, 2019, edition of the Washington Examiner said, "The 1619 project has been panned by critics as an attempt to reduce the entirety of American history to a lesson on slavery and race."[49]
    A September 13, 2019 analysis in New York Magazine by Andrew Sullivan, formerly a contributor to The New York Times Magazine, critiqued the project as an important perspective that needed to be heard, but one presented in a biased way under the guise of objectivity. He declared this evidence of The New York Times' shift from impartial reporting to activism.[50]
    In response to criticisms, Hannah-Jones has said that every part was deeply researched, and also analyzed by fact-checkers, in consultation with a panel of historians, verifying every argument.[33] Nancy LeTourneau, writing in the Washington Monthly, argues that the conservatives feel threatened by the project because "it challenges the totalism on which their entire world view has been constructed. It is their mindset, which monopolizes imagination and stifles alternatives, that lays the groundwork for authoritarianism".[51] Responding to a critical Letter to the Editor from five historians, New York Times Magazine editor in chief Jake Silverstein wrote: "Good-faith critiques of our project only help us refine and improve it '' an important goal for us now that we are in the process of expanding it into a book."[4] When twelve Civil War historians and political scientists who research the Civil War composed a letter to The New Times Magazine expressing their concerns about the project's "limited historical view" and "problematic treatment of major issues and personalities" Silverstein, responded but the NYTM declined to publish the letter and his response. The scholars, led by Allen C. Guelzo of Princeton University, subsequently published the exchange in another venue. [52]
    In February 2020, a rival project called the 1776 Project was launched to counter The 1619 Project.[53]
    Correction in response to criticism [ edit ] On March 11, 2020, Silverstein authored an "update" in the form of a "clarification" on The New York Times website, correcting part of Hannah-Jones' essay to state "that protecting slavery was a primary motivation for some of the colonists", when the original version had stated it was the main motivation of all colonists.[54]
    See also [ edit ] Voyages: The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database1776 ProjectReferences [ edit ] ^ Silverstein, Jake (December 20, 2019). "Why We Published The 1619 Project". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved January 31, 2020 . ^ Ferreira, Johanna (August 15, 2019). "The NY Times' 1619 Project Examines the Legacy of Slavery in America". Hip Latina . Retrieved August 16, 2019 . ^ "In '1619' Project, the Times Puts Slavery Front and Center of the American Experience". WNYC. August 16, 2019 . Retrieved August 16, 2019 . ^ a b Silverstein, Jake (December 20, 2019). "We Respond to the Historians Who Critiqued The 1619 Project". The New York Times . Retrieved January 17, 2020 . ^ a b Mackaman, Tom (December 31, 2019). "Oxford historian Richard Carwardine on the New York Times' 1619 Project". World Socialist Web Site . Retrieved February 11, 2020 . ^ a b c Mackaman, Tom (November 28, 2019). "An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times' 1619 Project". World Socialist Web Site . Retrieved November 28, 2019 . ^ a b c Mackaman, Tom (November 14, 2019). "An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times' 1619 Project". World Socialist Web Site . Retrieved November 28, 2019 . ^ Barrus, Jeff (May 4, 2020). "Nikole Hannah-Jones Wins Pulitzer Prize for 1619 Project". Pulitzer Center. ^ "Commentary". The Pulitzer Prizes. Columbia University. ^ a b "The 1619 Project". The New York Times Magazine. August 14, 2019 . Retrieved August 17, 2019 . ^ a b Lauber, Almon Wheeler (1913). "Enslavement by the Indians Themselves, Chapter 1 in Indian Slavery in Colonial Times Within the Present Limits of the United States". 53 (3). Columbia University: 25''48. ^ Gallay, Alan (2009). "Introduction: Indian Slavery in Historical Context". In Gallay, Alan (ed.). Indian Slavery in Colonial America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. pp. 1''32 . Retrieved March 8, 2017 . ^ Guitar, Lynne, No More Negotiation: Slavery and the Destabilization of Colonial Hispaniola's Encomienda System, by Lynne Guitar , retrieved December 6, 2019 ^ Indian Slavery in the Americas- AP US History Study Guide from The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, March 22, 2012 , retrieved December 6, 2019 ^ a b Cameron, Guy, and Stephen Vermette; Vermette, Stephen (2012). "The Role of Extreme Cold in the Failure of the San Miguel de Gualdape Colony". The Georgia Historical Quarterly. 96 (3): 291''307. ISSN 0016-8297. JSTOR 23622193. ^ Parker, Susan (August 24, 2019). " ' 1619 Project' ignores fact that slaves were present in Florida decades before". St. Augustine Record . Retrieved December 6, 2019 . ^ a b Francis, J. Michael, Gary Mormino and Rachel Sanderson (August 29, 2019). "Slavery took hold in Florida under the Spanish in the 'forgotten century' of 1492-1619". Tampa Bay Times . Retrieved December 6, 2019 . ^ a b Torres-Spelliscy, Ciara; Law, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of; Br, the author of "Political; s." (August 23, 2019). "Perspective - Everyone is talking about 1619. But that's not actually when slavery in America started". Washington Post . Retrieved December 6, 2019 . ^ a b Hankerson, Derek (January 2, 2008). "The journey of Africans to St. Augustine, Florida and the establishment of the underground railway". Patriotic Vanguard . Retrieved December 6, 2019 . ^ Gardner, Sheldon (May 20, 2019). "St. Augustine's Fort Mose added to UNESCO Slave Route Project". St. Augustine record . Retrieved December 6, 2019 . ^ Painter, Nell Irvin. (2006). Creating Black Americans: African-American history and its meanings, 1619 to the present. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 23-24. ISBN 0-19-513755-8. OCLC 57722517. ^ a b c d e f Neason, Alexandria (August 15, 2019). "The 1619 Project and the stories we tell about slavery" . Retrieved August 17, 2019 . ^ a b c Gyarkye, Lovia (August 18, 2019). "How the 1619 Project Came Together". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved August 19, 2019 . ^ Schneider, Gregory (August 24, 2019). "Virginia marks the dawn of American slavery in 1619 with solemn speeches and songs". The Washington Post . Retrieved January 17, 2020 . ^ Harmeet Kaur; Natasha Chen. "Thousands of people gather to commemorate 400 years since American slavery began". CNN . Retrieved January 17, 2020 . ^ "2019: Year of return for African Diaspora | Africa Renewal". un.org . Retrieved January 17, 2020 . ^ "QuickFacts '' United States". United States Census Bureau . Retrieved September 30, 2019 . ^ "World Report 2019: Rights Trends in the United States". Human Rights Watch. December 20, 2018 . Retrieved August 19, 2019 . ^ a b c Tharoor, Ishaan (August 20, 2019). "The 1619 Project and the far-right fear of history". The Washington Post . Retrieved August 21, 2019 . ^ a b c d e f g h Charles, J. Brian (August 19, 2019). "Why conservatives are bothered by the New York Times' project on slavery". Vox . Retrieved August 21, 2019 . ^ Geraghty, Jim (August 20, 2019). "What The 1619 Project Leaves Out". National Review . Retrieved August 21, 2019 . ^ a b c McGirt, Ellen (August 14, 2019). "The New York Times Launches the 1619 Project: raceAhead" . Retrieved August 17, 2019 . ^ a b c d Asmelash, Leah (August 19, 2019). "The New York Times Magazine's 1619 Project takes a hard look at the American paradox of freedom and slavery". CNN . Retrieved August 21, 2019 . ^ a b Covucci, David (August 19, 2019). "Conservatives are livid the New York Times is writing articles about slavery". The Daily Dot . Retrieved August 21, 2019 . ^ Kurt Streeter (July 18, 2019). "Is Slavery's Legacy in the Power Dynamics of Sports? - The New York Times". Nytimes.com . Retrieved August 23, 2019 . ^ a b "New goal for New York Times: 'Reframe' American history, and target Trump, too". Washington Examiner. August 17, 2019 . Retrieved August 18, 2019 . ^ "The 1619 Project Curriculum". Pulitzer Center . Retrieved May 4, 2020 . ^ "Pulitzer Center Lesson Builder". Pulitzer Center . Retrieved May 4, 2020 . ^ "Read the Standards, Common Core State Standards Initiative". corestandards.org . Retrieved May 4, 2020 . ^ Barrus, Jeff (May 4, 2020). "Nikole Hannah-Jones Wins Pulitzer Prize for 1619 Project". Pulitzer Center. ^ "Commentary". The Pulitzer Prizes. Columbia University. ^ Blanks, Jonathan (August 19, 2019). "The 1619 Project: Confronting the Legacies of American Slavery". Cato Institute. Cato Institute . Retrieved October 17, 2019 . ^ A Matter of Facts ^ a b Niemuth, Niles; Mackaman, Tom; North, David (September 6, 2019). "The New York Times's 1619 Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history". World Socialist Web Site . Retrieved November 28, 2019 . ^ a b London, Eric (October 30, 2019). "Historian Victoria Bynum on the inaccuracies of the New York Times 1619 Project". World Socialist Web Site . Retrieved November 28, 2019 . ^ a b Mackaman, Tom (November 18, 2019). "An interview with historian James Oakes on the New York Times' 1619 Project". World Socialist Web Site . Retrieved November 28, 2019 . ^ Hannah-Jones, Nikole (August 14, 2019). "America Wasn't a Democracy, Until Black Americans Made It One". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved November 28, 2019 . ^ I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me. ^ a b "Gingrich spurns New York Times history project as 'propaganda ' ". Washington Examiner. August 18, 2019 . Retrieved August 19, 2019 . ^ "The New York Times Has Abandoned Liberalism for Activism". New York Magazine. September 13, 2019 . Retrieved October 2, 2019 . ^ LeTourneau, Nancy (August 22, 2019). "Why Are Conservatives So Threatened by the 1619 Project?". Washington Monthly . Retrieved August 27, 2019 . ^ "Twelve Scholars Critique the 1619 Project and the New York Times Magazine Editor Responds". History News Network. Columbia College of Arts & Sciences, The George Washington University. ^ Reilly, Wilfred (February 17, 2020). "Sorry, New York Times, but America began in 1776". Quillette . Retrieved February 28, 2020 . ^ Silverstein, Jake (March 11, 2020). "An Update to The 1619 Project". The New York Times . Retrieved March 12, 2020 . Further reading [ edit ] Jarvik, Laurence (August 29, 2019). "Pulitzer's 1619 Project Brings Back Yellow Journalism". TheLatest. Mysore, Meghana (August 16, 2019). "The New York Times Magazine Presents 'The 1619 Project' Onstage". Pulitzer Center. CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Serwer, Adam (December 23, 2019). "The Fight Over the 1619 Project Is Not About the Facts". The Atlantic. External links [ edit ] Official website Schulte, Mark; Berk, Hannah; Mostoufi, Fareed (August 12, 2019). "The 1619 Project : Pulitzer Center Education Programming". Pulitzer Center. Jesuthasan, Meerabelle (September 10, 2019). "Evaluating and Reshaping Timelines in The 1619 Project: New York Times for Kids Edition [lesson plans]". New York Times.
  The 1619 Project - The New York Times
    Link to Article
    Archived Version
    Sat, 16 May 2020 15:04
    In August of 1619, a ship appeared on this horizon, near Point Comfort, a coastal port in the English colony of Virginia. It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists. No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the years of slavery that followed. On the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, it is finally time to tell our story truthfully. The 1619 Project The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative. Read more about The 1619 Project.Photograph by Dannielle Bowman
Music in this episode
  Intro: Pharrell ft Jay Z - Frontin'
  Outro: Ohio Players - I Want To Be Free
ShowNotes Archive
Donate to the show at moefundme.com
Search for us in your podcast directory or use this link to subscribe to the feed
Podcast Feed
For more information: MoeFactz.com