In 1789 the electoral college voted twice, George Washington won unanimously their first vote, while John Adams placed second in a landslide. Adams was sworn in as the nation's first vice president in April 1789, and Washington was sworn in on April 30th in New York City. After taking the oath, the president started the first tradition following the oath by adding "so help me God."
Washington once again unanimously won reelection in 1792, as did Adams for the vice presidency. Washington then made another tradition by not seeking a third term as president. The election of 1796 would pit Vice President Adams, politically aligned with the Federalist Party's ideology, against the former secretary of state, Thomas Jefferson, part of the anti-Federalist faction. Adams defeated Jefferson. For the first time the nation had a president of one party and a vice president of another.
The election of 1800 was worse than four years before. It was the first and only time a sitting president ran against a sitting vice president. Not wanting to have the same scenario of 1796 play out again but reversed caused a Constitutional crisis. Jefferson ran for president with Aaron Burr as the vice president for the Democratic-Republican party. While Adams and his vice presidential candidate ran for their respected offices for the Federalists. However the Electoral College did not specify a vote for president and a vote for vice president. The person with a majority of electoral votes becomes president-elect and the person with next highest amount becomes vice president-elect. If there is no majority the top three choices go to the House of Representatives and if there is no majority the top two for the second place position it go to the Senate. Each state has only one vote.
Jefferson and Burr tied in the Electoral College, throwing the election to the House of Representatives. Jefferson was always the intended choice for president and Burr for vice. I believe it took thirty-six ballots to come to the final result of Jefferson for president, placing Burr in second. Burr would go on to shoot former secretary of the treasury, the guy on the ten dollar bill, Alexander Hamilton in a duel made famous in a "got milk?" commercial in the 1990s. Burr after fleeing was rumored to be making deals with the Spanish to become ruler of country west of the United State's new borders thanks to the Louisiana Purchase.
After the election of 1800 the way the Electoral College vote for president and vice president were to change. This change came in the form of the the 12th Amendment passed in 1804 taking effect in that presidential election. The 12th Amendment lowered the status of the vice presidency. Our nation's first two vice presidents under the original system were men vital to the political process that gave birth to our nation, just as Washington's role militarily was a vital part to the birth of our nation. Burr, even though elected under the original system, is really a first in a line of lame vice presidents, the unknown vice presidents. The men placed on the bottom of ticket were usually put there to balance the ticket geographically. I.E. the top guy is from the North, and the bottom guy is from the South.
The 12th Amendment states that the electors must vote once for a presidential candidate and one other vote for a vice presidential candidate. If there is a tie among the presidential candidates, the top three go to the House. If there is a tie among the vice presidential candidates, the top two go to the Senate. Each State has one vote.
Jefferson won the election of 1804 after having made the Louisiana Purchase the previous year. He ran with New Yorker George Clinton, the man who always wanted the vice presidency.
Jefferson's secretary of state, James Madison won the election of 1808. Clinton was reelected to a second, and the first to be elected with another president. Madison faced the War of 1812, our Second Battle for Independence. The British invaded, after Madison asked for a declaration of war when the British weren't respecting American ships. Madison was the last commander-in-chief to truly be that in the battle field. He had the northeastern Federalists as the major opposition to his war with the British. The northeast even threatened succeeding from the Union.
Madison eventually had to abandon the capital city of Washington. Dolley Madison was preparing dinner when she was told to evacuate. She ordered the portrait of George Washington to be taken down and taken with them. She saved other important documents. She escaped before the British arrived. Before they set the presidential mansion on fire, they enjoyed the meal left by the first lady. The Capitol and the Executive Mansion were set on fire, as was the Library of Congress.
The weather turned horrible creating a rain storm that put out the fire at the mansion preserving the limestone shell wall. The mansion would be rebuilt and the Madisons moved back in by 1818. Nicely painted white, the painters left a section of the burn marks from the fire.
The War of 1812 ended with no clear victor, but two weeks after the signing of the treaty, unknown because the communication of the time, General Andrew Jackson successfully defends New Orleans against the British.
Madison won the election of 1812 and passed on the presidency to his secretary of state James Monroe. In 1816, Monroe defeated the last candidate for president by the Federalist Party. Monroe, with the help of his secretary of state John Quincy Adams, in his annual message to Congress, establish what would become known as the Monroe Doctrine. Making sure the Old World kept out of the New World.
Monroe was president during an era of good feelings politically, so in the election of 1820 Monroe ran opposed. Instead of giving him unanimous vote in the Electoral College like George Washington, one elector cast a vote for John Quincy Adams.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
The First African-American
John McCain's hero, the 26th president of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt invited the first African-American to the Executive Mansion, aka the White House, for dinner in 1901.
That African-American was Booker T. Washington.
That dinner caused such a stir TR, the real maverick, caved to the criticism and never invited Washington or any other African-American back to the White House again. The criticism came from those that couldn't accept African-Americans as equals. But we in the 21st century must put ourselves in the shoes of our little than over a hundred years ago counterparts and understand that the Civil War had just ended 36 years prior to that historic dinner. Also the Supreme Court had just ruled five years earlier from that dinner on Plessy v. Ferguson, which established racial segregation or "separate but equal" as law of the land.
It would be almost more than half a century later when Plessy v. Ferguson would be over turned via the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education. And then a decade after that African-Americans would finally be considered equal with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and secure their right to vote with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
How far we have come from the days of slavery, abolitionism, segregation, and civil rights, to see that an African-American male has a true shot at the highest office in the land which once oppressed him. Barack Obama fought for the nomination of one of the two major political parties against a female and won. That scenario is unimaginable in our nation's history, but it occurred just eight years into the 21st century, where one hundred years prior dining with the president was considered blasphemy.
How far we have come from the day when Booker T. Washington dined with President Theodore Roosevelt. We have come a long way. While it would have been amazing to see President Roosevelt stand up to the bigotry of the times, he would be proud to see that an African-American would be seen as an equal in the eyes of his opponent. The equality between the two major political party candidates is seen simply in their candidacy. We have a lot more to over come, but with Obama's candidacy we have shown that we are taking a step forward.
How far we have come is certainly shown not only in Obama's nomination by a national party but by his certain victory as the 44th president of the United States. One hundred and eight years ago a president of the United States invited an African-American to dine in the White House. One hundred and eight years later we see the possibly...no the certainty...that an African-American will sit at the head of the table in the White House.
How far we have come since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.
That African-American was Booker T. Washington.
That dinner caused such a stir TR, the real maverick, caved to the criticism and never invited Washington or any other African-American back to the White House again. The criticism came from those that couldn't accept African-Americans as equals. But we in the 21st century must put ourselves in the shoes of our little than over a hundred years ago counterparts and understand that the Civil War had just ended 36 years prior to that historic dinner. Also the Supreme Court had just ruled five years earlier from that dinner on Plessy v. Ferguson, which established racial segregation or "separate but equal" as law of the land.
It would be almost more than half a century later when Plessy v. Ferguson would be over turned via the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education. And then a decade after that African-Americans would finally be considered equal with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and secure their right to vote with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
How far we have come from the days of slavery, abolitionism, segregation, and civil rights, to see that an African-American male has a true shot at the highest office in the land which once oppressed him. Barack Obama fought for the nomination of one of the two major political parties against a female and won. That scenario is unimaginable in our nation's history, but it occurred just eight years into the 21st century, where one hundred years prior dining with the president was considered blasphemy.
How far we have come from the day when Booker T. Washington dined with President Theodore Roosevelt. We have come a long way. While it would have been amazing to see President Roosevelt stand up to the bigotry of the times, he would be proud to see that an African-American would be seen as an equal in the eyes of his opponent. The equality between the two major political party candidates is seen simply in their candidacy. We have a lot more to over come, but with Obama's candidacy we have shown that we are taking a step forward.
How far we have come is certainly shown not only in Obama's nomination by a national party but by his certain victory as the 44th president of the United States. One hundred and eight years ago a president of the United States invited an African-American to dine in the White House. One hundred and eight years later we see the possibly...no the certainty...that an African-American will sit at the head of the table in the White House.
How far we have come since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Missing Bush
The year I turned 18 was the first time I voted for president of the United States. The year was 1996.
My love of presidential history started years early. I was born when a peanut farmer lived in the White House. As a child of the 1980s, I only knew of Ronald Reagan as the president and thought it natural that the man that was his vice president would go on to become president.
William Jefferson Clinton came into my life as a high school student and I thought he should remain president through my college years.
The 2000 election was the first election that I truly paid close attention to and I cast my vote for the incumbent vice president. And like most Americans I thought he should be the commander-in-chief. The governor of Texas showed he wasn't anything special other than a son of a president. In the end, Vice President Al Gore gave an amazing concession speech on December 13, 2000 ending the race and the post-election race. I remember Bush's acceptance speech, or more specifically where it was delivered and nothing more. But Gore's I remember so much more: "While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party. We will stand together behind our new president." Why didn't this Gore win? The Gore the country would really come to love was just beginning I guess.
And so our country moved forward. We had a new president. For the second time in our history a son of a president became president. And for the first few months of his presidency I believed history would repeat itself and George W. Bush would be just like that other son of a president, John Quincy Adams, a one term president. Then came September 11, 2001.
By September 12, 2001, I knew that George W. Bush would break history and become a two term president. By breaking history I mean the only one of the father-son combo of presidents and minority presidents, that is to win the Electoral College and lose the popular vote, to go on and win a second term. A national tragedy had occurred and as Gore had told his supporters ten months prior, we had to rally behind our new president. And I did.
Bush amazed me with his address in the National Cathedral on September 14 and then before a joint session of Congress on September 20. He was going after those that attacked us and they would be punished.
Then at the start of 2002, the drum beats of war began and the unified country returned to its election 2000 divisiveness. The war of choice was on and his reelection was still certain. While his poll numbers plummeted from the highs of September 11, 2001 straight down toward the election of 2004, I still knew no one would be able to defeat him.
Bush survived to serve another term. He received 51% of the popular vote, the only president since his father in 1988 to break the 50% barrier. The president had the audacity to claim a mandate. But his second term proved he had no such thing and like other second term presidents his was nothing to brag about. From a failed attempt at revamping social security to mishandling the response to Hurricane Katrina, Bush's second term was not something Americans should be proud of.
What it did provide was fodder for late night comedians. Our troubles of living under another four years of the Bush administration provided many laughs and inspiration for comedy writers.
At the start of 2001 when the Clinton administration came to an end I remember hearing the late night hosts saddened by the loss of material as the Clinton administration left office. They knew they were getting something special in Bush, seeing him on the campaign trail the previous year. Little did they know that the next eight years would provide more material that would out match the eight years of Clinton.
The scare tactics, fear mongering, incompetence, and arrogance will not be missed.
The year I turned 30 was the fourth time I voted for president of the United States. The year was 2008.
We'll see how things turned out.
My love of presidential history started years early. I was born when a peanut farmer lived in the White House. As a child of the 1980s, I only knew of Ronald Reagan as the president and thought it natural that the man that was his vice president would go on to become president.
William Jefferson Clinton came into my life as a high school student and I thought he should remain president through my college years.
The 2000 election was the first election that I truly paid close attention to and I cast my vote for the incumbent vice president. And like most Americans I thought he should be the commander-in-chief. The governor of Texas showed he wasn't anything special other than a son of a president. In the end, Vice President Al Gore gave an amazing concession speech on December 13, 2000 ending the race and the post-election race. I remember Bush's acceptance speech, or more specifically where it was delivered and nothing more. But Gore's I remember so much more: "While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party. We will stand together behind our new president." Why didn't this Gore win? The Gore the country would really come to love was just beginning I guess.
And so our country moved forward. We had a new president. For the second time in our history a son of a president became president. And for the first few months of his presidency I believed history would repeat itself and George W. Bush would be just like that other son of a president, John Quincy Adams, a one term president. Then came September 11, 2001.
By September 12, 2001, I knew that George W. Bush would break history and become a two term president. By breaking history I mean the only one of the father-son combo of presidents and minority presidents, that is to win the Electoral College and lose the popular vote, to go on and win a second term. A national tragedy had occurred and as Gore had told his supporters ten months prior, we had to rally behind our new president. And I did.
Bush amazed me with his address in the National Cathedral on September 14 and then before a joint session of Congress on September 20. He was going after those that attacked us and they would be punished.
Then at the start of 2002, the drum beats of war began and the unified country returned to its election 2000 divisiveness. The war of choice was on and his reelection was still certain. While his poll numbers plummeted from the highs of September 11, 2001 straight down toward the election of 2004, I still knew no one would be able to defeat him.
Bush survived to serve another term. He received 51% of the popular vote, the only president since his father in 1988 to break the 50% barrier. The president had the audacity to claim a mandate. But his second term proved he had no such thing and like other second term presidents his was nothing to brag about. From a failed attempt at revamping social security to mishandling the response to Hurricane Katrina, Bush's second term was not something Americans should be proud of.
What it did provide was fodder for late night comedians. Our troubles of living under another four years of the Bush administration provided many laughs and inspiration for comedy writers.
At the start of 2001 when the Clinton administration came to an end I remember hearing the late night hosts saddened by the loss of material as the Clinton administration left office. They knew they were getting something special in Bush, seeing him on the campaign trail the previous year. Little did they know that the next eight years would provide more material that would out match the eight years of Clinton.
The scare tactics, fear mongering, incompetence, and arrogance will not be missed.
The year I turned 30 was the fourth time I voted for president of the United States. The year was 2008.
We'll see how things turned out.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The Appointed Vice President
Gerald Ford is not the first appointed vice president.
Okay technically, or constitutionally, he is. The 25th Amendment fixed the ever vacant vice presidency problem which had been going on every now and then since 1841. That's what section 2 of the amendment did: president nominates and a majority of both chambers of Congress confirms.
We know politicians seek the office of vice president even if they won't admit it. James Polk was trying for the vp nomination before he stumbled on to the bigger nomination back in 1844. Those that don't seek the office usually accept the nomination, kind of taking one for the team. Theodore Roosevelt was that way. The extremely popular New York Governor, recent war hero from the Spanish-American War, was banished to the vp slot to keep in check by party leaders. Who would think the vice presidency could put TR in some kind of position of power? Oh, right Mark Hanna.
Presidential candidates eventually took on what party bosses were doing and selected their own vice presidential candidates. John Kennedy offered the vice presidency to Lyndon Johnson after their rivalry for the top nomination in 1960. The Kennedy brothers didn't think LBJ would accept, but he did.
Sure the national conventions have been confirming the vice presidential candidates via delegate votes. In the days of uncertain convention outcomes, it took more than one ballot to find a party's nominee for the bottom of the ticket. And yes when the people go to the ballot boxes in November they are electing a slate of electors to vote for their ticket of choice, each ticket containing a top (president) and a bottom (vice president). Thank you 12th Amendment. The vice president is the only other national office elected by the entire country. But we're usually just thinking of the person running for that other national office when we vote.
The vice presidential candidate historically was someone who balanced the ticket geographically or ideologically. The candidate usually filled out something that was missing on the other end of the ticket. In 1976 Jimmy Carter was the true Washington outsider and Walter Mondale was the exact opposite, perfect match. William Jefferson Clinton of Arkansas broke the mold on balancing geography in 1992 by selecting his home state's neighbor state's son, Al Gore of Tennessee.
We the voter accept the presidential candidate's choice pick as his or her's first real presidential decision pre-election. The presidential candidate believes that the person he or she selects will be able to do the job of president. The presidential candidate fought long and hard for the nomination, to get the people's vote, and the vp candidate is chosen not by the people but by the person who survived a test by the people.
We've accepted this way of selecting the nation's second highest office. And yet nine times in our history has the vice president ascended to the presidency. In 1841 when John Tyler became the first vp to become president upon the death of William Henry Harrion just 30 days into the new administration, the Constitution did not specify the ascendancy. The 25th Amendment's section one clarified all that by saying "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." It took so long to realize the importance of the office and transition of power.
Perhaps we have accepted the practice of selecting vice presidential candidates for too long. We may have had some good picks like Robert Dole, Walter Mondale, George Bush, Al Gore, and Jack Kemp. We've also had some which we question and did not turn out so good.
In 2008 the tradition of an undemocratically chosen vice presidential candidate continues with the selection of Senator Joe Biden of Delware for the Democrats and Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska for the Republicans.
Barack Obama makes his first presidential decision by selecting a running mate. An African-American male on a presidential ticket is a new thing. The country can handle change but not such a dramatic change as not having a white male somewhere on the ticket. So Obama chooses Biden, over the person who in the Democratic nominating contest received the second most number of votes to the nominee. Almost half of those that voted in the Democratic primary/caucus elections. Very undemocratic.
John McCain makes his first presidential decision after Obama. Ah, it's all politics. Well McCain can't pick another white male for his ticket when he's going up against the history making ticket of Obama/Biden. Breaking one hundred fifty-two years of an all white male ticket, the Republican vice presidential pick is recently elected governor Palin. McCain's attempts at politics (i.e. women's vote, he's a maverick, etc.) instead of selecting someone who is qualified for the presidency shows the seriousness of why the vice presidency needs to be in the hands of the people.
The qualifications of the vice presidency are exactly those of the presidency. The people should have a say in who that potential leader is. Some say the president needs to be able to work with his or her vice president and so the candidate must make the pick. No. The vice president needs to be selected because they are the second best qualified to be president after the presidential candidate.
In 1988, Dan Quayle was not the second best qualified person to be president after George Bush. Quayle was a senator farther right than Bush ideologically and youthful when compared to Bush and the oldest president Ronald Reagan, then the incumbent. Sarah Palin is not the second most qualified within the Republican Party to be president. She's not from Washington. She represents change as a female. That's what mattered to McCain.
The vice presidential candidate should be selected by the voter just as the presidential candidate is. The general election would remain the same, but it's how those people end up on the ticket which should be changed. One way would be for the primary voter to have a ballot labeled "president" and one labeled "vice president," all candidates in the running would be on both ballots and could only be voted for once. The person with the most number of votes for president becomes the candidate for president and the person with the most number of votes for vice president becomes vice president.
Another way can be similar to the process of electing the president and vice president pre-12th Amendment. Before the passage of the 12th Amendment in 1804, the man with a majority of votes became the president and the man with the second most number of votes became vice president. This is why our first two vice presidents are highly qualified men and both went on to be elected president in their own right. After the amendment passed and changed how we voted, the office of the vice president was no longer filled by men of similar caliber to that of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.
So in a primary, the person who comes in second to the person with the most votes becomes the vice presidential running mate. In 2004 after John Kerry toyed with the idea of a bipartisan ticket with McCain, Kerry selected John Edwards, the man who received the second most number of primary votes. Yes, in 2008 this did not happen. Hillary Clinton was not considered even though she had the second most number of votes to Obama. Worrying about the role of a former president in a new administration was too much to worry about. Yes why would Obama not want one of the smartest men to occupy the White House as the spouse of the vice president? Avoiding that question and the person who received the next most number of votes, Obama went in another direction with his selection in Biden.
We must prevent this undemocratic process from continuing. We need to make sure that the people's voices are heard. We need to prevent daring political moves at the expense of potentially dangerous and inexperienced possible-presidents from coming to power. We need to return the appointed presidency back to men like Gerald Ford.
Okay technically, or constitutionally, he is. The 25th Amendment fixed the ever vacant vice presidency problem which had been going on every now and then since 1841. That's what section 2 of the amendment did: president nominates and a majority of both chambers of Congress confirms.
We know politicians seek the office of vice president even if they won't admit it. James Polk was trying for the vp nomination before he stumbled on to the bigger nomination back in 1844. Those that don't seek the office usually accept the nomination, kind of taking one for the team. Theodore Roosevelt was that way. The extremely popular New York Governor, recent war hero from the Spanish-American War, was banished to the vp slot to keep in check by party leaders. Who would think the vice presidency could put TR in some kind of position of power? Oh, right Mark Hanna.
Presidential candidates eventually took on what party bosses were doing and selected their own vice presidential candidates. John Kennedy offered the vice presidency to Lyndon Johnson after their rivalry for the top nomination in 1960. The Kennedy brothers didn't think LBJ would accept, but he did.
Sure the national conventions have been confirming the vice presidential candidates via delegate votes. In the days of uncertain convention outcomes, it took more than one ballot to find a party's nominee for the bottom of the ticket. And yes when the people go to the ballot boxes in November they are electing a slate of electors to vote for their ticket of choice, each ticket containing a top (president) and a bottom (vice president). Thank you 12th Amendment. The vice president is the only other national office elected by the entire country. But we're usually just thinking of the person running for that other national office when we vote.
The vice presidential candidate historically was someone who balanced the ticket geographically or ideologically. The candidate usually filled out something that was missing on the other end of the ticket. In 1976 Jimmy Carter was the true Washington outsider and Walter Mondale was the exact opposite, perfect match. William Jefferson Clinton of Arkansas broke the mold on balancing geography in 1992 by selecting his home state's neighbor state's son, Al Gore of Tennessee.
We the voter accept the presidential candidate's choice pick as his or her's first real presidential decision pre-election. The presidential candidate believes that the person he or she selects will be able to do the job of president. The presidential candidate fought long and hard for the nomination, to get the people's vote, and the vp candidate is chosen not by the people but by the person who survived a test by the people.
We've accepted this way of selecting the nation's second highest office. And yet nine times in our history has the vice president ascended to the presidency. In 1841 when John Tyler became the first vp to become president upon the death of William Henry Harrion just 30 days into the new administration, the Constitution did not specify the ascendancy. The 25th Amendment's section one clarified all that by saying "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." It took so long to realize the importance of the office and transition of power.
Perhaps we have accepted the practice of selecting vice presidential candidates for too long. We may have had some good picks like Robert Dole, Walter Mondale, George Bush, Al Gore, and Jack Kemp. We've also had some which we question and did not turn out so good.
In 2008 the tradition of an undemocratically chosen vice presidential candidate continues with the selection of Senator Joe Biden of Delware for the Democrats and Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska for the Republicans.
Barack Obama makes his first presidential decision by selecting a running mate. An African-American male on a presidential ticket is a new thing. The country can handle change but not such a dramatic change as not having a white male somewhere on the ticket. So Obama chooses Biden, over the person who in the Democratic nominating contest received the second most number of votes to the nominee. Almost half of those that voted in the Democratic primary/caucus elections. Very undemocratic.
John McCain makes his first presidential decision after Obama. Ah, it's all politics. Well McCain can't pick another white male for his ticket when he's going up against the history making ticket of Obama/Biden. Breaking one hundred fifty-two years of an all white male ticket, the Republican vice presidential pick is recently elected governor Palin. McCain's attempts at politics (i.e. women's vote, he's a maverick, etc.) instead of selecting someone who is qualified for the presidency shows the seriousness of why the vice presidency needs to be in the hands of the people.
The qualifications of the vice presidency are exactly those of the presidency. The people should have a say in who that potential leader is. Some say the president needs to be able to work with his or her vice president and so the candidate must make the pick. No. The vice president needs to be selected because they are the second best qualified to be president after the presidential candidate.
In 1988, Dan Quayle was not the second best qualified person to be president after George Bush. Quayle was a senator farther right than Bush ideologically and youthful when compared to Bush and the oldest president Ronald Reagan, then the incumbent. Sarah Palin is not the second most qualified within the Republican Party to be president. She's not from Washington. She represents change as a female. That's what mattered to McCain.
The vice presidential candidate should be selected by the voter just as the presidential candidate is. The general election would remain the same, but it's how those people end up on the ticket which should be changed. One way would be for the primary voter to have a ballot labeled "president" and one labeled "vice president," all candidates in the running would be on both ballots and could only be voted for once. The person with the most number of votes for president becomes the candidate for president and the person with the most number of votes for vice president becomes vice president.
Another way can be similar to the process of electing the president and vice president pre-12th Amendment. Before the passage of the 12th Amendment in 1804, the man with a majority of votes became the president and the man with the second most number of votes became vice president. This is why our first two vice presidents are highly qualified men and both went on to be elected president in their own right. After the amendment passed and changed how we voted, the office of the vice president was no longer filled by men of similar caliber to that of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.
So in a primary, the person who comes in second to the person with the most votes becomes the vice presidential running mate. In 2004 after John Kerry toyed with the idea of a bipartisan ticket with McCain, Kerry selected John Edwards, the man who received the second most number of primary votes. Yes, in 2008 this did not happen. Hillary Clinton was not considered even though she had the second most number of votes to Obama. Worrying about the role of a former president in a new administration was too much to worry about. Yes why would Obama not want one of the smartest men to occupy the White House as the spouse of the vice president? Avoiding that question and the person who received the next most number of votes, Obama went in another direction with his selection in Biden.
We must prevent this undemocratic process from continuing. We need to make sure that the people's voices are heard. We need to prevent daring political moves at the expense of potentially dangerous and inexperienced possible-presidents from coming to power. We need to return the appointed presidency back to men like Gerald Ford.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
McCain/Another White Guy '08
It's McCain/Palin all the way in 2008!
The 2008 election was going to make history from the start. That's from the start of the Democratic contest for the nomination, not the Republican's contest. The Democrats had an African-American male, a Latino, and a woman who was just not any woman, but the former first lady of the United States. When the contest came down to just the African-American male and the woman, it was very clear that history was being made and there was possible more history making to come.
While the Democrats put up five white males alongside the other three, the Grand Old Party totaled ten white males all vying for the top of the ticket.
For the first time in twenty-four the Democratic Party was going to bring some diversity to their national ticket. Once the people had spoken and put Barack Obama, an African-American, at the top of the ticket, some wondered if an unprecedented ticket was to be formed. Instead going the more democratic approach of choosing the person to receive the second most highest number of votes cast, Obama selected a safe choice in a running mate. The ticketed did not need to be balanced ideologically or geographically, but it was balanced with Joe Biden someone that balance outs any of Obama's flaws.
The other national party didn't seem to have the possibility of making some history in this election. Those that ran for the nomination were all white males. McCain could've chosen Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, the next two highest vote getters. But he didn't. McCain secured his party's nomination via the primaries and caucuses earlier than Obama. That was February and it wouldn't be until the first week of September when McCain would officially be the Republican nominee. And yet he still waited until the week before to make his selection.
By this point Obama was history in the making and with Biden the Democrats chose to make history one step at a time. McCain's choices of running mates were Romney of Massachusetts, Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Secretary and former governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, and Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. His choices were nothing extraordinary for the Republican, save maybe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman would be a historical choice for a number of reasons: the first Jewish vice presidential candidate for the Republican ticket (he was also the first Jewish vice presidential candidate for the Democrats in 2000, which would've made his simply the first Jewish vice presidential candidate in U.S. history), and he would've been a Democrat turned Independent Democrat to run as vice president on the Republican ticket. Not since the election of 1864 had there been such a bipartisan ticket.
But that was not to be. McCain couldn't settle on the white males he was debating over. The Democratic party was about to have for the second time in twenty-four years a ticket with just one white male on it. It looked like McCain's Republican ticket would be no different than GOP tickets of the past.
One name did keep appearing on McCain's short list. The name on that list would eventually be the name added to the ticket and break the Republican party's one hundred fifty-two year streak of an all white male ticket.
Sarah Palin was the choice. She's a governor of a state, just like the other men McCain was considering, once again, except Lieberman. But her resume is somewhat shorter than the others on the short list. There are other qualified and more recognizable Republican woman: Senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, a former candidate for the Republican nomination back in 2000 and wife of the GOP's 1996 nominee; former governor Christine Todd Whitman; business woman Carly Fiorina; and second lady Lynne Cheney. If a first lady can gain experience watch a president, I'm sure the same can be said of the second lady watch her vice president husband execute the duties of his office.
Sarah Palin was the choice. She was the choice because it went with McCain's maverick or outsider approach to politics. Sure the second lady would be an out there choice, but that would be like selecting another GOP woman rumored to be considered by McCain: secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. Rice would've been an historic nomination, but enough of an outsider or change to compete with McCain's opponent idea of change.
Sarah Palin was the choice. Her selection fits with McCain and the options he faced. With Sarah Palin, McCain added much heat and interest into a campaign that without Palin would've been no different the first GOP ticket of John C. Fremont and William L. Dayton.
The 2008 election was going to make history from the start. That's from the start of the Democratic contest for the nomination, not the Republican's contest. The Democrats had an African-American male, a Latino, and a woman who was just not any woman, but the former first lady of the United States. When the contest came down to just the African-American male and the woman, it was very clear that history was being made and there was possible more history making to come.
While the Democrats put up five white males alongside the other three, the Grand Old Party totaled ten white males all vying for the top of the ticket.
For the first time in twenty-four the Democratic Party was going to bring some diversity to their national ticket. Once the people had spoken and put Barack Obama, an African-American, at the top of the ticket, some wondered if an unprecedented ticket was to be formed. Instead going the more democratic approach of choosing the person to receive the second most highest number of votes cast, Obama selected a safe choice in a running mate. The ticketed did not need to be balanced ideologically or geographically, but it was balanced with Joe Biden someone that balance outs any of Obama's flaws.
The other national party didn't seem to have the possibility of making some history in this election. Those that ran for the nomination were all white males. McCain could've chosen Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, the next two highest vote getters. But he didn't. McCain secured his party's nomination via the primaries and caucuses earlier than Obama. That was February and it wouldn't be until the first week of September when McCain would officially be the Republican nominee. And yet he still waited until the week before to make his selection.
By this point Obama was history in the making and with Biden the Democrats chose to make history one step at a time. McCain's choices of running mates were Romney of Massachusetts, Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Secretary and former governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, and Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. His choices were nothing extraordinary for the Republican, save maybe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman would be a historical choice for a number of reasons: the first Jewish vice presidential candidate for the Republican ticket (he was also the first Jewish vice presidential candidate for the Democrats in 2000, which would've made his simply the first Jewish vice presidential candidate in U.S. history), and he would've been a Democrat turned Independent Democrat to run as vice president on the Republican ticket. Not since the election of 1864 had there been such a bipartisan ticket.
But that was not to be. McCain couldn't settle on the white males he was debating over. The Democratic party was about to have for the second time in twenty-four years a ticket with just one white male on it. It looked like McCain's Republican ticket would be no different than GOP tickets of the past.
One name did keep appearing on McCain's short list. The name on that list would eventually be the name added to the ticket and break the Republican party's one hundred fifty-two year streak of an all white male ticket.
Sarah Palin was the choice. She's a governor of a state, just like the other men McCain was considering, once again, except Lieberman. But her resume is somewhat shorter than the others on the short list. There are other qualified and more recognizable Republican woman: Senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, a former candidate for the Republican nomination back in 2000 and wife of the GOP's 1996 nominee; former governor Christine Todd Whitman; business woman Carly Fiorina; and second lady Lynne Cheney. If a first lady can gain experience watch a president, I'm sure the same can be said of the second lady watch her vice president husband execute the duties of his office.
Sarah Palin was the choice. She was the choice because it went with McCain's maverick or outsider approach to politics. Sure the second lady would be an out there choice, but that would be like selecting another GOP woman rumored to be considered by McCain: secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. Rice would've been an historic nomination, but enough of an outsider or change to compete with McCain's opponent idea of change.
Sarah Palin was the choice. Her selection fits with McCain and the options he faced. With Sarah Palin, McCain added much heat and interest into a campaign that without Palin would've been no different the first GOP ticket of John C. Fremont and William L. Dayton.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
7th Anniversay of September 11th
September 11, 2001 remains a tragic day in our nation’s memory, an unnatural disaster caused by cowardly thugs. However this day is not about them. This day we remember the innocent deaths of people who went to work in buildings or aboard planes; of passengers traveling to new destinations; and of the firemen, medics, and police officers. What remains with us is not so much the death and destruction, but the heroism and sacrifices made by those innocent lives in New York City, the Pentagon, and over the skies of Shanksville. That memory remains and makes us so proud to be Americans. That memory remains with us this September 11, 2008.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Expanding to Crisis
Thirteen colonies banded together to become an independent nation from Great Britain in 1776. Northern and southern colonies formed a union of States, united together for independence. Two different societies developed the industrialized north and the rural south, both with a common goal. After their revolution from Great Britain, these United States expanded westward beyond the Appalachian Mountains. Their territory increased and new states were admitted to the Union. These United States coexisted peacefully as northern free states and southern slave states, however the admittance of new states threatened the peace. The expansion of the United States and the addition of new states disrupted the sectional divide between the two regions plunging the nation into civil war.
Aside from the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was one of the most important pieces of legislation passed by the Continental Congress. The ordinance established how our nation would expand westward, creating territories that would form new states and be admitted to the Union. The ordinance also banned slavery in the Great Lakes region, which established the regional divide between northern free states above the Ohio River and the southern slave states below the river. This political divide played out in the United States Senate as new states formed, with southern senators fearful that their “peculiar institution” of slavery would be destroyed.
The young nation expanded in the 1790s in both the northern and southern regions always maintaining that equal balance of power. In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson doubled the size of our nation with the Louisiana Purchase. This allowed for the addition of new states to form and join the Union once the vast expanse of land was filled by westward moving Americans. This westward movement created the sectional crisis, as the expansion of slavery into the new territories came into question.
Missouri emerged as a state from the Louisiana Purchase. With the admittance of Missouri into the Union the balance between free and slave states began to tip. To balance the power in the Union, Maine was admitted as a free state. Maine was a non-contiguous part of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This compromise of admitting one slave state and one free state stabilized the balance of power between the two regions. Another part of the compromise was the prohibition of slavery in the remaining northern territory of the Louisiana Purchase. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 maintained order in the Union, but the nation continued to expand.
The expansion of the nation and the admittance of new states threatened the balance of power. If the north out numbered the south in the senate then the way of life in the southern states might be threatened. The south did not want to lose their right to have slaves and did not believe that the federal government could abolish it. Maintaining an equal number of states in both regions protected them against the threat of the federal government interfering with their “peculiar institution.” The south felt the issue was a states’ rights issue. However slavery would not be the first issue that the southern states felt the federal government was threatening their states’ right.
In 1828 the sectional divide heated up not over slavery, but another states’ right issue. The southern economy, which slavery was a part of, relied on trade with foreign countries. The imposition of a tariff, or a tax, on foreign trade threatened the southern economy. Vice President John C. Calhoun of South Carolina supported the idea of nullification proposed by his home state, which would allow states to null and void legislation passed by the federal government. It was a states’ right to do so. President Andrew Jackson thought nullification to be unconstitutional. Jackson loved the Union and wanted nothing more than to preserve the Union. Jackson threatened South Carolina with military force and believed nullification a treasonous act. In the end the state backed down and the Union was preserved, however the nullification crisis foreshadowed events to come.
By the late 1830s citizens of the United States were venturing westward filling and occupying the land purchased from France. Although one region in particular that was not apart of the Louisiana Purchase drew numerous citizens of the United States and that was Texas. Texas became an independent nation from Mexico in 1836 populated by an overwhelming amount of Americans. Texans fought for their independence and after winning sought annexation by the United States. If the United States were to admit Texas then the balance between free and slave states would be disrupted. Northern states did not want Texas admitted to the Union because they feared it would expand slavery, while the southern states welcomed the state. Just a few days before leaving office in March of 1845, President John Tyler signed the resolution annexing Texas as a state.
While Texas was a hotly debated topic for almost a decade, the issue of admitting it into the Union no longer became an issue by the time James K. Polk assumed the presidency in 1845. Aside from limiting himself to a single term in office, he committed himself to achieving four goals during his administration. Two of the goals were connected to the expansion of the Union, acquiring the Oregon territory from Great Britain as well as California and New Mexico from Mexico. Polk set out to turn the United States into a continental power, establishing a “manifest destiny.”
To achieve the manifest destiny of our nation Polk took us to war. Obtaining Oregon from Great Britain did not require a fight, but obtaining California and New Mexico would not be as simple. The Mexican-U.S. War lasted from 1846 to 1848. The Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo ended the war and expanded the nation all the way to the Pacific Ocean. The new territory gained from the treaty created the question of whether to admit states into the Union as free or slave.
The new territories which emerged from the war brought the balance of power between the two regions to a boil. Once again a compromise was needed. Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky proposed a number of measures which included admitting California as a free state; the territory of New Mexico would be organized without the prohibition of slavery; the slave trade was prohibited in the District of Columbia, while slavery was not abolished; and fugitive slave laws were strengthened. The compromise was opposed by President Zachary Taylor, however he died in 1850 and his successor Millard Fillmore supported it. This Compromise of 1850 tempered the crisis brewing between the north and the south.
While the start of the decade attempted to put the sectional crisis to rest it became just a stepping stone to the impending crisis. In 1852, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin became an important part the abolitionist cause and 19th Century American literature. The novel had an affect on attitudes toward slavery and the slaves themselves. The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which attempted to quench the slavery issue was repealed two years after Stowe’s novel was published.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 repealed the Missouri Compromise which sought to end the debate on the expansion of slavery. Now through popular sovereignty the settlers of the territories of Kansas and Nebraska were to determine if they were a free state or a slave state. The settlers of Kansas turned to bloodshed as northerners moved in to claim the territory as a free state, while southerners did the same but for pro-slavery reasons. The anti-slavery side eventually triumphed over the pro-slavery side, but once again this event was another foreshadow of things to come but on a larger scale.
As the nation expanded and the expansion of slavery grew with it, a political party emerged in 1854 in opposition to its expansion. The Republican Party formed in 1854 and by the presidential election of 1856 had its first presidential candidate on the ballot. However in the end John Fremont was defeated by Democratic candidate James Buchanan. President Buchanan continued the disorder that was maintained by the previous administration of Franklin Pierce. In 1857 the Supreme Court ruled on the Dred Scott case, stating that a slave was not a citizen and thus had no rights under the Constitution. The ruling intensified northern opposition to the expansion of slavery.
In 1858 an Illinois seat in the United States Senate gained attention as the two competitors for that seat debated for their party’s dominance in the Illinois state legislature, which appointed United State Senators at the time. Democrat Stephen Douglas debated Republican Abraham Lincoln. In the debates Lincoln said “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.” The house represented the country and its sectional division of free and slave states. The Democrats won the election in Illinois returning Douglas to the United States Senate, while Lincoln gained national attention. The house divide was on the verge of collapsing.
In 1859 John Brown attempted to start a slave rebellion. Brown led an attack on Harper’s Ferry, Virginia. He seized the federal armory and held the citizens hostage. The rebellion was squashed and Brown was hung. Rebellion was in the air, but not from the anti-slavery side.
Lincoln’s prominence in the senatorial debates propelled him to the Republican nomination for president in 1860 defeating party heavy weight William Seward of New York. The election of 1860 pitted Republican Lincoln against, against a fractured Democratic party. The southern pro-slavery Democrats nominated the incumbent Vice President John C. Breckinridge, while the northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas. A fourth candidacy came from the Constitutional Union Party, a party comprised of former Whigs and Know-Nothings. The Constitutional Union Party nominated John Bell. With the lowest popular vote percentage of any president ever and with only the electoral votes of the northern states, Abraham Lincoln was elected the 16th President of the United States.
With Lincoln’s election, the south believed the anti-slavery party would abolish their “peculiar institution.” Before the year of 1860 was out the state of South Carolina seceded from the Union, an act deemed unconstitutional by President Buchanan and President-elect Lincoln. However Buchanan felt there was nothing he could do. Lincoln attempted to heal the wounds with his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861. The south ignored Lincoln and on April 12th attacked Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Fort Sumter in Lincoln’s eyes was Union property; the war between the states had begun.
Two different regions, one free and the other slave holding, fought together to overthrow a tyrannical king. These United States expanded their territorial reach over the North American continent. Their expanse disrupted the peaceful sectionalism which existed in revolution. Compromises were made to maintain the peace as the nation grew. However expansion turned these United States into a house divided, long preventing it from becoming a more perfect union as the United States.
Aside from the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was one of the most important pieces of legislation passed by the Continental Congress. The ordinance established how our nation would expand westward, creating territories that would form new states and be admitted to the Union. The ordinance also banned slavery in the Great Lakes region, which established the regional divide between northern free states above the Ohio River and the southern slave states below the river. This political divide played out in the United States Senate as new states formed, with southern senators fearful that their “peculiar institution” of slavery would be destroyed.
The young nation expanded in the 1790s in both the northern and southern regions always maintaining that equal balance of power. In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson doubled the size of our nation with the Louisiana Purchase. This allowed for the addition of new states to form and join the Union once the vast expanse of land was filled by westward moving Americans. This westward movement created the sectional crisis, as the expansion of slavery into the new territories came into question.
Missouri emerged as a state from the Louisiana Purchase. With the admittance of Missouri into the Union the balance between free and slave states began to tip. To balance the power in the Union, Maine was admitted as a free state. Maine was a non-contiguous part of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This compromise of admitting one slave state and one free state stabilized the balance of power between the two regions. Another part of the compromise was the prohibition of slavery in the remaining northern territory of the Louisiana Purchase. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 maintained order in the Union, but the nation continued to expand.
The expansion of the nation and the admittance of new states threatened the balance of power. If the north out numbered the south in the senate then the way of life in the southern states might be threatened. The south did not want to lose their right to have slaves and did not believe that the federal government could abolish it. Maintaining an equal number of states in both regions protected them against the threat of the federal government interfering with their “peculiar institution.” The south felt the issue was a states’ rights issue. However slavery would not be the first issue that the southern states felt the federal government was threatening their states’ right.
In 1828 the sectional divide heated up not over slavery, but another states’ right issue. The southern economy, which slavery was a part of, relied on trade with foreign countries. The imposition of a tariff, or a tax, on foreign trade threatened the southern economy. Vice President John C. Calhoun of South Carolina supported the idea of nullification proposed by his home state, which would allow states to null and void legislation passed by the federal government. It was a states’ right to do so. President Andrew Jackson thought nullification to be unconstitutional. Jackson loved the Union and wanted nothing more than to preserve the Union. Jackson threatened South Carolina with military force and believed nullification a treasonous act. In the end the state backed down and the Union was preserved, however the nullification crisis foreshadowed events to come.
By the late 1830s citizens of the United States were venturing westward filling and occupying the land purchased from France. Although one region in particular that was not apart of the Louisiana Purchase drew numerous citizens of the United States and that was Texas. Texas became an independent nation from Mexico in 1836 populated by an overwhelming amount of Americans. Texans fought for their independence and after winning sought annexation by the United States. If the United States were to admit Texas then the balance between free and slave states would be disrupted. Northern states did not want Texas admitted to the Union because they feared it would expand slavery, while the southern states welcomed the state. Just a few days before leaving office in March of 1845, President John Tyler signed the resolution annexing Texas as a state.
While Texas was a hotly debated topic for almost a decade, the issue of admitting it into the Union no longer became an issue by the time James K. Polk assumed the presidency in 1845. Aside from limiting himself to a single term in office, he committed himself to achieving four goals during his administration. Two of the goals were connected to the expansion of the Union, acquiring the Oregon territory from Great Britain as well as California and New Mexico from Mexico. Polk set out to turn the United States into a continental power, establishing a “manifest destiny.”
To achieve the manifest destiny of our nation Polk took us to war. Obtaining Oregon from Great Britain did not require a fight, but obtaining California and New Mexico would not be as simple. The Mexican-U.S. War lasted from 1846 to 1848. The Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo ended the war and expanded the nation all the way to the Pacific Ocean. The new territory gained from the treaty created the question of whether to admit states into the Union as free or slave.
The new territories which emerged from the war brought the balance of power between the two regions to a boil. Once again a compromise was needed. Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky proposed a number of measures which included admitting California as a free state; the territory of New Mexico would be organized without the prohibition of slavery; the slave trade was prohibited in the District of Columbia, while slavery was not abolished; and fugitive slave laws were strengthened. The compromise was opposed by President Zachary Taylor, however he died in 1850 and his successor Millard Fillmore supported it. This Compromise of 1850 tempered the crisis brewing between the north and the south.
While the start of the decade attempted to put the sectional crisis to rest it became just a stepping stone to the impending crisis. In 1852, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin became an important part the abolitionist cause and 19th Century American literature. The novel had an affect on attitudes toward slavery and the slaves themselves. The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which attempted to quench the slavery issue was repealed two years after Stowe’s novel was published.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 repealed the Missouri Compromise which sought to end the debate on the expansion of slavery. Now through popular sovereignty the settlers of the territories of Kansas and Nebraska were to determine if they were a free state or a slave state. The settlers of Kansas turned to bloodshed as northerners moved in to claim the territory as a free state, while southerners did the same but for pro-slavery reasons. The anti-slavery side eventually triumphed over the pro-slavery side, but once again this event was another foreshadow of things to come but on a larger scale.
As the nation expanded and the expansion of slavery grew with it, a political party emerged in 1854 in opposition to its expansion. The Republican Party formed in 1854 and by the presidential election of 1856 had its first presidential candidate on the ballot. However in the end John Fremont was defeated by Democratic candidate James Buchanan. President Buchanan continued the disorder that was maintained by the previous administration of Franklin Pierce. In 1857 the Supreme Court ruled on the Dred Scott case, stating that a slave was not a citizen and thus had no rights under the Constitution. The ruling intensified northern opposition to the expansion of slavery.
In 1858 an Illinois seat in the United States Senate gained attention as the two competitors for that seat debated for their party’s dominance in the Illinois state legislature, which appointed United State Senators at the time. Democrat Stephen Douglas debated Republican Abraham Lincoln. In the debates Lincoln said “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.” The house represented the country and its sectional division of free and slave states. The Democrats won the election in Illinois returning Douglas to the United States Senate, while Lincoln gained national attention. The house divide was on the verge of collapsing.
In 1859 John Brown attempted to start a slave rebellion. Brown led an attack on Harper’s Ferry, Virginia. He seized the federal armory and held the citizens hostage. The rebellion was squashed and Brown was hung. Rebellion was in the air, but not from the anti-slavery side.
Lincoln’s prominence in the senatorial debates propelled him to the Republican nomination for president in 1860 defeating party heavy weight William Seward of New York. The election of 1860 pitted Republican Lincoln against, against a fractured Democratic party. The southern pro-slavery Democrats nominated the incumbent Vice President John C. Breckinridge, while the northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas. A fourth candidacy came from the Constitutional Union Party, a party comprised of former Whigs and Know-Nothings. The Constitutional Union Party nominated John Bell. With the lowest popular vote percentage of any president ever and with only the electoral votes of the northern states, Abraham Lincoln was elected the 16th President of the United States.
With Lincoln’s election, the south believed the anti-slavery party would abolish their “peculiar institution.” Before the year of 1860 was out the state of South Carolina seceded from the Union, an act deemed unconstitutional by President Buchanan and President-elect Lincoln. However Buchanan felt there was nothing he could do. Lincoln attempted to heal the wounds with his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861. The south ignored Lincoln and on April 12th attacked Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Fort Sumter in Lincoln’s eyes was Union property; the war between the states had begun.
Two different regions, one free and the other slave holding, fought together to overthrow a tyrannical king. These United States expanded their territorial reach over the North American continent. Their expanse disrupted the peaceful sectionalism which existed in revolution. Compromises were made to maintain the peace as the nation grew. However expansion turned these United States into a house divided, long preventing it from becoming a more perfect union as the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)