Open letter from Heather Cox Richardson. Boston College history professor.

CunningCanuk

Well-Known Member
Worthy of your attention:

July 4, 2020 (Saturday)

Today, on a day presidents traditionally use to avoid politics and reinforce Americans’ shared values, Trump gave a speech dividing Americans into two groups: his supporters and “the radical left, the Marxists, the anarchists, the agitators, the looters, and people who in many instances have absolutely no clue what they are doing.” Trying to get people to look away from the devastating toll of coronavirus on this country—our official death toll is approaching 130,000— Trump is staking out a position as the leader of a culture war.

Today’s speech was an echo of the one he gave yesterday at Mt. Rushmore, where the faces of American presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln are carved into rocks sacred to the Lakota people. There, Trump set himself up as a defender of American history and culture against a “new far-left fascism” trying to destroy America. “Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children,” Trump said. “Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities.”

Giving such a speech at Mt. Rushmore enabled Trump to illustrate his promise to dominate the enemies he insists threaten his version of America. He superimposed himself, with the commanding power of the U.S. government behind him, over the sacred lands of the Lakota, who have tried since the 1860s to protect those lands, and who now suffer the nation’s highest levels of poverty, as well as the devastating social ills that go with that poverty, including terrible susceptibility to coronavirus as well as horrific numbers of missing and murdered women. Trump’s performance at Mt. Rushmore was a carefully crafted image of the most powerful man in America dominating the most marginalized people.

Ironically, given his laments about the rewriting of history, his insistence that Mt. Rushmore is “an eternal tribute to our forefathers and to our freedom,” is a pretty huge rewriting of why there is a Mt. Rushmore in the first place.

Mt. Rushmore was conceived in 1923 in a desperate attempt to draw tourist dollars to a state that had been rushed into the Union to protect Republican political dominance and could not manage to achieve economic stability. The story is this:

In 1889, Republicans knew they were in political trouble. Americans had turned against their conviction that the government must protect big business at all costs, and that any kind of regulation or protection for workers amounted to socialism. In 1884, for the first time since the Civil War, voters had elected a Democrat to the White House. Grover Cleveland promised to use the government to protect ordinary Americans, and to stop congressmen from catering to wealthy industrialists.

To regain control of the government, in 1888, Republicans pulled out all the stops. They developed a new system of campaign financing, hitting up rich businessmen for contributions, and got employers to warn workers that if they didn’t vote for the Republican candidate they would be fired. Nonetheless, Republican Benjamin Harrison lost the election by about 100,000 votes.

But he won in the Electoral College.

Republicans immediately set out to make sure no Democrat could ever win the White House again. They rushed South Dakota into the Union in 1889, along with North Dakota, Montana, and Washington—all Republican regions-- to pack the Senate and the Electoral College. The next year, they rushed in Wyoming and Idaho, too, boasting that they would dominate government for the foreseeable future.

South Dakota, though, was a problem. Virtually all of the land in that new state belonged to the Lakota people.

The Lakotas were not originally from the region. They had been pushed west in the late 1600s from the area around the Great Lakes by warring tribes unsettled by the epidemics brought first by Europeans. But the Lakota believed the new land was their true spiritual home, and they considered the Black Hills there sacred. Once settled in the Great Plains, Lakotas adopted horses and became both wealthy and formidable warriors, so formidable they held their own against American incursions until after the Civil War.

In 1868, eager to stop Lakota attacks on the miners traipsing through their territory, the U.S. government agreed to leave the forts officers had built in Lakota territory. The Treaty of Fort Laramie established most of what would later become South Dakota as a reservation, along with the Black Hills. But the treaty did not stop miners, buffalo hunters, railroad men, or settlers from intruding on Lakota lands. In 1874, when a gold strike in the Black Hills sent miners pouring into the area, the government gave up trying to keep settlers out of the reservation, and instead set out to buy the Black Hills.

Oglala Lakota leader Red Cloud refused. The Black Hills were priceless, he said, and to get them officials would have to make an equivalent offer. Hunkpapa Lakota Sitting Bull was less diplomatic. “We want no white men here. The Black Hills belong to me. If the whites try to take them, I will fight.” They demanded government officials honor the treaty.

Government officials interpreted Lakotas’ refusal to sell their lands as hostility. They stopped trying to keep miners out of Lakota lands and in December 1875, told Lakotas to report to authorities or expect war. Sitting Bull and his friend Crazy Horse were 250 miles away and probably never heard the order, but even if they had, such a journey was impossible to make in a South Dakota winter. The next summer, Sitting Bull pulled together from a number of different tribes the largest encampment of warriors in Lakota history, as many as 7,000 people, while the army set out to put them down.

In late June 1876, several of the twelve companies of the 7th Cavalry, commanded by General George Armstrong Custer, fell on the Lakota while they rested in midday by the Greasy Grass River, known to the army as the Little Bighorn. Custer died, alongside 267 other soldiers. The Lakota and their allies lost about 40. “I feel sorry that too many were killed on each side,” Sitting Bull said, “But when Indians must fight, they must.”

The Treaty of Fort Laramie required that three-quarters of Lakota men must ratify any further land cessions, but in the aftermath of the “Battle of the Little Bighorn,” the U.S. government simply seized the Black Hills. Then, in 1889, eager to open up land for eastern settlers in the new state of South Dakota, the government got Lakotas to sign significant land cessions, although exactly how they got those signatures is unclear, since the Lakotas had refused to sell the same land a year before.

Still, South Dakota was terribly low on both settlers and water, and it did not prosper. By the early 1920s, an early settler and the founder of the state’s historical society, Doane Robinson, decided to have a western hero carved into the Black Hills to attract tourists and boost the economy. He invited sculptor Gutzon Borglum to design it. Borglum rejected the idea of a western hero and instead designed a monument to represent American ideals: Washington, who had founded the nation; Jefferson, who had expanded the country west; Lincoln, who had saved the nation; and Roosevelt, who had protected democracy from industrialists.

Deep in the heart of the land the Lakota held sacred, Borglum carved a monument that, according to his son, was intended to illustrate that “Man has a right to be free and to be happy.”

It is hardly the fault of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt that a desperate western promoter used their images to fix a problem created by party politicians. Trump’s attempt to link that early twentieth-century effort-- and the violent history that preceded it-- to the better aspirations of our greatest leaders is a sleight of hand. If we permitted it, that dark and angry equivalence would wipe out our history, indeed.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Worthy of your attention:

July 4, 2020 (Saturday)

Today, on a day presidents traditionally use to avoid politics and reinforce Americans’ shared values, Trump gave a speech dividing Americans into two groups: his supporters and “the radical left, the Marxists, the anarchists, the agitators, the looters, and people who in many instances have absolutely no clue what they are doing.” Trying to get people to look away from the devastating toll of coronavirus on this country—our official death toll is approaching 130,000— Trump is staking out a position as the leader of a culture war.

Today’s speech was an echo of the one he gave yesterday at Mt. Rushmore, where the faces of American presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln are carved into rocks sacred to the Lakota people. There, Trump set himself up as a defender of American history and culture against a “new far-left fascism” trying to destroy America. “Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children,” Trump said. “Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities.”

Giving such a speech at Mt. Rushmore enabled Trump to illustrate his promise to dominate the enemies he insists threaten his version of America. He superimposed himself, with the commanding power of the U.S. government behind him, over the sacred lands of the Lakota, who have tried since the 1860s to protect those lands, and who now suffer the nation’s highest levels of poverty, as well as the devastating social ills that go with that poverty, including terrible susceptibility to coronavirus as well as horrific numbers of missing and murdered women. Trump’s performance at Mt. Rushmore was a carefully crafted image of the most powerful man in America dominating the most marginalized people.

Ironically, given his laments about the rewriting of history, his insistence that Mt. Rushmore is “an eternal tribute to our forefathers and to our freedom,” is a pretty huge rewriting of why there is a Mt. Rushmore in the first place.

Mt. Rushmore was conceived in 1923 in a desperate attempt to draw tourist dollars to a state that had been rushed into the Union to protect Republican political dominance and could not manage to achieve economic stability. The story is this:

In 1889, Republicans knew they were in political trouble. Americans had turned against their conviction that the government must protect big business at all costs, and that any kind of regulation or protection for workers amounted to socialism. In 1884, for the first time since the Civil War, voters had elected a Democrat to the White House. Grover Cleveland promised to use the government to protect ordinary Americans, and to stop congressmen from catering to wealthy industrialists.

To regain control of the government, in 1888, Republicans pulled out all the stops. They developed a new system of campaign financing, hitting up rich businessmen for contributions, and got employers to warn workers that if they didn’t vote for the Republican candidate they would be fired. Nonetheless, Republican Benjamin Harrison lost the election by about 100,000 votes.

But he won in the Electoral College.

Republicans immediately set out to make sure no Democrat could ever win the White House again. They rushed South Dakota into the Union in 1889, along with North Dakota, Montana, and Washington—all Republican regions-- to pack the Senate and the Electoral College. The next year, they rushed in Wyoming and Idaho, too, boasting that they would dominate government for the foreseeable future.

South Dakota, though, was a problem. Virtually all of the land in that new state belonged to the Lakota people.

The Lakotas were not originally from the region. They had been pushed west in the late 1600s from the area around the Great Lakes by warring tribes unsettled by the epidemics brought first by Europeans. But the Lakota believed the new land was their true spiritual home, and they considered the Black Hills there sacred. Once settled in the Great Plains, Lakotas adopted horses and became both wealthy and formidable warriors, so formidable they held their own against American incursions until after the Civil War.

In 1868, eager to stop Lakota attacks on the miners traipsing through their territory, the U.S. government agreed to leave the forts officers had built in Lakota territory. The Treaty of Fort Laramie established most of what would later become South Dakota as a reservation, along with the Black Hills. But the treaty did not stop miners, buffalo hunters, railroad men, or settlers from intruding on Lakota lands. In 1874, when a gold strike in the Black Hills sent miners pouring into the area, the government gave up trying to keep settlers out of the reservation, and instead set out to buy the Black Hills.

Oglala Lakota leader Red Cloud refused. The Black Hills were priceless, he said, and to get them officials would have to make an equivalent offer. Hunkpapa Lakota Sitting Bull was less diplomatic. “We want no white men here. The Black Hills belong to me. If the whites try to take them, I will fight.” They demanded government officials honor the treaty.

Government officials interpreted Lakotas’ refusal to sell their lands as hostility. They stopped trying to keep miners out of Lakota lands and in December 1875, told Lakotas to report to authorities or expect war. Sitting Bull and his friend Crazy Horse were 250 miles away and probably never heard the order, but even if they had, such a journey was impossible to make in a South Dakota winter. The next summer, Sitting Bull pulled together from a number of different tribes the largest encampment of warriors in Lakota history, as many as 7,000 people, while the army set out to put them down.

In late June 1876, several of the twelve companies of the 7th Cavalry, commanded by General George Armstrong Custer, fell on the Lakota while they rested in midday by the Greasy Grass River, known to the army as the Little Bighorn. Custer died, alongside 267 other soldiers. The Lakota and their allies lost about 40. “I feel sorry that too many were killed on each side,” Sitting Bull said, “But when Indians must fight, they must.”

The Treaty of Fort Laramie required that three-quarters of Lakota men must ratify any further land cessions, but in the aftermath of the “Battle of the Little Bighorn,” the U.S. government simply seized the Black Hills. Then, in 1889, eager to open up land for eastern settlers in the new state of South Dakota, the government got Lakotas to sign significant land cessions, although exactly how they got those signatures is unclear, since the Lakotas had refused to sell the same land a year before.

Still, South Dakota was terribly low on both settlers and water, and it did not prosper. By the early 1920s, an early settler and the founder of the state’s historical society, Doane Robinson, decided to have a western hero carved into the Black Hills to attract tourists and boost the economy. He invited sculptor Gutzon Borglum to design it. Borglum rejected the idea of a western hero and instead designed a monument to represent American ideals: Washington, who had founded the nation; Jefferson, who had expanded the country west; Lincoln, who had saved the nation; and Roosevelt, who had protected democracy from industrialists.

Deep in the heart of the land the Lakota held sacred, Borglum carved a monument that, according to his son, was intended to illustrate that “Man has a right to be free and to be happy.”

It is hardly the fault of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt that a desperate western promoter used their images to fix a problem created by party politicians. Trump’s attempt to link that early twentieth-century effort-- and the violent history that preceded it-- to the better aspirations of our greatest leaders is a sleight of hand. If we permitted it, that dark and angry equivalence would wipe out our history, indeed.
that was for the small pox. the indian knew of one way the white man would get the message.

 

CunningCanuk

Well-Known Member
Another letter from Professor Richardson. It’s a bit long but she writes so well it won’t seem like it.

July 9, 2020 (Thursday)

Today was a big news day, so this is longer than usual. Sorry about that.

The day began with three Supreme Court decisions.

The first is a major victory for indigenous peoples. In a 5-4 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, the court upheld the claim of the Creek Nation that a large chunk of Oklahoma, including much of Tulsa, remains a reservation for the purposes of criminal prosecutions. This means that natives on the land cannot be tried by state court; they must be tried in tribal or federal courts. While this will affect state convictions of Creeks, tribal leaders say it will have little impact on non-natives.

Oklahoma had argued that while Congress had initially established a reservation for the Creeks, it had ended that reservation when it pushed Creek individuals onto their own farms in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. But Congress had never explicitly gotten rid of the reservation. Neil Gorsuch joined the majority and wrote the decision, saying “Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.”

The decision details the history of U.S. and Creek interactions, and notes that the federal government often went back on the promises it made to the Native Americans. The decision holds the federal government to the treaties it negotiated with the Creeks, and as such, the decision has the potential to affect a number of other conflicts in which federal agreements were overruled by other state or federal actions, but were never explicitly ended. The decision certainly has the potential to apply to four other reservations in eastern Oklahoma whose histories mirror that of the Creek lands.

The other two decisions handed down today concerned whether or not Congress and a New York prosecutor could gain access to Trump’s financial records from before he became president. Trump’s lawyers had argued that a president could not be investigated while in office, no matter what crimes he might have committed. A 1973 Department of Justice memo established that presidents could not be indicted while in office, but Trump’s lawyers have pushed this concept to say that a president cannot be investigated, either.

The Supreme Court disagreed. By a vote of 7-2, in Trump v. Vance, the Supreme Court upheld a criminal subpoena issued by Cyrus Vance, Jr. of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office on behalf of a grand jury that wanted financial records to look into hush money paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels and a Playboy model Karen McDougal. In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court rejected the argument that a president cannot be investigated for a crime. “In our judicial system,” Roberts wrote, “’the public has a right to every man’s evidence.’ Since the earliest days of the Republic, ‘every man’ has included the President of the United States.” Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

The decision left room for Trump to challenge the subpoenas on specific grounds, and it is likely he will do so, but he has lost the main point.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, involved whether Congress had a right to investigate the president. Three House committees-- the House Committee on Financial Services, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, and the House Intelligence Committee-- issued subpoenas to Trump’s accountants and bankers for financial information relating to money laundering and foreign interference in U.S. elections. Trump had sued Mazars to stop the firm from handing over the information.

Again by a 7-2 vote, with Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting, the court decided that Congress did, in fact, have the right to subpoena information from the president, but because Congress had to observe the separation of powers, the conditions under which Congress subpoenaed presidential information must be limited to legitimate lawmaking needs rather than attempts at law enforcement. The court sent the case back to lower courts for further review to consider whether the subpoenas met the criteria required to preserve the separation of powers.

The Supreme Court noted that Congress and the president had always in the past found a way to resolve their differences over issues of subpoenas, and that “this dispute is the first of its kind to reach the Court,” so the justices wanted to be careful not to mess up a system that had worked well for 200 years (and yes, it sure seems like there’s a dig at Trump there).

Curiously, the decisions give more leeway to state prosecutors than to Congress in investigating a president.

It is not clear that either case will force the production of Trump’s financial documents before the election, although that production is not impossible if the lower courts, which will now see reworked subpoenas, move quickly. Law professors and former government lawyers Neal Katyal and Joshua A. Geltzer argued in the Washington Post today that such speed was both possible and likely.

Still, the decisions are huge. Trump has argued that the president is untouchable. The Supreme Court, including two of Trump’s own appointees, has repudiated his argument entirely.

After the decisions were announced, Trump melted down on Twitter. “The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court, arguments to continue. This is all a political prosecution. I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration!.... Courts in the past have given “broad deference”. BUT NOT ME!” He took shots at South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a key supporter who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, for not prosecuting members of the Obama administration for allegedly committing crimes against him.

Former federal prosecutor and legal commentator Renato Mariotti responded: “No court has ever held that a president was ‘immune’ to a grand jury subpoena or Congressional subpoena. Your lawyers raised absurd arguments that were soundly rejected by seven out of the nine Supreme Court justices, including two justices you appointed.”

Phew! But that was not all that happened today.

Former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman testified today before the House Judiciary Committee about the circumstances surrounding his firing. Berman said that Attorney General William Barr had pressured him to resign on June 18, offering him a number of other government positions and warning him that if he did not take one of the other jobs, he would be fired and his career wounded. When Berman refused, in the interests of continuing the cases on which his office was working, Barr simply announced on June 19 that Berman had resigned. Barr seemed desperate to install a new U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Democrats in Congress will want to know why.

Also today, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, appeared before the House Armed Services Committee and took a stand against the Confederate flag, Confederate statues, and Confederate names on U.S. Army bases, in strong opposition to Trump. Talking of those Confederate generals whose names are now on U.S. bases, Milley said, “those officers turned their back on their oath…. It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the US Constitution."

At the same hearing, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper confirmed that he had, in fact, been informed that Russia had offered money to Taliban fighters to kill American and allied troops in Afghanistan, so it was not a “hoax,” as the president has insisted. While Esper tried hard to speak carefully enough that he did not antagonize the president, defense officials have told CNN that both Esper and Milley are worried that Trump is politicizing the military, and are determined not to let him drag it into the election campaign.

It appears Trump’s position is weakening. This week, a number of Republican senators announced they were taking a pass on the Republican National Convention in Jacksonville, Florida, next month, and this afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell suggested that he, too, might skip it. Earlier this week, his spokesman had said that McConnell “has every intention” of attending the convention, but last week, a Republican source told Reuters that unless Trump’s performance improved by August, McConnell might have to advise Republican Senate candidates to keep their distance from Trump in order to try to hold on to the Republican majority in the Senate.

It seems that McConnell might be making that call earlier than expected.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
It seems that McConnell might be making that call earlier than expected.
The pundits said the plan was to hold off until labor day and then turn on Trump, as if people would forget. The fact that Mitch moved up the time table means he figures they can't voter suppress or cheat and steal the election. Mitch's senate majority is in serious jeopardy and he might lose a lot more than his majority by a few votes too, he might even lose his own seat.

If Mitch loses control of the majority, he not only loses control of the floor and agenda, as well as, all of the investigating committees. He and his wife have a lot to answer for and senate investigations will put him and his wife on the senate hot seat and then it might be off to a grand jury. Many of these senate republicans will be investigated, whether they are still in office or turfed out, either by the senate, the FBI, an independent prosecutor and or a blue ribbon presidential commission. This will go on for years and will damage the GOP even more in 2022 and 2024, this will not be forgotten or forgiven, that would be insanity, there are survival lessons to be learned here.
 
Top