#United States Government Printing Office

[uwmspeccoll]

Science Saturday

We had a patron come in this week to do some research with the Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion (MSHWR) and we were impressed by the range of image reproduction techniques represented. The six volumes contain etchings and wood engravings, multi-colored charts and graphs, lithographs and chromolithographs, as well as multiple types of photographic reproduction (including heliotype and albumen photographs). I’ve taken the liberty of sharing some of the less gruesome images but encourage those with a morbid sense of curiosity to give us a visit and see for yourself!  

Published in Washington D.C. over nearly two decades by the United States Government Printing Office (which underwent a name change 2014 to the Government Publishing Office), the MSHWR was issued in three parts, with each part consisting of a Medical and Surgical volume. Both the Medical and Surgical volumes of Part 1 were first published in 1870, with the final installment coming in 1888. Both of our Part 1 volumes are from the second printing in 1875, while the volumes from Part 2 and 3 are first printings. Production of the first five volumes was overseen by Surgeon General Joseph K Barnes. The surgical volumes were compiled by George A. Otis. The first two medical volumes were compiled by J. J. Woodward, well known internationally as a pioneer in micrography. Both Barnes and Woodward passed away before the completion of the work, and Charles Smart took over for Woodward under the direction of the new Surgeon General, John Moore.

This monumental work documents clinical records, surgical reports, case reports, and statistical reports on both battlefield injuries and camp diseases in both the Union and Confederate Army during the Civil War. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) considers it “among the most remarkable works ever composed on military medicine and surgery” and that it is likely “the country’s earliest comprehensive medical monograph.” Not only is it a leading source of medical data from the time period, but the inclusion of case studies and surgical reports, with both patient and surgeon named, has made the MSHWR an important resource for personal histories and genealogical research. As noted, the array of image reproduction techniques also make it great point of reference for those with an interest in the history of printing. 

Find more Science Saturday posts here. 

-Olivia, Special Collections Graduate Intern

[deadpresidents]

the job of President was too big for Warren G. Harding and if there was an instruction manual, he couldn't find it.

I don't have anything to add to your totally unsolicited statement (everyone knows I just love being sent random, anonymous opinions) that had literally nothing to do with anything I've written recently.

BUT...believe it or not, there actually kind of IS an instruction manual for the Presidency. Jimmy Carter used to have a copy of this massive book in his office at the Carter Center titled "The Duties of the President of the United States of America".

In his wonderful 2004 book, Fraternity: A Journey in Search of Five Presidents (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO), Bob Greene writes about being shown the book by a Secret Service agent while at the Carter Center:

On a table was a huge hardbound book, and on its cover were the words: The Duties of the President of the United States. [The Secret Service agent] flipped it open. "Try learning that in two months," he said. I suppose I had never thought about it; I suppose it had never occurred to me that there was a manual. Because that is what this book was: an enormous volume filled, in minute detail, with the duties for which the President, as decreed by law, is responsible. Not the vague, all-encompassing responsibilities spoken of in civics books (or the Constitution), but the daily, department-to-department staff-office-by-staff-office tasks over which the President, at least in theory, has oversight. The book was like a combination motorcycle-repair manual/computer guide/university-doctorate-level encyclopedia; it was not bedtime reading or narrative history, it was nuts and bolts. It informed a President -- especially a newly elected President, getting ready to take office -- what was expected of him.

I'm dying to have a copy of that book. I haven't found it being sold anywhere over the years. I'm assuming that it was specifically printed and bound for the President. It looks like books that I have that were published by the Government Printing Office. They all are black hardcover books with gold print for the title, so I'm guessing that they are probably given to Presidents or important staff members in the Executive Office of the President. But I very much would like a copy. Hopefully the fine folks at the Government Printing Office or the National Archives sees this post and thinks that I deserve my own copy.

[read-marx-and-lenin]

Was it antifascist when the USSR only ever allowed less than 10% of the population to vote for the one candidate the dictatorship put forward for each role?

Why did you deactivate your last account? Were you upset that you looked so foolish? You don't look any less foolish creating multiple alternate accounts to send anon hate with. I don't even have anon asks turned off.

The Soviet Union had universal suffrage. Every voting-age adult was allowed to participate in the elections, besides felons and those who were incapable of voting due to mental disability. All ballots were secret (at least, after 1936. Oftentimes elections prior were done by show of hands, but this became problematic.)

If you are referring to the election of the Presidium or the appointment of the Premier by the elected representatives of the Supreme Soviet, I would consider that more democratic than the election of the President of the United States, since not only was the Presidium a council of multiple people in and of itself instead of one singular person at the head of the government, but the election of the Presidium was undertaken by representatives who were directly elected by the people, as opposed to the electors of the Electoral College in the United States who are appointed by party officials.

If you are referring to the election of the General Secretary of the Communist Party by Communist party members, then that position was not a governmental one. While the General Secretary did indeed have significant political influence due to their role as leader of the vanguard party, they were not a dictator and the position did not confer any state powers.

Not only were the Supreme Soviet and the Presidium composed of many different people who collectively decided upon state actions, many powers and duties were constitutionally delegated to regional councils and soviets. The federal government never held supreme power.

As for the idea that there was only "one candidate" for office during elections, the so-called "single-slate ticket" decried by the West, it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about how communist politics works. Competitive tickets were not impossible, although party discipline prevented them from occurring at any high level. Rather, the single-slate ticket arose because prior to the printing of any ballots, there was a period of discussion to determine who would be the candidate in the first place. So it was not a case of people being told by the party "here is your candidate, now you must vote for them". The people and the party worked together to find candidates who had public support in the first place. In addition, not only could voters simply vote "no" and reject a candidate (and any candidate who did not receive a majority of "yes" votes would be rejected,) but all elected officials were subject to recall at any time if they were found to be deficient in their responsibilities by the electorate. Candidates were not forced on the Soviet people by faceless party bureaucrats.

If you want to know more, I recommend checking out "Soviet Democracy" by Pat Sloan (I should note that that particular work forms most of my knowledge on Soviet democracy, so take all of that with a grain of salt for anything past 1937 when the book was written) and pretty much anything written by Anne Louise Strong, although I would recommend "In North Korea", in particular Chapter 3 which goes into detail on pre-war DPRK elections and includes a very enlightening passage on how the North Korean voters at the time viewed single-slate tickets. Suffice it to say, they did not at all feel disenfranchised.

I can understand why you would be misinformed as to how the Soviet government worked. But to decry the Soviet Union as undemocratic, let alone fascistic, is absurd.

[elumish]

Hello friends!

I know it's only August, but I thought I'd start early:

If you have the legal right to vote in the United States, there is no benefit to you in not voting. All that not voting does to you is remove your most powerful legal ability to impact the identity of those who represent you in the government.

By the time you reach the election, by the time ballots are printed and you are filling in a bubble or pressing a button or flipping a lever, your only meaningful choice for who to vote for are the people who are listed on the ballot.

Because we live in a two-party system, in the vast majority of jurisdictions*, you are choosing between members of two parties. If you vote for someone who is not a member of one of those parties, you are throwing away your ability to meaningfully impact who wins that election. It sucks. it's shitty. It's unfortunate. But if you want a third party candidate to have a chance in a major race, it starts years before the election, not when you are standing in front of your ballot in November.

And if you think, they're both the same as each other--they're not. For literally any policy that you care about, there will be differences. Pick the policies you care most about, find the one who sits closer to you and vote for them. That is the only way that laws will move in the direction you want, by electing people who vote for policies that are closer to what you want.

I studied game theory in college, and from my standpoint it was one of the most useful and educational classes I took during my entire academic career, because of this key idea: If you want 10, and your options are 0 or 5, 5 is a better option for you. Something gives you more than nothing, even if you want a lot.

You will not get a politician who agrees with everything you want, unless you run for office yourself. Pick what you care the most about, and vote based on that. See voting as harm reduction. See voting as public transportation. See voting as whatever gets you out to vote.

But vote.

*There are a few independents in office. An independent or third party candidate will not win the Presidency in 2024.

[zvaigzdelasas]

Cuban Pedro Rafael Delgado, a 56-year-old accountant, saw his life change dramatically just days after Cuba approved a set of laws by referendum in September that allow gay marriage.

For more than a decade, Delgado, who works at a Communist Party office, lived as "friends" with his 62-year-old partner, Adolfo Lopez. He lacked basic rights and felt shunned even by his own family because of his sexual preference. "Being gay was the embarrassment of the family and I always lived with that," he told Reuters. Cuba's family code, a set of measures and regulations that establishes the rights of all Cubans, regardless of sexual orientation, to marry and adopt children, changed everything, Delgado says.

But activists and experts consulted by Reuters say the sweeping, government-led campaign to promote the law did more to moderate entrenched homophobia and machismo than the fine print of the code itself - which governs the totality of family relations and not just issues related to sexual orientation.

"There is no doubt that it represents a change...not just legislative, but also in mindset," said Adiel Gonzalez, a 32-year-old activist and professor.

"Some say that (change) is solely due to the code, but that is false," said Gonzalez, adding that changes in attitude existed before, but the discussion around the law helped people to accept other sexual orientations.[!]

For months ahead of the referendum, the government flooded Cuba's TV, radio and newspapers, which it controls, to promote the law. The government also put up billboards on national roadways and held parades, while Communist Party leaders, including President Miguel Diaz-Canel, repeatedly touted the measure.

That one-sided media push did not sit well with everyone. Cuba's Catholic Church, in a missive just before the referendum, said the state's overwhelming support and control of the media had stifled voices of opposition.

The government said at least half [!] of the island's 11 million residents participated in town-hall style meetings prior to the vote aimed at discussing and refining the measure.

Cuba registered 75 same-sex marriages in October, according to state newspaper Trabajadores. That is more than 2% of the total 3,300 marriages reported for the month, the data shows.[...]

However, same-sex households in the United States account for 1.5% of homes occupied by couples of any sex, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. [...]

Cuban transgender medical student Ariana Mederos, of Matanzas, recalls two years earlier explaining to her university rector that "he" was now a "she."

At the time, she was unprotected by the recently approved Family Code.

"I cried. I thought I was going to give up my career," she told Reuters, recalling the day. "But just as I thought it was over, he told me, 'We are going to support you throughout your transition and you will have all our support, including that of your professors.'"

Mederos says she too believes attitudes shifted in Cuba with the discussion ahead of the referendum.

"Cuba is changing and I am proof of that," she says. "I've seen positive changes but there is still much to fight for."

14 Nov 22

[todaysdocument]

Telegram from President Abraham Lincoln to Major General John A. Dix, Commanding at New York, Regarding the New York World and New York Journal of Commerce

Record Group 107: Records of the Office of the Secretary of WarSeries: Telegrams Sent and Received By The War Department Central Telegraph Office.File Unit: Telegrams Sent By President Abraham Lincoln, March 10 - October 11, 1864

[blue stamp in upper right corner] WAR RECORDS PRINTED 1861-1865 Executive Mansion To Maj. Gen'l Dix, Washington, May 18, 1864 [underlined] Commanding, at New York. -- Whereas, there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and publi this morning, in the "New York World" and New York "Journal of Commerce", newspapers printed and published in the city of New York, - a false and spurious proclamation, purporting to be signed by the President. and to be countersigned by the Secretary of State, which publication is of a treasonable nature, designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, and to the rebels now at war against the Government, and their aiders and abettors You are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in an y fort or Military prison in your command, the editors, proprietors and publishers of the afore said newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication. print and publish the same, with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy. - and you will hold the persons so arrested. in close custody, until they can be brought to trail before a military commission, for their offense. - Your will also take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the "New York World" and "Journal of Commerce", and hold the same until fur order, and prevent any further publication therefrom, A.Lincoln

[girlactionfigure]

in broad daylight

It's 2024, not 1933. 

Crowds of thousands are chanting for the indiscriminate murder of Jews in major western cities.

why do you continue to gaslight us?

Intifada: indiscriminate suicide bombings, bombings, stabbings, and shootings targeting civilians.

There it is. In plain English. To a crowd of thousands, in front of an exhibit in New York City memorializing the victims of the October 7 massacre. "Long live October 7."

These are not ceasefire marches. They are Jew-hate rallies. Why are you still gaslighting us?

OCTOBER 7 SHOULD HAVE BEEN YOUR WAKE UP CALL

For years, as someone whose politics have always been left, myself and others have been warning of the genocidal antisemitism brewing on the left. Our concerns were minimized, and we were gaslit, both within and outside the Jewish community. Even when people conceded that yes, antisemitism does exist on the left, they insisted that only right-wing antisemitism was actually dangerous. If you’ve been following me for a while, you’ll know how frustrated I always was with this sentiment. I hope they see now that they were wrong. 

Even though I knew something ugly was brewing on the left, even I was shocked not just by the Hamas atrocities committed on October 7, but by the world’s reactions. On October 7 itself, very few people on the left unequivocally stood with the Israeli victims, no ifs, ands, or buts. They talked of “context,” decided that was the appropriate time to criticize the Israeli government, justified, or even went as far as to celebrate the heinous massacre. Now, as more indefensible information came out, they deny it. 

Supposedly progressive organizations, like the Women’s March, #MeToo, and even some chapters of Black Lives Matter either ignored the atrocities or outright supported them. On October 8, before Israel retaliated, enormous crowds in New York City marched in support of the murderers of October 7. As recently as a few weeks ago, influential progressive politicians were gaslighting us about the unabashed antisemitism present at the college encampments. 

If you haven’t noticed that genocidal hatred for Jews has become acceptable, in broad daylight, so long as it’s disguised under the costume of “pro-Palestine activism,” I don’t know if you ever will. Maybe you will after it’s already too late. Every genocidal antisemite in history had an excuse. This is no different. 

WHO IS ACTUALLY RUNNING THESE PROTESTS?

Virtually all “ceasefire,” “pro-Palestine” protests in the United States are organized by groups such as Within Our Lifetime, Students for Justice in Palestine, and Samidoun. 

Samidoun, which has ties to the internationally-recognized terrorist group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and has an office in Tehran, is banned as a terrorist organization in Germany. Within Our Lifetime and Students for Justice in Palestine both openly support Hamas, other Islamic Republic proxies, and the October 7 massacre. 

On October 7, various SJP chapters released statements justifying and even celebrating the massacre. National Students for Justice in Palestine released a “toolkit” calling the massacre a “historic win for the Palestinian resistance.” 

SJP’s founder, Hatem Bazian, is also the co-founder of American Muslims for Palestine, an organization formed by former members of the HolyLand Foundation, KindHearts, and Islamic Association of Palestine, all of which were disbanded after its members were convicted of transferring material support to Hamas. 

Meanwhile, Within Our Lifetime is openly supportive of Hamas and other Islamic Republic proxies. WOL promotes “Palestinian resistance by any means necessary.” On October 7, WOL issued a statement, saying, “We must defend the Palestinian right to resist Zionist settler violence and support Palestinian resistance in all its forms. By any means necessary. With no exceptions and no fine print.” Abdullah Akl, a WOL organizer, has a top role at the Muslim American Society, which was founded as the American arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, though MAS denies that they continue to have an affiliation. 

Would you attend a protest hosted by the KKK? By the Nazis? If a hate group organizes a protest, can that protest actually be deemed “peaceful”?

WHAT ARE THE PROTESTORS ACTUALLY SAYING?

In between “ceasefire now” and “free Palestine” calls, the protestors aren’t exactly making their genocidal aims a secret. Among the most popular chants at “pro-Palestine” protests since October 7 are “intifada, intifada,” “there is only one solution, intifada revolution,” and “globalize the intifada.”

The intifadas were Palestinian “uprisings” that indiscriminately and primarily targeted civilians, in a series of suicide bombings, car bombings, shootings, stabbings, and even stoning. When you call for a “global intifada,” you are openly calling for violence against Jews, not just in Israel, but around the globe. The chant couldn’t be any more explicit. 

Even more horrifying, “there is only one solution, intifada revolution,” alludes to the Final Solution. Of note, at the outbreak of the 1948 war, the Palestinian Arab leadership, which had allied with the Nazis during the Holocaust, vowed, “The Arabs have taken the Final Solution to the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will soon be driven out.”

Another popular chant is “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which, regardless of Rashida Tlaib’s lies, is not a peaceful call for coexistence. It’s a call for the destruction of the State of Israel, which has nine million citizens, the majority of them Jews. Its Arabic counterpart is “from water to water, Palestine will be Arab,” also heard at the protests, an even more explicit call for genocide and ethnic cleansing. 

Another common chant at pro-Palestine protests is “Khaybar, khaybar ya Yahud, Jaish Muhammad, sa Yahud,” translating to “Jews, remember Khaybar, the army of Muhammad is returning,” which alludes to the surrender to Muhammad, ethnic cleansing, and extermination of the Khaybar Jews in the seventh century. The chant is also explicitly genocidal. 

We’ve spent the last decade discussing microaggressions and dog whistles, and yet, when we hear antisemites call for the murder of Jews in broad daylight, you tell us that’s not what they reallymeant. Why?

MAYBE YOU MEAN WELL

I understand that you don’t want to see Palestinians suffer. No moral person likes to see people suffer. But has it ever occurred to you that terrorist organizations are not moral? That terrorist organizations extort your empathy to further their goals? Just the other day, The Wall Street Journal uncovered secret documents that revealed that the leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Yahya Sinwar, openly said that more Palestinian deaths help Hamas further its political goals. They are extorting you because you care. This is not brand new information. Hamas leaders and leaders of virtually all Palestinian political factions and terrorist organizations have made similar statements in the past. 

(And yes, you could argue that Israel didn’t have to “give them what they wanted” by retaliating. Either way, though, it’s a lose-lose situation for Israel, because no matter what, the message Hamas would be getting is “slaughtering and kidnapping people is a great way for you to get what you want,” such as releasing Palestinian mass murderers from Israeli prisons. Most countries would react to October 7 exactly as Israel did, or worse, but this is a separate discussion from this post). 

If the “globalize the Intifada,” “there is only one solution, Intifada Revolution,” “intifada, intifada,” and “long live October 7” crowds do not represent the core of the free Palestine movement, why are these the voices leading the protests? Where are the condemnations from “pro-Palestine” organizations? From “pro-Palestine” celebrities? Why do they not issue statements making it explicitly clear that these people don’t represent them? When pro-Israel protestors fired fireworks into a “pro-Palestine” crowd at UCLA, Jewish organizations issued loud and clear condemnations. 

If these sentiments didn’t represent the pro-Palestine movement, the movement would be the first to distance themselves from them. Instead, they are either silent, or worse, they openly support them. 

PLEASE SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE

Every antisemitic regime in history has mobilized the masses under the guise of a “righteous cause.” The Catholic Church did it. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. Now the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies — Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Houthis — are doing it too. And you, who has vowed to “punch Nazis,” are falling for it. 

In the nearly eight decades since the Holocaust, just about everyone has wondered: had I been alive during World War II, what would I have done? Would I have I have hid Anne Frank, as Miep Gies did, or would I have been a collaborator? Everyone, except the most rabid of Jew-haters, reaches the same conclusion: of course I would have hid the Frank family. I’m not a monster. 

The problem is that most people have been playing the wrong game, deliberating on a misguided rhetorical exercise. If it’s between the bad guy and the good guy, well, of course everyone will choose to be the good guy. But in truth, it’s notbetween the bad guy — and don’t get me wrong, the Nazis were certainly bad — and the good guy. It’s between the antisemite and the Jew.

When people pontificate over what their behavior would have been during the Holocaust, they tend to do so with one glaring oversight. Antisemitism, this deeply-engrained 2000-year-old hatred, projects whatever any given society hates the most onto the Jewish people. Nowadays, certainly in left-leaning circles, where white colonialism is considered the most egregious sin, we are powerful white oppressors and settler-colonialists. When we play bad guys versus good guys, a whole bunch of people will conclude that the bad guys are…well, the Jews. 

If you can't figure out a way to oppose the war without supporting protests led by groups that back Hamas and Hezbollah, call for a global intifada, protest in front of Holocaust museums and October 7 memorials, and wave banners that proclaim "long live October 7," your problem is not with the war. Your problem is with Jews.

Hope that helps. 

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Frev Friendships — Saint-Just and Robespierre

You who supports the tottering fatherland against the torrent of despotism and intrigue, you whom I only know, like God, through his miracles; I speak to you, monsieur, to ask you to unite with me in order to save my sad fatherland. The city of Gouci has relocated (this rumour goes around here) the free markets from the town of Blérancourt. Why do the cities devour the privileges of the countryside? Will there remain no more of them to the latter than size and taxes? Support, please, with all your talent, an address that I make for the same letter, in which I request the reunion of my heritage with the national areas of the canton, so that one lets to my country a privilege without which it has to die of hunger. I do not know you, but you are a great man. You are not only the deputy of a province, you are one of humanity and of the Republic. Please, make it that my request be not despised. I have the honour to be, monsieur, your most humble, most obedient servant. Saint-Just, constituent of the department of Aisne. To Monsieur de Robespierre in the National Assembly in Paris. Blérancourt, near Noyon, August 19, 1790. Saint-Just’s first letter ever written to Robespierre, dated August 19 1790

Citizens, you are aware that, to dispel the errors with which Roland has covered the entire Republic, the Society has decided that it will have Robespierre's speech printed and distributed. We viewed it as an eternal lesson for the French people, as a sure way of unmasking the Brissotin faction and of opening the eyes of the French to the virtues too long unknown of the minority that sits with the Mountain. I remind you that a subscription office is open at the secretariat. It is enough for me to point it out to you to excite your patriotic zeal, and, by imitating the patriots who each deposited fifty écus to have Robespierre's excellent speech printed, you will have done well for the fatherland. Saint-Just at the Jacobins, January 1 1793

Patriots with more or less talent […] Jacquier, Saint-Just’s brother-in-law. Robespierre in a private list, written sometime during his time on the Committee of Public Safety

Saint-Just doesn’t have time to write to you. He gives you his compliments. Lebas in a letter to Robespierre October 25 1793

Trust no longer has a price when we share it with corrupt men, then we do our duty out of love for our fatherland alone, and this feeling is purer. I embrace you, my friend. Saint-Just.  To Robespierre the older.  Saint-Just in a post-scriptum note added to a letter written by Lebas to Robespierre, November 5 1793. Saint-Just uses tutoiement with Robespierre here, while Lebas used vouvoiement.

We have made too many laws and too few examples: you punish but the salient crimes, the hypocritical crimes go unpunished. Punish a slight abuse in each part, it is the way to frighten the wicked, and to make them see that the government has its eye on everything. No sooner do we turn our backs than the aristocracy rises in the tone of the day, and commits evils under the colors of liberty. Engage the committee to give much pomp to the punishment of all faults in government. Before a month has passed you will have illuminated this maze in which counter-revolution and revolution march haphazardly. Call, my friend, the attention of the Jacobin Club to the strong maxims of the public good; let it concern itself with the great means of governing a free state. I invite you to take measures to find out if all the manufactures and factories of France are in activity, and to favor them, because our troops would within a year find themselves without clothes; manufacturers are not patriots, they do not want to work, they must be forced to do so, and not let down any useful establishment. We will do our best here. I embrace you and our mutual friends. Saint-Just To Robespierre the older. Saint-Just in a letter to Robespierre, December 14 1793

Paris, 9 nivôse, year 2 of the Republic. Friends. I feared, in the midst of our successes, and on the eve of a decisive victory, the disastrous consequences of a misunderstanding or of a ridiculous intrigue. Your principles and your virtues reassured me. I have supported them as much as I could. The letter that the Committee of Public Safety sent you at the same time as mine will tell you the rest. I embrace you with all my soul. Robespierre. Robespierre in a letter to Saint-Just and Lebas, December 29 1793

Why should I not say that this (the dantonist purge) was a meditated assassination, prepared for a long time, when two days after this session where the crime was taking place, the representative Vadier told me that Saint-Just, through his stubbornness, had almost caused the downfall of the members of the two committees, because he had wanted that the accused to be present when he read the report at the National Convention; and such was his obstinacy that, seeing our formal opposition, he threw his hat into the fire in rage, and left us there. Robespierre was also of this opinion; he believed that by having these deputies arrested beforehand, this approach would sooner or later be reprehensible; but, as fear was an irresistible argument with him, I used this weapon to fight him: You can take the chance of being guillotined, if that is what you want; For my part, I want to avoid this danger by having them arrested immediately, because we must not have any illusions about the course we must take; everything is reduced to these bits: If we do not have them guillotined, we will be that ourselves. À Maximilien Robespierre aux enfers (1794) by Taschereau de Fargues and Paul-Auguste-Jacques. Robespierre and Saint-Just had also worked out the dantonists’ indictment together.

…As far from the insensibility of your Saint-Just as from his base jealousies, [Camille] recoiled in front if the idea of accusing a college comrade, a companion in arms. […] Robespierre, can you really complete the fatal projects which the vile souls that surround you no doubt have inspired you to? […] Had I been Saint-Just’s wife I would tell him this: the sake of Camille is yours, it’s the sake of all the friends of Robespierre!  Lucile Desmoulins in an unsent letter to Robespierre, written somewhere between March 31 and April 4 1794. Lucile seems to have believed it was Saint-Just’s ”bad influence” in particular that got Robespierre to abandon Camille.

In the beginning of floréal (somewhere between April 20 and 30) during an evening session (at the Committee of Public Safety), a brusque fight erupted between Saint-Just and Carnot, on the subject of the administration of portable weapons, of which it wasn’t Carnot, but Prieur de la Côte-d’Or, who was in charge. Saint-Just put big interest in the brother-in-law of Sijas, Luxembourg workshop accounting officer, that one thought had been oppressed and threatened with arbitrary arrest, because he had experienced some difficulties for the purpose of his service with the weapon administration. In this quarrel caused unexpectedly by Saint-Just, one saw clearly his goal, which was to attack the members of the committee who occupied themselves with arms, and to lose their cooperateurs. He also tried to include our collegue Prieur in the inculpation, by accusing him of wanting to lose and imprison this agent. But Prieur denied these malicious claims so well, that Saint-Just didn’t dare to insist on it more. Instead, he turned again towards Carnot, whom he attacked with cruelty; several members of the Committee of General Security assisted. Niou was present for this scandalous scene: dismayed, he retired and feared to accept a pouder mission, a mission that could become, he said, a subject of accusation, since the patriots were busy destroying themselves in this way. We undoubtedly complained about this indecent attack, but was it necessary, at a time when there was not a grain of powder manufactured in Paris, to proclaim a division within the Committee of Public Safety, rather than to make known this fatal secret? In the midst of the most vague indictments and the most atrocious expressions uttered by Saint-Just, Carnot was obliged to repel them by treating him and his friends as aspiring to dictatorship and successively attacking all patriots to remain alone and gain supreme power with his supporters. It was then that Saint-Just showed an excessive fury; he cried out that the Republic was lost if the men in charge of defending it were treated like dictators; that yesterday he saw the project to attack him but that he defended himself. ”It’s you,” he added, ”who is allied with the enemies of the patriots. And understand that I only need a few lines to write for an act of accusation and have you guillotined in two days.”  ”I invite you, said Carnot with the firmness that only appartient to virtue: I provoke all your severity against me, I do not fear you, you are ridiculous dictators.” The other members of the Committee insisted in vain several times to extinguish this ferment of disorder in the committee, to remind Saint-Just of the fairer ideas of his colleague and of more decency in the committee; they wanted to call people back to public affairs, but everything was useless: Saint-Just went out as if enraged, flying into a rage and threatening his colleagues. Saint-Just probably had nothing more urgent than to go and warn Robespierre the next day of the scene that had just happened, because we saw them return together the next day to the committee, around one o'clock: barely had they entered when Saint-Just, taking Robespierre by the hand, addressed Carnot saying: ”Well, here you have my friends, here are the ones you attacked yesterday!” Robespierre tried to speak of the respective wrongs with a very hypocritical tone: Saint-Just wanted to speak again and excite his colleagues to take his side. The coldness which reigned in this session, disheartened them, and they left the committee very early and in a good mood. Réponse des membres des deux anciens Comités de salut public et de sûreté générale (Barère, Collot, Billaud, Vadier), aux imputations renouvellées contre eux, par Laurent Lecointre et declarées calomnieuses par décret du 13 fructidor dernier; à la Convention Nationale (1795), page 103-105

My friends, the committee has taken all the measures within its control at this time to support your zeal. It has asked me to write to you to explain the reasons for some of its provisions. It believed that the main cause of the last failure was the shortage of skilled generals, it will send you all the patriotic and educated soldiers that can be found. It thought it necessary at this time to re-use Stetenhofen, whom it is sending to you, because he has military merit, and because the objections made against him seem at least to be balanced by proofs of loyalty. He also relies on your wisdom and your energy. Salut et amitié. Paris, 15 floréal, year 2 of the Republic.  Robespierre. Robespierre to Saint-Just and Lebas, May 4 1793

Dear collegue, Liberty is exposed to new dangers; the factions arise with a character more alarming than ever. The lines to get butter are more numerous and more turbulent than ever when they have the least pretexts, an insurrection in the prisons which was to break out yesterday and the intrigues which manifested themselves in the time of Hébert are combined with assassination attemps on several occasions against members of the Committee of Public Safety; the remnants of the factions, or rather the factions still alive, are redoubled in audacity and perfidy. There is fear of an aristocratic uprising, fatal to liberty. The greatest peril that threatens it is in Paris. The Committee needs to bring together the lights and energy of all its members. Calculate whether the army of the North, which you have powerfully contributed to putting on the path to victory, can do without your presence for a few days. We will replace you, until you return, with a patriotic representative. The members composing the Committee of Public Safety. Robespierre, Prieur, Carnot, Billaud-Varennes, Barère. Letter to Saint-Just from the CPS, May 25 1794, written by Robespierre. It was penned down just two days after the alleged attempt on Robespierre’s life by Cécile Renault.

Robespierre returned to the Committee a few days later to denounce new conspiracies in the Convention, saying that, within a short time, these conspirators who had lined up and frequently dined together would succeed in destroying public liberty, if their maneuvers were allowed to continue unpunished. The committee refused to take any further measures, citing the necessity of not weakening and attacking the Convention, which was the target of all the enemies of the Republic. Robespierre did not lose sight of his project: he only saw conspiracies and plots: he asked that Saint-Just returned from the Army of the North and that one write to him so that he may come and strengthen the committee. Having arrived, Saint-Just asked Robespierre one day the purpose of his return in the presence of the other members of the Committee; Robespierre told him that he was to make a report on the new factions which threatened to destroy the National Convention; Robespierre was the only speaker during this session. He was met by the deepest silence from the Committee, and he leaves with horrible anger. Soon after, Saint-Just returned to the Army of the North, since called Sambre-et-Mouse. Some time passes; Robespierre calls for Saint-Just to return in vain: finally, he returns, no doubt after his instigations; he returned at the moment when he was most needed by the army and when he was least expected: he returned the day after the battle of Fleurus. From that moment, it was no longer possible to get him to leave, although Gillet, representative of the people to the army, continued to ask for him. Réponse de Barère, Billaud-Varennes, Collot d’Herbois et Vadier aux imputations de Laurent Lecointre (1795)

On 10 messidor (June 28) I was at the Committee of Public Safety. There, I witnessed those who one accuses today (Billaud-Varenne, Barère, Collot-d'Herbois, Vadier, Vouland, Amar and David) treat Robespierre like a dictator. Robespierre flew into an incredible fury. The other members of the Committee looked on with contempt. Saint-Just went out with him. Levasseur at the Convention, August 30 1794. If this scene actually took place, it must have done so one day later, 11 messidor (June 29), considering Saint-Just was still away on a mission on the tenth.

Isn’t it around the same time (a few days before thermidor) that Saint-Just and Lebas would dine at your father’s house with Robespierre? Lebas often dined there, having married one of my sisters. Saint-Just rarely there, but he frequently went to Robespierre’s and climbed the stairs to his office without speaking to anyone. During the dinner which I’m talking about, did you hear Saint-Just propose to Robespierre to reconcile with some members of the Convention and Committees who appeared to be opposed to him? No. I only know that they appeared to be very devided. Do you have any ideas what these divisions were about? I only learned about it through the discussions which took place on this subject at the Jacobins and through the altercation which was said to have taken place at the Committee of Public Safety between Robespierre older and Carnot.  Robespierre’s host’s son Jacques-Maurice Duplay in an interrogation held January 1 1795

Saint-Just then fell back on his report, and said that he would join the committee the next day (9 thermidor) and that if it did not approve it, he would not read it. Collot continued to unmask Saint-Just; but as he focused more on depicting the dangers praying on the fatherland than on attacking the perfesy of Saint-Just and his accomplices, he gradually reassured himself of his confusion; he listened with composure, returning to his honeyed and hypocritical tone. Some time later, he told Collot d'Herbois that he could be reproached for having made some remarks against Robespierre in a café, and establishing this assertion as a positive fact, he admitted that he had made it the basis of an indictment against Collot, in the speech he had prepared. Réponse des membres des deux anciens Comités de salut public et de sûrété générale… (1795) page 107.

I attest that Robespierre declared himself a firm supporter of the Convention and never spoke but gently in the Committee so as not to undermine any of its members. […] Billaud-Varenne said to Robespierre, “We are your friends, we have always walked together.” This dishonesty made my heart shudder. The next day, he called him Peisistratos and had written his act of accusation. […] If you reflect carefully on what happened during your last session, you will find the application of everything I said: a man alienated from the Committee due to the bitterest treatments, when this Committee was, in fact, no longer made up of more than the two or three members present, justified himself before you; he did not explain himself clearly enough, to tell the truth, but his alienation and the bitterness in his soul can excuse him somewhat: he does not know why he is being persecuted, he knows nothing except his misfortune. He has been called a tyrant of opinion: here I must explain myself and shine light on a sophism that tends to proscribe merit. And what exclusive right do you have to opinion, you who find that it is a crime to touch souls? Do you find it wrong that a man should be tenderhearted? Are you thus from the court of Philip, you who make war on eloquence? A tyrant of opinion? Who is stopping you from competing for the esteem of the fatherland, you who find it so wrong that someone should captivate it? There is no despot in the world, save Richelieu, who would be insulted by the fame of a writer. Is it a more disinterested triumph? Cato is said to have chased from Rome the bad citizen who had called eloquence at the tribune of harangues, the tyrant of opinion. No one has the right to claim that; it gives itself to reason and its empire is not the in the power of governments. […] The member who spoke for a long time yesterday at this tribune did not seem to have  distinguished clearly enough who he was accusing. He had no complaints and has not complained either about the Committees; because the Committees still seem to me to be dignified of your estime, and the misfortunes that I have spoken to you of were born of isolation and the extreme authority of several members left alone. Saint-Just defending Robespierre in his last, undelivered speech, July 27 1794

One brings St. Just, Dumas and Payan, all of them shackled, they are escorted by policemen. They stay a good quarter of an hour standing in front of the door of the Committee’s room; one makes them sit down onto a windowsill; they have still not uttered a single word, pleasant people make the persons who surround these three men step aside, and say move back, let these gentlemen see their King sleep on a table, just like a man. Saint-Just moves his head in order to see Robespierre. Saint-Just’s figure appeared dejected and humiliated, his swollen eyes expressed chagrin. Faits recueillis aux derniers instants de Robespierre et de sa saction, du 9 au 10 thermidor (1794) by anonymous.

The Committee of General Security was being spied on by Héron, D…, Lebas: Robespierre knew, through them, word for word, everything that was happening at said committee. This espionage gave rise to more intimate connections between Couthon, Saint-Just and Robespierre. The fierce and ambitious character of the latter gave him the idea of ​​establishing the general police bureau, which, barely conceived, was immediately decreed. Révélations puisées dans les cartons des comités de Salut public et de Sûreté générale ou mémoires (inédits) (1824) by Gabriel Jérôme Sénart.

Intimately linked with Robespierre, [Saint-Just] had become necessary to him, and he had made himself feared perhaps even more than he had desired to be loved. One never saw them divided in opinion, and if the personal ideas of one had to bow to those of the other, it is certain that Saint-Just never gave in. Robespierre had a bit of that vanity which comes from selfishness; Saint-Just was full of the pride that springs from well-established beliefs; without physical courage, and weak in body, to the point of fearing the whistling of bullets, he had the courage of reflection which makes one wait for certain death, so as not to sacrifice an idea. Memoirs of René Levasseur (1829) volume 2, page 324-325.

Often [Robespierre] said to me that Camille was perhaps the one among all the key revolutionaries whom he liked best, after our younger brother and Saint-Just.  Mémoires de Charlotte Robespierre sur ses deux frères (1834) page 139.

After the month of March, 1794, Robespierre's conduct appeared to me to change. Saint-Just was to a great degree the cause of this, and this leader was too youthful ; he urged him into the vain and dangerous path of dictatorship which he haughtily proclaimed. From that time all confidences in the two committees were at an end, and the misfortunes that followed the division in the government became inevitable. […] We did not hide from [Robespierre] that Saint-Just, who was formed of more dictatorial stuff, would have ended by overturning him and occupying his place ; we knew too that he would have us guillotined because of our opposition to his plans; so we overthrew him. Memoirs of Bertrand Barère (1896), volume 1, page 103-104.

About this time Robespierre felt his ambition growing, and he thought that the moment had come to employ his influence and take part in the government. He took steps with certain members of the committee and the Convention, asking them to show a desire that he, Robespierre, should become a member of the Committee of Public Safety. He told the Jacobins it would be useful to observe the work and conduct of the members of the committee, and he told the members of the Convention that there would be more harmony between the Convention and the committee if he entered it. Several deputies spoke to me about it, and the proposal was made to the committee by Couthon and Saint-Just. To ask was to obtain, for a refusal would have been a sort of accusation, and it was necessary to avoid any split during that winter which was inaugurated in such a sinister manner. The committee agreed to his admission, and Robespierre was proposed.  Ibid, volume 2, page 96-97

The continued victories of our fourteen armies were as a cloud of glory over our frontiers, hiding from allied Europe our internecine struggles, and that unhappy side of our national character which acts and reacts so deplorably as much on the whole population as on our nghts and our manners. The enthusiasm with which I announced these victories from the tnbune was so easily seen that Saint- Just and Robespierre, being in the committee at three in the morning, and learning of the taking of Namur and some other Belgian towns, insisted for the future that the letters alone of the generals should be read, without any comments which might exaggerate their contents. I saw at once at whom this reproach was directed, and I took up the gauntlet with the deasion of a man willing to once more merit the hatred of the enemies of our national glory, and the bravery of our armies. Then Samt-Just cried, “ I beg to move that Barère be no longer allowed to add froth to our victories.” […] While Saint-Just was reproving me, Robespierre supported the longsightedness of his friend… […] The next day my report on the taking of Namur was somewhat more carefully drawn up, and I alluded to the observation of my critics, who were envious of the power of public opinion in favour of our troops, then busied in saving the country. This phrase in my report was much commented on, although its meaning was only clear to those who had heard the debate in the committee on the previous evening “Sad are the tunes, sad is the period, when the recital of the triumphs and glories of the armies of the Repubhc is coldly hastened to in this place! Henceforth liberty will be no longer defended by the country, it will be handed over to its enemies!”This pronouncement was not of a nature to be forgiven by Saint-Just and Robespierre, so they determined to supplant me with regard to these reports. They forced that idiot Couthon to attend the Committee of Public Safety at eleven in the morning, before I got there Couthon asked for the letters of the generals that had come in during the night, and took his usual seat at the back of the hall, waiting until the assembly was sufficiently full for him to announce the victones. About one, Couthon, being paralysed and unable to stand up in the tribune, coldly read the news from the armies from his place. This time, no effect was produced in the Assembly, or upon the public. This attempt, authorised by Robespierre and Saint-Just, having missed fire completely, the committee signified its dissatisfaction at the innovation. Ibid, volume 2, page 123-125

After his return from Fleurus, Saint-Just remained some time in Paris, although his mission as representative to the armies of the Sambre and Meuse and the Rhine and Moselle was unfinished. The campaign was only beginning, but he had several projects in hand, and he stayed in committee, or rather his office, where he was always absorbed and thoughtful. Robespierre, in speaking of him at the committee, said familiarly, as if speaking of an intimate friend: ”Saint-Just is silent and observant, but I have noticed, in his personality, he has a great likeness to Charles IX.” This did not flatter Saint-Just, who was a deeper and cleverer revolutionist than Robespierre. One day, when the former was angry about several legislative propositions or decrees that did not please him, Saint-Just said to him, “Be calm, it is the phlegmatic who govern.” Ibid, volume 2, page 139

This tyrannical law was the work of Saint-Just Consult the Momteuv of the 22nd of Germinal, where it is reported with the explanation of his motives, and you will see that, if there had been no committee, SamtJust would have used his power with as much dictatorial fanaticism as did Manus, that great enemy of the Roman anstocracy. Robespierre’s fnend never forgave me for having dimmished the force of this blow. Whilst I was at the tnbune of the Convention, he came, with someone unknown, and perused my register of requisitions. He took down certain names, and some days after, towards midnight, Robespierre and Saint-Just entered the committee, where they did not usually come (for they worked in a private office, under pretext that their duties were completely private) A few moments after their entry Saint-Just complained of the abuse I had made of the requisitions, which had been granted, said he, in such profusion that the law of the 21st of Germinal had become null and void. Ibid, volume 2, page 146

Robespierre, Saint-Just and Couthon were inseparable. The first two had a dark and duplicitous character; they pushed away with a kind of disdainful pride any familiarity or affectionate relationship with their colleagues. The third, a legless man with a pale appearance, affected good-nature, but was no less perfidious than the other two. All three of them had a cold heart, without pity, they interacted only with each other, holding mysterious meetings outside, having a large number of protégés and agents, impenetrable in their designs. Révélations sur le Comité de salut public by Prieur-Duvernois

Robespierre, who had great confidence in Le Bas because he knew his wise and prudent character well, had chosen him to accompany Saint-Just, whose burning love of the fatherland sometimes led to too much severity, and who had a tendency to get carried away. […] [Saint-Just] also had friendship for me and came often enough to our house. […] Finally our providence, our good friend Robespierre, spoke to Saint-Just to engage him to let me depart with them, along with my sister-in-law Henriette. He consented, but with some conditions. Memoirs of Élisabeth Lebas (1901)

Volume 8 — page 153. ”Saint-Just, his (Robespierre’s) only confident.” His only confident? Élisabeth Lebas corrects a passage in Alphonse de Lamartine’s Histoire des Girondins (1847)

The Lamenths and Péthion in the early days, quite rarely Legendre, Merlin de Thionville and Fouché, often Taschereau, Desmoulins and Teault, always Lebas, Saint-Just, David, Couthon and Buonarotti. Élisabeth Lebas regarding visitors to the Duplay’s during the revolution

—

When arriving in Paris in September 1792, Saint-Just first lived on No. 7 rue de Gaillon up until March 1794, and then on No. 3 rue de Caumartin (today’s No. 5) up until his death. Both those places were within a ten minute walking distance from Robespierre’s home on 398 Rue Saint-Honoré.

Saint-Just was away from Paris (and therefore Robespierre) on missions between March 9 to March 31, October 17 to December 4, December 10 to December 30 (1793), January 22 to February 13, April 30 to May 31 and June 10 to June 29 (1794).

[contemplatingoutlander]

This is such an important article, the above link is a gift 🎁 link so that anyone can read the entire article, even if they don't subscribe to The New York Times. Here are some highlights:

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning. The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review. [...] He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.” [...] The provision in question is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War, it bars those who had taken an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” from holding office if they then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” [...] The article concluded that essentially all of that evidence pointed in the same direction: “toward a broad understanding of what constitutes insurrection and rebellion and a remarkably, almost extraordinarily, broad understanding of what types of conduct constitute engaging in, assisting, or giving aid or comfort to such movements.” It added, “The bottom line is that Donald Trump both ‘engaged in’ ‘insurrection or rebellion’ and gave ‘aid or comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.” [...] The provision’s language is automatic, the article said, establishing a qualification for holding office no different in principle from the Constitution’s requirement that only people who are at least 35 years old are eligible to be president. “Section 3’s disqualification rule may and must be followed — applied, honored, obeyed, enforced, carried out — by anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified to office,” the authors wrote. That includes election administrators, the article said. Professor Calabresi said those administrators must act. “Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” he said, adding that they may be sued for refusing to do so. [color/emphasis added]

Let's hope that election administrators across the US read this article and begin to set in motion the mechanism to prevent Donald Trump from appearing on ballots across the U.S., in case he does get the GOP nomination.

[whencyclopedia]

Alien and Sedition Acts

The Alien and Sedition Acts were four laws passed by President John Adams and the Federalist-controlled Congress in 1798 that restricted immigration and free speech in the United States. Framed by the Federalist Party as a necessary measure to protect national security during the Quasi-War (1798-1800), the acts were deeply controversial and were challenged as being unconstitutional.

The acts were passed in response to heightening tensions between the United States and Revolutionary France in the aftermath of the XYZ Affair. Concerned by the recent influx of French and Irish émigrés, whose loyalties were considered questionable, the Federalist Party enacted three 'alien' acts during the summer of 1798. The first was the Naturalization Act, which increased the amount of time an immigrant must live in the United States before being eligible for citizenship from 5 to 14 years. Next came the Alien Friends Act, which allowed the president to deport any non-citizen he deemed to be a threat to national security. This was supplemented by the Alien Enemies Act, in which non-citizens hailing from a country at war with the United States could arbitrarily be detained or deported; the Enemies Act remains in effect today and has been invoked several times, most notably during the world wars of the 20th century. Finally, the Sedition Act criminalized the printing of material considered to be "false, scandalous, or malicious" about the president or the US government.

The Alien and Sedition Acts caused a major uproar, with members of the Democratic-Republican Party (Jeffersonian Democrats) condemning them as unconstitutional. Although no one ended up being arrested or deported under the Alien Acts, several people were arrested, tried, and convicted under the Sedition Act, accused of printing material critical of the Federalist-controlled government. Vice President Thomas Jefferson, leader of the opposition, denounced this as a clear violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and press. The backlash against the Alien and Sedition Acts helped Jefferson win the presidency during the election of 1800 and forever stained the reputation of the Federalists, who would never again win the presidency or enjoy the heights of power they had achieved in 1798.

Background

By the late 1790s, the United States was experiencing a deep partisan rift. The nationalist Federalist Party championed a strong national government, big banks, and a build-up of the American military. In international affairs, Federalists tended to support Great Britain, which they regarded as a natural ally to the US and condemned the radicalism of the concurrent French Revolution (1789-1799). Their rival Democratic-Republican Party (Jeffersonian Democrats), by contrast, emerged in favor of decentralized government and republicanism and denounced the Federalists as too aristocratic. They supported the French Republic and rejected the influence of Britain, which they feared would only lead to a re-emergence of monarchism in the United States. Despite President George Washington's Farewell Address, in which he warned against such partisanship, the divide between the two factions had only widened since Washington left office in March 1797. By the start of John Adams' presidency, each party viewed the other as an existential threat to the country.

President Adams was a Federalist, the only member of that party to ever occupy the presidency. But he was not as radical as the Hamiltonian wing of the party and was not as averse to dealing with France as some of his party may have been. This was significant since, at the time Adams was inaugurated in March 1797, the United States and Revolutionary France were on the brink of war. The French Republic was already at war with Britain and had interpreted the signing of the Jay Treaty – a controversial commercial agreement between the US and Britain – as a British-American alliance. In retaliation, French privateers began attacking neutral American shipping in late 1796, arguing that any American ship carrying British cargo was liable to be seized as a valid prize. Within a year, French privateers had captured nearly 300 American ships and had mistreated their crews. While many Federalists clamored for war, President Adams preferred negotiation. In the autumn of 1797, he dispatched three envoys to Paris – John Marshall, Elbridge Gerry, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney – to assert American neutrality in the ongoing French Revolutionary Wars and to hopefully restore relations between the US and France.

This diplomatic mission failed. In an incident known as the XYZ Affair, French agents refused to open negotiations unless the United States agreed to pay a large bribe, resorting to thinly veiled threats once the American envoys resisted the notion. On 5 March 1798, President Adams told Congress that negotiations had failed and, shortly thereafter, requested a build-up of the American army and navy. The aging former President Washington was pulled out of his retirement at Mount Vernon and named commander-in-chief of the American army, which was being organized by the Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton. American and French frigates clashed on the high seas; although this conflict, the Quasi-War, never wound up escalating beyond limited naval skirmishes, for a time it seemed as though France and the United States were on the brink of a major war.

Naval Battle during the Quasi-War, between USS Constellation and L'Insurgente

John William Schmidt (Public Domain)

In the months after the details of the XYZ Affair were published, the American public were firmly behind the Federalists; Adams reached the height of his popularity in mid-1798, allowing him and the Federalists to begin their military build-up program practically unimpeded. The blatant disrespectful behavior of the French agents left the Democratic-Republicans with little ammunition, giving them little recourse but to stand to the side and announce that the country was making a bad decision by going to war with France. This was the context – deep partisan rivalry and the looming threat of war – that led Adams and the Federalists to create the Alien and Sedition Acts, policies that ultimately helped lead to the decline of the Federalist Party itself.

Continue reading...

[victusinveritas]

'To avoid smashing fingers' (American work safety poster by 'Muni' (Muni Lieblein?)/ U.S. Government Printing Office. United States of America, 1944).

[usafphantom2]

SR-71 pilot recalls when a Soviet MiG-23 pilot asked him to bring his Blackbird at Vladivostok as a gesture of peaceful relationship. He answered him to forward his request to US state department.

The Blackbird 🐦‍⬛

What aviation geek doesn’t love speed, new technologies, advanced manufacturing methods, and the mysteries of a secret government program? Many aircraft embody these features, but none come close to the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird.

It could fly over Vietnam in eight minutes, its electronic counter measures were so advanced that they are still in use today on other airplanes and remain top-secret, had tires filled with nitrogen, and was made from one of the most expensive metals on earth. And, it’s still the world’s fastest plane.

CLICK HERE to see The Aviation Geek Club contributor Linda Sheffield’s T-shirt designs! Linda has a personal relationship with the SR-71 because her father Butch Sheffield flew the Blackbird from test flight in 1965 until 1973. Butch’s Granddaughter’s Lisa Burroughs and Susan Miller are graphic designers. They designed most of the merchandise that is for sale on Threadless. A percentage of the profits go to Flight Test Museum at Edwards Air Force Base. This nonprofit charity is personal to the Sheffield family because they are raising money to house SR-71, #955. This was the first Blackbird that Butch Sheffield flew on Oct. 4, 1965.

For speed, innovation and secrecy, no aircraft of its era came close to the SR-71 Blackbird.

First public display since the 1976 record-setting speed record

As told by Paul Crickmore in his book Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond the Secret Missions – The Missing Chapters, in 1977, Blackbird pilot Buz Carpenter and RSO John Murphy’s TDY at Mildenhall, United Kingdom, was extended to support the air tattoo celebration of the Queen’s silver jubilee open house. This would be the first public display of an SR-71 since the record-setting speed record in 1976 from New York to London in under two hours.

Carpenter recalls;

‘The SR-71 would be part of the static display but roped off so that people could not touch the aircraft. We were advised that, indeed, the Russians were coming. To prevent the Russians or anybody else from exploiting the display. No sensors were left on the aircraft, all fuel had been removed from the tanks, and the plane was heat-soaked to an ambient temperature to prevent infrared cameras from discovering the aircraft’s secrets, internal structure, and support systems. We four crewmembers Buz Carpenter, John Murphy, JT Vida, and Tom Alison were standing around the aircraft, answering questions from the crowd when sure enough the Russians showed up in numbers. They took numerous regular and infrared photos. Some of the Russians even had hidden microscopes.

SR-71 art

This print is available in multiple sizes from AircraftProfilePrints.com – CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS. Dawn at 80.000ft – SR-71 Blackbird

‘They were a site to see coming up like a convey of quails.

Soviet MiG-23 pilot asks to bring an SR-71 at Vladivostok

‘It looks like the Salvation Army had outed them. Their dress sense was from a 1930s movie about American mobsters. They were wearing double-breasted suits made from a rougher cloth than one normally sees.

‘The head of the Soviet delegation is a former MiG-23 fighter pilot who’s quite relaxed and talkative in his demeanor. He asked John and me to drop in on Vladivostok (the USSR) as a gesture of peaceful relationship.

‘We just quipped “please forward that request to our state department.” Buz Carpenter.’

Be sure to check out Linda Sheffield Miller (Col Richard (Butch) Sheffield’s daughter, Col. Sheffield was an SR-71 Reconnaissance Systems Officer) Twitter X Page Habubrats SR-71, Instagram Page SR71Habubrats and Facebook Page Born into the Wilde Blue Yonder Habubrats for awesome Blackbird’s photos and stories.

@Habubrats71 via X

[nostalgebraist-autoresponder]

More bullshit interview questions:

Explain how a compass works.

How would you explain leap years to a kindergarten class?

Do you think man ever really went to the moon? Explain your answer.

Describe the difference between real estate and personal property. How are they similar?

Why do banks charge a fee for check overdrafts? Is this fair?

Do you believe in life after death? Explain.

Is there any place in America that has never been explored by humans? Where?

Does it matter if the Jones Act is repealed? Explain your answer.

What would you do if you won the lottery? Why?

What are the three primary causes of WW2?

Do you believe in Bigfoot? Why or why not?

What percentage of the population in your state is in the military? How do you know?

What percentage of the population in your state works for the government? How do you know?

Should parole be eliminated? Explain your answer.

What direction do rivers usually flow? Why?

What's wrong with the way the government runs?

Do you think the U.S. government has ever been secretly controlled by a dictator? How could you prove it?

Describe a mistake you made and what you learned from it.

How many tools does a mechanic typically need to do his job?

What's the difference between a car and a truck? Explain your answer.

How do you determine whether to support a political candidate?

If the U.S. Census were conducted using only postal workers, how many people would be counted? Why?

Is it better to be loved or feared? Explain your answer.

Why do you think some states have higher rates of alcoholism than others?

Is our current banking system better or worse than it was 100 years ago? Explain your answer.

Can you think of a law that isn't enforceable?

Who is the most important person in America? Explain your answer.

What causes earthquakes?

What would happen if the government could print an unlimited amount of money?

Can an adult go through life without ever breaking the law? Why or why not?

Is it better to be born poor or to be born rich? Explain your answer.

At what age should someone be allowed to vote? Why?

What's the best part about the work you do?

If you won the lottery, would you continue working? Why or why not?

What candidate for public office are you most afraid of? Why?

Is there ever a time when it's OK to lie? Explain your answer.

Should a person's right to vote be based on education or income? Why?

If you won the lottery, would you continue working? Explain your answer.

If the world were to be destroyed in 30 minutes and there were only enough resources to save one of these three things, which would you choose? A: Art B: Computers C: Music

What would happen if we abolished the income tax?

Describe the best boss you ever had. What made that person so special?

Is there an age limit on the right to drive? Why or why not?

Do you believe in luck? Explain your answer.

What trait do you think is most important for a politician to have?

Describe a mistake you made and what you learned from it.

Is there such a thing as work-life balance?

Describe a project you've worked on that didn't turn out as planned.

What do you like and dislike about your current job?

What's the number one quality a person should have to be president of the United States?

What is your opinion on affirmative action?

What makes a good boss?

How would you explain leap years to a kindergarten class?

Does it matter if the Jones Act is repealed? Explain your answer.

Validate something that your interviewer says. Why?

Do you think man ever really went to the moon? Explain your answer.

Can an adult go through life without ever breaking the law? Why or why not?

Regardless of what you believe politically, what is your opinion on the death penalty?

Do you believe in Bigfoot? Why or why not?

Is there any place in America that has never been explored by humans? Where?

[ . . . ]

Describe something you did in high school that you would never do again.

(From Gawker)

[darkmaga-retard]

Price controls, higher taxes, government intervention, and subsidies paid for by printing a constantly devalued currency.

These are the essential pillars of “21st century socialism” and the radical left Peronism that obliterated Argentina. These are also the main elements of the economic plan presented by Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party. Undoubtedly, this is the most radical socialist economic plan ever announced by the Democrats.

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), Harris’s proposals will cost $1.95 trillion over 10 years. However, it emphasizes that if certain measures become permanent, this figure could increase to $2.25 trillion.

The Harris campaign has stated that these costs will be offset by a classic excuse of socialism in any election: “higher taxes on corporations and high earners.” This is, obviously, ludicrous, because there is no revenue measure that will cover the already bloated $2 trillion annual deficit and an added $2 trillion. The mantra of “higher taxes for the rich” always means higher taxes and more inflation, a hidden tax, for you.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has already warned of the fiscal disaster of the United States, with an annual deficit of 6% of GDP. Despite not accounting for a recession and projecting record tax revenues from 2024 to 2034, the CBO predicts an explosion in the budget deficit from $1.9 trillion to $2.8 trillion by 2034, even before factoring in Harris’s new spending plan. This means that the adjusted deficit will rise above 6.9 percent of GDP by 2034, almost twice the average of 3.7 percent over the previous 50 years.

[ethereal-bumble-bee]

Cot Sponlon Lore!!!

(Here’s some info on Cot Sponlon and his campaign for President of the United States! Feel free to suggest additions/ask questions, and don’t forget- Vote Cot Sponlon in 2024!)

Backstory:

    I’m doomed, Spot lamented silently as he stared at the papers on the desk before him. They were written in fancy language that he barely understood, with official-looking stamps and signatures plastered over every sheet, and Spot felt as if they were trying to suck the soul out of his body.

    It had all started as a joke. He’d been drunk with Race on a Saturday night, and the other boy had made some sort of joke- like a “hey, what if you ran for President of the United States” sort of joke- and Spot had taken it seriously. A more sober version of him (but still a version with horrible ideas) had gone through the process, somehow getting himself involved with New York’s state government and also somehow getting nominated to represent the Democratic Party in the race. 

    Cot Sponlon was the name he’d chosen. A stupid mixed-up version of his childhood nickname that somehow went unchecked by everyone he came into contact with (he didn’t know how), the name that newscasters either berated or praised on television, the name that he’d have to use for the rest of his life if he wanted to keep up this ruse. He had no clue how nobody had checked to see if Cot Sponlon was a U.S citizen, if he old enough to run for president, or even if he was a real person at all, and he fully blamed the carelessness of everyone else for the mix up. Apparently, it didn’t take much trickery to fool the old men in office, as he’d done it with ease.

    Spot sorted through the endless stack of files on the desk, seeing his “name” in immaculately typed script on each one, trying to make sense of the duties he’d be taking over. This is a fucking fever dream, he thought to himself, holding back a cry of frustration as he caught the word deadline for the five hundredth time. He wasn’t quite sure how he was going to get himself out of this mess- it wasn’t as if you had to have some sort of permit to run for president, and somehow America had welcomed Cot Sponlon with open arms, most claiming that he was the best fit to lead the country. Make America Gay Again was the slogan he’d chosen- a take on some fat orange bastard’s battle cry that was somehow endearing to weirdos like himself everywhere.

    No matter the fact that he had dropped out of college at age twenty, that most of his former schoolteachers were surprised he ever learned how to read, much less create a lie so elaborate that he could fool the entire world. It would only take a bit of common sense for it all to come crashing down, for him to be exposed as the clueless leader he was. 

    A banner hung above his small desk- one that read: Cot Sponlon, 2024. Staring up at the brightly printed letters, disbelieving of his own stupidity, Spot made up his mind to keep going with this, even if it was just to see how far he could fuck over the country before they realized he was a fake.

    And, who knows, maybe I could make a difference, Spot thought to himself, suppressing a laugh as he continued to flip through the never-ending paperwork, the name he’d created destined to lead him far into the world of politics he’d never truly meant to sign up for.

Information About Our Candidate:

Name: Cot Sponlon

Age: Twenty-two

Campaign slogan: Make America Gay Again

Political Party: Democrat

College Degrees: None

Interviews and more to come soon! Feel free to ask questions to Mr. Sponlon through the ask box!

[todaysdocument]

Circular Entitled Colored Soldiers! Equal State Rights! And Monthly Pay with White Men!

Record Group 94: Records of the Adjutant General's OfficeSeries: Letters ReceivedFile Unit: Consolidated File for Major Martin Delaney, 104th USCT Infantry Regiment

BLACK NATIONAL DEFENDERS! The State or Connecticut is authorized to raise Colored Troops; and any number of her quota of 5,000 may be colored men. 29th Regiment Connecticut Volunteers, is now being formed at Camp Buckingham, composed entirely of Colored Men, located at the beautiful City of New Haven, the seat of Yale University. STATE BOUNTY, $200.00 CASH! On being sworn in. By an old law of the State, 30 dollars a year are allowed to each soldier for clothing, 10dol- lars of which is paid down at the time of entering the service, the other 20 dollars being paid in four month payments each, making 210 dollars Bounty--cash, on joining the Regiment--and 20 dollars more during the year. An important fact connected with this recruiting is, that the contract for raising the troops has been given to a Colored Man; and Connecticut is the first State, since the war commenced, which has been thus liberal and considerate. This fact alone should be an inducement for COLORED MEN to rally to her standard; all the Recruiting Agents in the West being Colored; and this principle should prevail everywhere. Colored Men should recruit Colored Men, as best adapted to it. The most liberal compensation will be given to Good Agents, about 50 such being now wanted, and to whom will be paid Cash so soon as service is rendered. APPLY WITHOUT DELAY TO DR. M.R. DELANY, State Contractor, Head-quarters of the West and South-Western States and Territories, 172 Clark Street, Top Story, Chicago, Ill. JOHN JONES, Assistant. LIEUT [crossed out] W.F. STAINES, Evansville, Ind. [image of hand, pointing] For further information, address Dr. M.R. Delany, Box 764, Chicago, Ill. NOTE--I may add here that I am much indebted for obtaining this contract to Major Sanford, of Heavy Artillery Service, and other gentlemen in the Rhode Island Heavy Artillery, who reom- mended me to the authorities of Cleveland. [crossed out] Connecticut. [hand-written] M.R. Delany, State Contractor. Chicago, Ill., Dec. 1st, 1863. P.S.--All recruiting in the States in which it is prohibited is hereby forbidden. M.R.D. Chicago Evening Journal Print, 50 Dearborn Street. D 135 A.G.O. C.T. 1863 [hand-written in red ink along bottom right side]COLORED SOLDIERS! EQUAL STATE RIGHTS! AND MONTHLY PAY WITH WHITE MEN! On the 1st day of January, 1863, the President of the United States proclaimed FREEDOM TO OVER THREE MILLIONS OF SLAVES! The decree is to be enforced by all the power of the Nation. On the 21st of July last he issued the following order:-- PROTECTION OF COLORED TROOPS. "WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE,"} WASHINGTON, JULY 21. General Order, No. 233. "The following order of the President is published for the information and government of all concerned:-- EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 30. '"It is the duty of every Government to give protection to its citizens, of whatever class, color, or condition, and especially to those who are duly organized as soldiers in the public service. The law of nations, and the usages and customs of war, as carried on by civilized powers, permit no distinction s to color in the treatment of prisoners of war as public enemies. To sell or enslave any captured person on account of his color, is a relapse into barbarism, and a crime against the civilization of the age. '"The Government of the United States will give the same protection to all its soldiers, and if the enemy shall sell or enslave any one because of his color, the offence shall be punished by retaliation upon the enemy's prisoners in our possession. It is, therefore ordered, for every soldier of the United States, killed in violation of the laws of war, a rebel soldier shall be executed; and for every one enslaved by the enemy, or sold into slavery, a revel soldier shall be placed at hard labor on the public works, and continued at such labor until the other shall be released and receive the treatment due to prisoners of war. '"ABRAHAM LINCOLN."' '"By order of the Secretary of War. '"E.D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant General."' That the [full transcription at link]