#hamilton electors

[knuckleduster]

okay not to be this person but insane how good rwrb is when its not being bad. like i expected a mediocre romance novel with major cringe moments but its actually a really good romance novel with extreme cringe moments

[mitchipedia]

Hamilton Nolan: “You patsy. We don’t have time for this bullshit”

How Things Work: Labor can become more powerful if unions organize the 90% of American workers who don’t belong. Sucking up to Republicans is not the answer.

Making the Republican Party less hostile to the interests of the working class is a nice goal but if you think that this will be the result of electing a fascist who tried the steal the last election and who famously stiffs people who work for him and who is an egomaniac and who has never supported the electoral agenda of unions and who lies constantly and who is running on a racist platform of demonizing immigrants—you are stupid. You are a patsy if you think this.

[rabbitcruiser]

Thomas Jefferson Day

Thomas Jefferson, a founding father of the United States, was born on April 13, 1743. He held many roles and did much during the formative years of the country, including being the main author of the Declaration of Independence and the country’s third president. He wrote his own epitaph, highlighting what he most wanted to be remembered for: “HERE WAS BURIED THOMAS JEFFERSON AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA.”

Thomas Jefferson Day is a legal observance, but it is not a public holiday. A joint resolution approved on August 16, 1937, authorized the President of the United States to proclaim April 13 as “Thomas Jefferson’s Birthday” each year. The following year, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Presidential Proclamation 2276 to designate the day. Subsequent presidents have made similar proclamations. In Alabama, Thomas Jefferson’s birthday is officially celebrated on Presidents’ Day, along with George Washington’s.

Thomas Jefferson was born at the Shadwell plantation in Albemarle County, Virginia. His mother, Jane Randolph Jefferson, was from a prominent Virginia family, and his father, Peter Jefferson, was a planter and surveyor. After graduating from the College of William and Mary in 1762, he began studying law. As there weren’t official law schools at the time, Jefferson studied under a Virginia attorney. He began his work as a lawyer in 1767.

He married Martha Wayles Skelton on January 1, 1772. They had six children, but only two daughters lived to adulthood. Martha died in 1782 at the age of 33, and Jefferson never remarried. Besides keeping himself busy with politics throughout his life, he had many other interests, including gardening, architecture, music, and reading.

Jefferson was a member of colonial Virginia’s House of Burgesses between 1769 and 1775. He wrote “A Summary View of the Rights of British America” in 1774, which brought him to a wider audience. It said that the British Parliament didn’t have the right to use authority over the colonies. He was then selected to be a delegate to the Second Continental Congress. During this time, a panel of five was chosen to draft the Declaration of Independence. Of the five, which also included John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson was chosen to write the draft. It was adopted on July 4, 1776.

In the fall of 1776, Jefferson resigned from the Continental Congress and was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates, which was formerly the House of Burgesses. In the late 1770s, he drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. It was a notable forerunner to the First Amendment, and Jefferson thought it was one of his most substantial contributions, being important enough to include in his epitaph. After his time in the Virginia House of Delegates, he was Governor of Virginia from 1779 to 1781.

Following the Revolutionary War, Jefferson was part of Congress, which was known as the Congress of the Confederation at the time. He served from 1783 to 1784, and then became Minister to France in 1785, taking over the position that Benjamin Franklin had held. Because he was overseas, he was not able to attend the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

In the fall of 1789, Thomas Jefferson returned to America and became the first secretary of state. He helped found the Democratic-Republican Party, which opposed Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party, a party which wanted a strong central government with strong powers over the economy. Jefferson believed in a federal government with a limited role and believed in strong state and local governments.

He ran for president in 1796 and received the largest amount of votes after John Adams, so he became vice president. He ran against Adams again in 1800, and this time beat him. But his electoral vote count tied that of his running mate, Aaron Burr, and it was up to the House of Representatives to declare Jefferson as president. Because of this, the Twelfth Amendment, which stipulated separate voting for president and vice president, was ratified in 1804.

Jefferson served two terms as president and was in office from 1801 to 1809. During his first term, in 1803, he helped orchestrate the Louisiana Purchase, in which the size of the United States doubled with the purchase of land for $15 million from France. Jefferson sent Meriwether Lewis and William Clark on an expedition, known as the Corps of Discovery, to explore the new land. With this trip, information was gathered about geography, plant and animal life, and American Indian tribes. During his second term, which he secured with over 70% of the popular vote, Jefferson worked to keep the country out of the Napoleonic Wars. He implemented the Embargo of 1807 after merchant ships were getting harassed by France and Britain. It was an unpopular move, though, as it shut down American trade and hurt the economy; it was repealed in 1809. Jefferson did not run for a third term in 1808.

After his presidency, Jefferson retired to his home, Monticello. “Monticello” means “little mountain” in Italian. Indeed the home is located on a small mountain, on the edge of the Shadwell property where Jefferson was born. He had begun clearing the area for a home in 1768. He designed the home and gardens himself, and he continually worked on the house throughout his life. Art and gadgets filled the rooms, and he kept records of everything that went on at the plantation.

During his retirement years, he also helped found the University of Virginia. He helped design both its buildings and its curriculum. He also made sure it wasn’t a religious school and that there wasn’t a religious litmus test in order to attend it.

In 1815, he sold his 6,700 volume personal library to Congress, to replace the books that had been destroyed by the British in the War of 1812, when they burned the Capitol, which housed the Library of Congress at the time. Jefferson’s books became the foundation of what became the Library of Congress’s new library.

Although Jefferson is revered as one of the founding fathers, he is not a man without contradictions and shortcomings. He was a promoter of liberty and wrote “all men are created equal,” but was a slave owner throughout his whole life, during which he owned a total of about 600 slaves. He believed blacks were inferior humans and didn’t think coexistence would be possible if they were free. And although he never remarried after the loss of his beloved wife, Martha, he went on to father more children with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. Some of the slaves that were in his bloodline were freed after his death, but most of his slaves were sold.

Thomas Jefferson passed away at Monticello at the age of 83, on July 4, 1826, on the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. As if the date of his death wasn’t ironic enough, fellow founding father John Adams died on the same day. Thomas Jefferson died first, but Adams did not know that Jefferson had died, and his last words were “Thomas Jefferson survives.” Jefferson was buried at Monticello. Monticello was sold off following his death to pay debts, but a nonprofit organization acquired it in the twentieth century and it was opened to the public in 1954.

Source

[centrally-unplanned]

I think George Washington is a good ask here because there's a variety of different perspectives to evaluate him from, as well as insights into how each is considered to matter. Like, did he make the British colonies in North America more or less likely to become independent? Did he make the new state more or less secure? Was it a good or bad thing that the 13 colonies became independent? How good of a job do you think he did at whatever goals he personally had in mind? What did he have in mind, anyway - just rent-seeking for Virginian aristocrats or some more idealistic definition of "good" that bears resemblance to something we'd appreciate?

George Washington is a very interesting figure, because he is a classic "consensus leader" in some ways, but in an era where "consensus" is in fact very hard to come across and takes unique talent to be forged. I think we can bucket him: As a military leader he is only "fine": not bad, don't get me wrong, but he has no core tactical innovations or operational finesse on display. He certainly does deserve credit for his "wait them out" approach, and its true that he received political pressure from groups like the Continental Congress that he resisted. But this is a classic VOR moment: of course the distant, political actors demanded infeasible military action that the on-the-ground, faced-with-the-consequences-of-defeat guy would resist. That is a classic dynamic. Other generals in the war faced similar demands and similarly resisted. Again, he was an able commander, just nothing amazing.

I don't view him as being overly crucial in the core "state making" moments for the US in forming the constitution and all that- essentially the dynamics of the war of independence, the strength of their state rivals, and how the colonial economy functioned made a unified state the natural course. So here its not controversial to claim his VOR is pretty low.

However, I give him very high VOR for his presidency in the core process of interpreting that constitutional foundation through the lends of a strong federalized government with legalist, cohesive norms. He is not an innovator (people like Hamilton are doing that work) but he really was the One Guy In The Room who could bring the crazy factions together and stake his prestige on necessary tax reforms, financial reform, and crushing rebellion. VOR here matters - someone would have done something in the face of these, but the alt timeline is that states gain more and more autonomy. I think few people but Washington could have set the the federal government up as well as he.

So overall I would give him... lets go with A-, he plays a similar role as Lee Kuan Yew, if via very different tactics.

Demerits though for his lack of future planning on things like political parties & strong electoral politics. In that category he is pretty much VOR-less, he did what the default man would do and failed to exert any agency over it.

As for his own goals, he is very idealistic, and was actually, truly concerned with the idea of a strong, independent republic - he was born rich, he could afford to do that of course. And vis a vis slavery the strength of the union and the federal government was the only way it would be ended in the south on the timeline it was. The process of abolition in the south was very much a product of northern abolitionists forcing change onto resisting foreign polities. Colonizing them, if you will, with their own culture & systems. So he was a net good for this cause, even if it was not at all his own personal agenda.

[spiderine]

Hillary Clinton is the person who would have been our 45th president had there not been a deliberate sabotage of our country's electoral process orchestrated by one of our major political parties with the help of a foreign govenment.

Please don't let this happen again.

Anyway, here she is, the only person who has ever debated both Biden and Trump, and this is what she has to say. Because it's a NYT article, it's paywalled, so I have copied and pasted the entire text behind a cut. But here's a key quote:

"...it is nearly impossible to focus on substance when Mr. Trump is involved.... It is a waste of time to try to refute Mr. Trump’s arguments like in a normal debate....It’s nearly impossible to identify what his arguments even are."

OPINION | HILLARY CLINTON: I’VE DEBATED TRUMP AND BIDEN. HERE’S WHAT I’M WATCHING FOR.

Last week, I had the time of my life at the Tony Awards introducing a song from “Suffs,” the Broadway musical I co-produced about the suffragists who won women the right to vote. I was thrilled when the show took home the awards for best original score and best book.

From “Suffs” to “Hamilton,” I love theater about politics. But not the other way around. Too often we approach pivotal moments like this week’s debate between President Biden and Donald Trump like drama critics. We’re picking a president, not “best actor.”

I am the only person to have debated both men (Mr. Trump in 2016 and, in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary race, Senator Biden). I know the excruciating pressure of walking onto that stage and that it is nearly impossible to focus on substance when Mr. Trump is involved. In our three debates in 2016, he unleashed a blizzard of interruptions, insults and lies that overwhelmed the moderators and did a disservice to the voters who tuned in to learn about our visions for the country — including a record 84 million viewers for our first debate.

It is a waste of time to try to refute Mr. Trump’s arguments like in a normal debate. It’s nearly impossible to identify what his arguments even are. He starts with nonsense and then digresses into blather. This has gotten only worse in the years since we debated. I was not surprised that after a recent meeting, several chief executives said that Mr. Trump, as one journalist described it, “could not keep a straight thought” and was “all over the map.” Yet expectations for him are so low that if he doesn’t literally light himself on fire on Thursday evening, some will say he was downright presidential.

Mr. Trump may rant and rave in part because he wants to avoid giving straight answers about his unpopular positions, like restrictions on abortion, giving tax breaks to billionaires and selling out our planet to big oil companies in return for campaign donations. He interrupts and bullies — even stalking me around the stage at one point — because he wants to appear dominant and throw his opponent off balance.

These ploys will fall flat if President Biden is as direct and forceful as he was when engaging Republican hecklers at the State of the Union address in March. The president also has facts and truth on his side. He led America’s comeback from a historic health and economic crisis, with more than 15 million jobs created so far, incomes for working families rising, inflation slowing and investments in clean energy and advanced manufacturing soaring. He’ll win if that story comes through.

In 2016, I prepared intensely for the debates because I knew I had to find a way to cut through Mr. Trump’s antics and help the American people understand what was really at stake. In 90-minute mock debates on an identical stage, I practiced keeping my cool in the face of hard questions and outright lies about my record and character. A longtime adviser played Mr. Trump and did everything he could to provoke, rattle, and enrage me. It worked.

Unfortunately, Mr. Biden starts from a disadvantage because there’s no way he can spend as much time preparing as I did eight years ago. Being president isn’t just a day job; it’s an everything-everywhere-all-at-once job. Historically, that has led to weaker first debate performances for the incumbent.

As viewers, we should try not to get hung up on the theatrics. Here are three things to watch for instead.

First, pay attention to how the candidates talk about people, not just policies. In my third debate with Mr. Trump, he promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. I responded that this would have real consequences for real women. Mr. Trump had already said women should be punished for getting abortions. “You should meet with some of the women I’ve met with,” I told him. “I’ve been to countries where governments either forced women to have abortions, like they used to do in China, or forced women to bear children like they used to do in Romania. And I can tell you, the government has no business in the decisions that women make with their families in accordance with their faith, with medical advice.”

On Thursday, Mr. Trump will most likely say he wants to leave abortion to the states. He hopes that sounds moderate. But it really means he’s endorsing the most extreme abortion bans already imposed by many states and all the extreme restrictions to come. Mr. Trump should have to answer for the 12-year-old girl in Mississippi who was raped and then forced to carry a child to term. She started the seventh grade with a newborn because of her state’s draconian abortion ban. It’s because of Mr. Trump that in Louisiana a young girl unable to get an abortion went into labor clutching a teddy bear. Studies find that women living under abortion bans are up to three times more likely to die during pregnancy, childbirth or soon after giving birth. Because of Mr. Trump, one in three women of reproductive age now lives under such restrictions.

Mr. Biden is one of the most empathetic leaders we’ve ever had. Listen to how sincerely he talks about women’s rights, the struggles of working families, opportunities for people of color and the courage of Ukrainian men and women risking their lives for democracy. Mr. Trump can’t do that because he cares only about himself.

Second, try to see through the bluster and focus on the fundamentals at stake. In 2016, Mr. Trump refused to say whether he would accept the results of the election. “I’ll keep you in suspense,” he said. “That is not the way our democracy works,” I responded. “Let’s be clear about what he’s saying and what that means.” You can draw a straight line from that exchange to the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

This time, expect Mr. Trump to blame Mr. Biden for inflation but avoid answering questions about his own economic plans. He has to deflect or lie because his proposals — tax cuts for the superrich, gutting the Affordable Care Act, deporting millions of workers and slapping across-the-board tariffs on everyday goods — would exacerbate inflation, raise costs for American households and cause a recession. That’s not my prediction; it’s from Wall Street’s Moody’s Analytics. Experts at the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics estimated that Mr. Trump’s tariffs alone would mean, in effect, a $1,700 tax increase each year for the average American family — or more.

For his part, Mr. Biden is clearly eager to talk about his plans to lower costs. He has stood up to powerful pharmaceutical companies by capping the cost of insulin and signing a law to allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices for the first time. On Thursday, listen for plans to take on corporate price gouging and make gas, groceries and housing more affordable. The president has already helped one in 10 Americans with federal student loans get much-needed relief. He most likely will be ready to offer more ideas for how to help young people get a strong start and afford a middle-class life.

Third, when you see these two men side by side, think about the real choice in this election. It’s between chaos and competence. [bold emphasis added by me]

Mr. Trump has been convicted of 34 felonies and found liable for sexual assault and financial fraud. He’s spent a lifetime putting himself first. If he gets back to the White House, we’ll have more inflation and less freedom. It won’t just be a rerun of his first term. Since losing in 2020, Mr. Trump has become angrier and more unhinged. His former secretary of defense says he is “a threat to democracy.” His former chief of staff says he “has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution and the rule of law.” Remember that on Thursday when you hear Mr. Trump recite his grievances and vow retribution.

By contrast, Mr. Biden is a wise and decent man who is fighting hard for working families. Yes, he’s 81. That’s just three years older than Mr. Trump. And his lifetime of service and experience helps him get things done that make our country stronger and all of our lives better, from bringing Democrats and Republicans together to fix crumbling roads and bridges to standing up to Russian aggression.

This election is between a convicted criminal out for revenge and a president who delivers results for the American people. No matter what happens in the debate, that’s an easy choice.

[bold emphasis added by me]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Constitutional Courage

How our fears endanger our future

TIMOTHY SNYDER

JAN 10, 2024

If we ignore the Constitution now, it will not protect our rights later.  We are ignoring it now, because we are afraid.

The Constitution is meant to handle our emotions, to “address itself immediately to the hopes and fears of individuals,” in Alexander Hamilton’s words.  

But there is one fear it cannot address: fear of the Constitution itself.  Too many of us, right now, are running in fear of the Constitution. 

How did it come to this?  An insurrectionist, Donald Trump, purports to be running for president, although the Constitution forbids this.  Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment frankly disqualifies anyone who has taken part in an insurrection, or given aid and comfort to insurrectionists.  Trump has done both, and boasts of having done both. 

The authors of Section Three anticipated just such a frightful situation.  An insurrectionist who swears an oath and violates it has done something terrible.  He will have allies who have tasted tyranny and liked it.  By mandating just how to deal with such a person, Section Three lends us strength we might not otherwise have.  The Constitution defends itself by guiding us towards our better selves. 

Yet Americans who should know better are choosing fear over the Constitution, finding excuses to ignore what it says.  Indeed, they are choosing to fear the Constitution.  Far too many politicians and other media commentators respond to our present situation -- a real insurrectionist who has tried to overthrow the Constitution while in office, a real Constitutional ban on insurrectionists running for office a second time -- by saying that it is the Constitution that must yield. 

Their slogan is: “let the voters decide.”  That is to say: in the case of Trump, and Trump alone, let us simply overlook what the Constitution says. 

The exceptionalism reeks of fear.  In no other case do we wish away the qualifications for office.  There will be thousands and thousands of contested elections in the United States in November 2024.  With respect to only one of them are people saying that legal qualifications for office do not matter. 

The slogan “let the voters decide” makes no sense within our Constitutional order.  We only have voters because we have elections, and we only have elections as organized under the Constitution.  Claiming that voters (and electoral systems) can disregard the Constitution is senseless, because people become citizens and thus voters in ways defined by the Constitution.  No Constitution, no citizens, no voters. 

The real issue, though, is elsewhere.  “Let the voters decide” appeals not to law or logic but to conformism and fear.  It evades critique from within our Constitutional order because it rejects that order.  Rather than following Constitutional procedures meant to handle fear, it redirects fear against those Constitutional procedures.   

When we are ourselves afraid to defend the Constitution, we indulge in a kind of victim-blaming.  Trump tried to overthrow the Constitution; when we say “let the voters decide,” we suggest that the Constitution deserved it.  In ignoring Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, we refuse, as it were, to hear the Constitution's side of the story. 

We are attacking the Constitution because we lack the courage to defend it.  And so we begin to unwind the constitutional order. 

Take the familiar example of checks and balances. The slogan “let the voters decide” suggests that potential presidents are beyond the reach of the other branches of government, despite what the Constitution says.  Section Three of the Fourteenth amendment raises questions that courts will have to answer.  Saying “let the voters decide” denies them that role.  Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment very explicitly defines a role for Congress after an insurrection.  Congress may vote to allow an insurrectionist to take part in elections. 

The point goes deeper, into the very logic of constitutionalism.  Checks and balances illustrate the Constitution's capacity to transform human imperfections into decent politics.  One of those imperfections is fear.  When we direct our fear at the Constitution itself, however, we push those imperfections past the point where they can be borne.  When we are too fearful of the Constitution to allow the Constitution to address our fears, fear builds to become the main mode of politics.

We then legitimate mob rule because we imagine some future mob.  We obey a tyrant in advance.  Directing our fear at the Constitution makes the tyrant's ascent far too easy. 

The Constitution can defend itself in general, and even against the specific threat of an insurrectionist candidate -- but not on its own, not as a piece of paper, not without defenders who read it and affirm it.  When we ignore what the Constitution says, and blame the Constitution for our own cowardice, we join in Trump's attack upon it. 

It takes a little courage to admit that we are afraid, rather than to project our fears.  It takes a little more courage to act, rather than dissemble and delay.  If we want constitutional rule, right now is the easiest moment to mount its defense, in the way marked out by the Constitution itself. 

It only gets harder from here.

[coochiequeens]

How the fuck does a woman go from being the first woman be Deputy Prime Minister to not understanding that even if a man does get SRS he's still biologically a male?

By Reduxx Team February 24, 2024

Canada’s former Deputy Prime Minister is under fire by users on social media after repeatedly denying that biological males who identify as “women” have “male anatomy.”

Sheila Copps first entered politics in 1981 after being elected to serve as the Liberal Party Member of Parliament for Hamilton Centre. In 1984, she was elected Member of Parliament for the riding of Hamilton East and was re-elected in five successive elections.

Copps was the first woman to ever hold the position of Deputy Prime Minister and served for ten years in the federal cabinet, both as Minister of the Environment and Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Though her political career ended in 2004 after a messy nomination loss in which she accused another Liberal Party member of electoral impropriety, Copps continued to be a prominent figure in Canadian politics. In 2014, she revealed she had been the victim of two sexual assaults in her life, once while a young politician, in an effort to call attention to the lack of resources on Parliament Hill for survivors.

While Copps has been well-regarded as as staunch advocate for women’s rights, her latest comments have sparked backlash from Canadian women after she defended trans-identified males being able to access female-only spaces.

Controversy first erupted on February 22 after Copps slammed Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre after he announced he would seek to enforce sex-segregated spaces if elected Prime Minister.

“He has taken a ‘tough’ stance on transgendered women who want to use women’s washrooms. How courageous,” Copps sarcastically wrote on X.

Her replies were quickly filled with women supporting Poilievre’s sentiment, and questioning Copps’ understanding of the issue.

“Sheila. Sheila. The parents of Canada do NOT want their daughters/granddaughters experiencing the anatomy and more, of biological males in the women’s wash/change rooms. Changing in and out of their bathing suits. Read the room here,” political commentator Patrice O’Hamilton wrote.

Copps quoted the user, bizarrely claiming “transgendered women do not have male anatomy.”

Canadian women’s rights advocate Meghan Murphy replied to Copps: “You should know that men can identify as women without any surgeries or hormone treatments at all. I am baffled at how you can have been in your position with the government for so many years and not know this. Bill C-16 was a Liberal Party bill. Have you not been paying attention at all?”

Others noted that an exceedingly small percentage of trans-identified males have surgeries to construct the superficial appearance of a vulva.

According to a 2019 academic paper published by researchers from New York University, only 5-13% of males who identify as “women” have had “bottom surgery,” with the number being a scant 1% for males who identify as “non-binary.”

Vaginoplasties involve the removal of the scrotum and testicles, and the re-configuration of the penile tissues, sometimes with supplemental tissue from the colon, to create a shallow “canal.” The canal then has to be dilated for the remainder of the individual’s life, as the body will try to close it. The underlying male anatomy is not transformed into female anatomy.

While Copps appears to be under the impression that only postoperative trans-identified males have been permitted to enter women’s spaces, Canadian legislation provides broad protections on the basis of self-declared “gender identity” and does not require an individual to have undergone any medical transitioning to be treated as the gender with which they claim.

Copps’ former political party, the Liberal Party of Canada, was instrumental in pushing through legislation which amended the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code to include “gender identity” and “gender expression” as protected characteristics. The amendments granted men access to single-sex female spaces like washrooms, changerooms, prisons, and rape shelters on the basis of their identity.

While the Canadian government claimed the bill had been assessed for its impact on women prior to approval, it has refused to release any details of the assessment’s findings. In 2020, a copy of the assessment was given to journalist Anna Slatz via an Access To Information Request but was 96% redacted.

Since Bill C-16 was enacted in 2017, a number of disturbing incidents have been reported involving males being protected in their access to women’s spaces.

As previously reported by Reduxx, a man who raped a baby was transferred to a women’s prison after identifying as a “woman.”

Tara Desousa, also known as Adam Laboucan, sexually assaulted a three-month-old baby boy in Quesnel, British Columbia in 1997. The infant was so brutally injured by the attack that he had to be flown to Vancouver, 410 miles away, to undergo reconstructive surgery. After declaring a transgender status, Desousa was transferred to the Fraser Valley Institution for Women, where he is one of multiple trans-identified males with a history of sexual violence at the facility.

In addition to males being transferred into women’s prisons, Canadian women have reported incidents involving “obvious males” in women’s changing rooms across the country.

In February of 2023, parents in the oceanside community of Nanaimo, British Columbia sounded the alarm about a man who claimed to identify as “female” behaving in what they say was a predatory manner while using the women’s facilities at the local Aquatic Centre.

One mother who complained to the Aquatic Centre’s staff was threatened with arrest, with both the male and staff asserting the man had a “right” to use the facilities.

[pub-lius]

burr pt.2 electric boogaloo (this joke is only funny to me)

its politics time, because Burr had a really fucking long political career and i get tired just reading about it. (also here's pt. 1)

Washington and Adams Administrations

Burr said he found politics "a great deal of fun" so he entered the 1792 gubernatorial race in NY, but withdrew bc Daddy Clinton told him to. He was supported by Northern republicans, but was distrusted by Southerners (wonder why). According to James Monroe, my detested, it was better to select "a person of more advanced life and longer standing in publick trust, particularly one who in consequence of such service had given unequivocal proofs of what his principles really were." Now, you may be thinking that he must be talking about Jefferson, but this is Monroe, and he was probably just kissing his own ass, as per usual.

Burr sided with anti-administration forces who opposed Hamilton's financial plan and Washington's foreign policy. Burr also defended Albert Gallatin who was unseated in 1794 after Federalists determined he did not meet the 9 year citizenship requirement.

Burr voted against Washington's nomination of John Jay as envoy to Britain in 1794, and was one of the most outspoken opponents of the Jay treaty.

Burr set his sights on the presidency with an energetic campaign in the 1796 election, and Republicans endorsed him as their second choice (ie vice-president canidate), but it was still a little divisive. Most, if not all, Democratic-Republicans voted for Thomas Jefferson, and only half of his voters also voted for Burr. Burr finished fourth with 30 electoral votes.

Burr retired from the Senate in 1797, and returned to the New York Assembly in 1798, making several enemies during his brief term. As relations with France got heated over the XYZ affair, Burr advocated for defensive measures to protect New York harbor. This was reasonable since New York was very strategically important, but it's location made it vulnerable to a naval attack. This prompted accusations that Burr had switched parties to the Federalist side, and that he abused public trust for personal benefit, a common theme in rumors about him. Allegedly, he participated in private land speculation ventures in NY and sought to enact legislation removing restrictions on land ownership by non-citizens, which would increase the value of western lands. Basically, they thought he was trying to influence legislation so he could make money.

Hammy boy is back and this time he is working together with Burr. Burr and Hamilton secured a charter and raised subscriptions for a private company to improve the water supply of Manhattan. These were two incredibly intelligent and creative men, and that is greatly reflected in their choice for the company's name, The Manhattan Water Company (/sarcasm). Turns out, the extra money from this was used to establish the Bank of Manhattan, which was controlled by Republicans. Pretend to be shocked even though both of them lived on Wall Street.

Some weird shit went down with the Republican voters in New York in the 1799 election, and Burr was turned out of office. People were really suspicious of him, but he remained a vital asset.

Burr opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which won him Demo-Republican support, especially in New York which had a large immigrant population. This ensured that NYC elected a Republican delegation to the state legislature in 1800.

Election of 1800

Republicans wanted a New Yorker for their 2nd presidential choice (im saying this instead of vice presidential candidate and you'll see why). Clinton refused, so Burr was the next option. He was nominated on May 11, 1800. Jefferson claimed he harbored reservations of Burr, but he was acting all nice to him to ensure Republican victory. Jefferson was also very busy with his behind-the-scenes campaign, writing letters and encouraging press support that was critical of the Adams Administration. This is when he called him a hermaphrodite btw.

Burr had a far more active campaign technique. He visited Rhode Island and Connecticut in late August to secure Republican support. Burr's political prowess during 1800 raised suspicion among enemies and supporters. He didn't fit the stoic, unattached statesman who just let his supporters run the campaign for him. Burr campaigned more like a modern politician.

It was generally expected that each elector would cast one vote for Jefferson, one for Burr. Each elector had two votes, and they didn't distinguish who they wanted for president, and who they wanted for vice president. Whoever came in second would be VP, so the party would generally determine who they would advocate the most, and who they would advocate the second most. Basically they were like "this guy is great! this guy is also pretty good. also we HATE those guys (other party's nominees)" So, they really just hoped that Jefferson would get the most, and Burr would get second.

...but, uh, by mid-December, Republicans still didn't have a president in office. They definitely defeated the Federalists, because Adams and Jay had like. no votes. But Jefferson and Burr both had 73 votes, and were at a stalemate, which meant that the vote would be taken to the House of Representatives.

Federalists JUMPED on this opportunity, specifically Hamilton, who had already doomed Adams to lose the election. Some Federalists believed that Burr was more flexible and less partisan, and would be more likely to approve Federalist legislation. Other Federalists who supported Burr hoped that if the two parties were deadlocked for too long, Federalist-leaning Congress would resolve the impasse with legislation authorizing the Senate to elect a Federalist president. This is stupid and idk why people thought this was possible.

Hamilton launched into his smear campaign of Burr. He advised other Federalists not to trust Burr in very simple words, but in the background he was spreading awful rumors about Burr, which was pretty usual. The only difference from how he attacked Burr vs how he attacked Adams is that he didn't publish anything about Burr, but he would have.

The House of Representatives announced Jefferson was the winner on February 17, 1801. Burr made only a few comments and they were guarded, evasive, and contradictory. He seemed particularly angry that there were rumors that he was soliciting Federalist support in an attempt to steal the presidency, which he didn't do, but he happily accepted any Federalist votes.

"...take no step whatsoever, by which the choice of the House of Representatives can be impeded or embarrassed, [instead] keep the game perfectly in Your own hand." -advice from Federalist Robert Goodloe Harber against withdrawing from the election that Burr followed

Jefferson Administration

Burr was inaugurated as VP on March 4, 1804 by James Hillhouse in the Senate Chamber of the new capitol. He gave a brief address of "about 3 sentences" which was overshadowed by Jefferson's speech.

He immediately received a shit ton of letters from associates seeking appointments and demanding removal of Federalists. He handed these off to Jefferson, who removed the "midnight appointments" from the Adams Administration.

In fall of 1801, Burr campaigned for a naval position for Matthew L. Davis, and it was around this time that Jefferson began to distance himself from Burr. Davis' appointment was reliant on Clinton and De Witt for a NY appointment. De Witt talked mad shit about Burr, and Burr was so upset that he talked in the third person about it (he did this a lot).

"The handbills were numerous, of various descriptions, uniform however in Virulent and indecent abuse. [T]o Vilify A.B. was deemed of so much consequence that packages of them were sent to various parts of the country." -Burr

Burr lost like. all political relevance except for being VP. I mean, people still respected him because he wasn't bad at his job, but they were incredibly suspicious of his Federalist friendships, alienation from Republicans, and his now infamous opportunism.

On January 27, 1802. Burr cast a tie-breaking vote that undercut Republican effort to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1801, which provided reforms to the Supreme Court which allowed for a potentially Federalist controlled judiciary (shout out John Marshall). Burr voted for Republican repeal, and secretly informed Federalists he would add amendments to make it acceptable to moderate Republicans. He resolved the tie in favor of Federalists.

"I am for the affirmative, because I can never resist the reference of a measure where the Senate is so nicely balanced, when the object is to effect amendment, that may accommodate it to the opinions of a larger majority; & particularly when I can believe that gentlemen are sincere in wishing a reference for this purpose. Should it, however, at any time appear that delay only is intended, my conduct will be different." -Burr (apparently in 2020 I didn't think it was important to have dates for my quotes.)

After Burr announced a select committee consisting of 2 Republicans, 2 Federalists, and 1 moderate, The New York Evening Post wrote, "The Vice President was very deliberate. He took ballots of the respective Senators, examined them attentively, state the number of them, & holding them up in his hand, mentioned that gentlemen, if they chose, might come and examine them. Mr. G[ouverneur] Morris hoped never to see, in the Senate, a proceeding implying so much distrust." And i'd love to tell you what political party the Evening Post was associated with, but I didn't know how to take notes in 2020, and I'm losing my mind just a little.

Burr continued to be estranged from his own party, possibly to form his own, but no one really liked him so, tough luck. Burr contacted Jefferson, saying that he thought it was best for him to retire for the sake of the party, and wanted Jefferson to publicly give him his confidence. Jefferson said he had no influence in the last election, but he would in the next, which is weird and foreboding but aight. Jefferson didn't trust Burr because he was pissy that Burr warned Madison not to trust people (ie Jefferson) too much.

Burr retired without Jefferson's "mark of favor", and was replaced as VP by Clinton. After leaving the vice-presidency, he entered the NY gubernatorial race to have some kind of a job, since he was majorly in debt.

*wipes sweat dramatically* okay so i think i'll have 1-2 more Burr posts, and then we're onto Lafayette, which is going to be significantly more extensive because I've read two full books about him, and taken notes on him. and THEN i have to do Hamilton which will be. even more extensive. but we got this. okay bye see you in the next one

[h2shonotes]

Excerpt from the Hamilton the H2shO™️, an aqua fitness workout choreographed to the OBCR of the groundbreaking musical by Lin-Manuel Miranda💦💪🏽🎭🙏🏽❤️🤍💙

July 4th, Independence Day, is the day when the USA 🇺🇸 annually celebrates the approval of the Declaration of Independence. However, the congress actually voted to declare independence from Britain two days earlier on July 2nd, 1776. The Declaration of Independence was sent to the printer on July 4 and signed on August 2, 1776.

I share this to illustrate our cultural tendency to rewrite the history of our country’s founding and its founders. Case in point, Hamilton the Musical.

The Hamilton musical is not a documentary. As such, it takes dramaturgical liberties with the biography of Alexander Hamilton to compellingly tell his story in three hours. It captures his personality faults: his arrogance, impulsiveness, temper, womanizing, and tactlessness. Unfortunately, the musical glosses over his authoritarian political leanings. 🎭📖

Like John Adams, #Hamilton was opposed to anything that could even be construed as resembling #democracy, and loved monarchical authoritarianism.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Hamilton argued that the United States should have one supreme executive with absolute veto, who would not be elected by the ignorant masses, but rather by electors. He argued that the executive and all the Senators should remain in their positions for life.

In 1798, Alexander, an immigrant himself, supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it much harder for immigrants to become US citizens and gave the president the authority to deport or imprison any non-citizen living in the USA.

Hamilton wasn’t fond of slavery. But the politician also wasn’t particularly committed to the goal of abolishing it and was perfectly willing to set aside his personal feelings on the subject when it was personally expedient for him to do so. Particularly as he, like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, was a slave owner.

None of this diminishes the Hamilton Musical, it is simply a reminder that historically accurate storytelling is not a requirement of art. And one should not expect what you see on the stage or screen to the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Use your freedom, do the research. And VOTE.

[azspot]

A union is a sleek and beautiful tool that is precisely built to wage the class war in the very way that normal people of all races and places and persuasions know that it needs to be waged. A union is the Avatar-style mechanized suit that working people can put on to find themselves newly able to battle as equals against huge monsters. Fuck a political party! They need you, not vice versa. Electoral politics are just the necessary thing at the very end of the political process. They are not the main show. The main show should be the labor movement. The main show should be you, in a union, together with all of your coworkers, who have the exact same material interests as you, all using your combined labor power to win the very tangible things that you need. That is the substance of the class war. That’s where it happens. To the extent that you can reorient your thinking away from MSNBC and Fox News and towards your union (or, more likely, your lack of a union, and how you get one), the more you will find yourself engaging in politics that is worth your time.

Hamilton Nolan

[mirrors-are-green]

Alexander Hamilton in the musical: so I wrote lots of letters defending the Constitution to the PEOPLE, you know, just some people

Alexander Hamilton in real life: so our strategy for defending this new shiny form of government we've just created is a little election fraud and making sure the electors don't ACCIDENTALLY make John Fucking Addams a president. Whilst still simultaneously convincing them this is the system they should trust. And I'm the one who's gonna do the bulk of it.

[shutup-andletme-go]

okay i need help deciding where i should make ren's hometown be for the fic i'm writing

under the cut bc this is a loooooooong post team (but there's a poll!)

so in the book it's really not specific, like At All as to where he lives, but Georgia says in her letter than she lives in the other corner of the country to him.

i don't get particularly aucklandy vibes off him so even tho thats where he ends up i dont think he started there

so. also there is a strait in the middle of the country and while busses would be cheap-

wait its 1996 the ferries would probably be stupid cheap compared to todays prices

okay so we could say that georgia and ren live on different islands

hold on a minute

so his aunty's message tells us that ren lives in a city and his aunty will be picking him up and going south

so that gives us some narrowed down options

PARDON ME THE ACTUAL FUCK

okay so i googled "what places were considered cities in nz 1996"

and thats fine and dandy theres a wikipedia page that i'll look at

in the bar of 'others search for:' there was one entitled "what happened in nz 1996"

i open it

and scream in horror as the name winston peters appears

direct copy paste from the wikipedia result:

Although predicted by many to ally with Labour, on 10 December 1996 New Zealand First leader Winston Peters chose to form a coalition with National, thus preserving Prime Minister Jim Bolger's administration. The 1996 election effectively showcased the difference made by the new electoral system.

winston peters is one of the deputy prime ministers THIS YEAR

Government

Legislature term: 53rd New Zealand Parliament until 8 September, then 54th New Zealand Parliament from 5 December.

The Sixth Labour Government, elected in 2017 and 2020, then the Sixth National Government elected in 2023.

Speaker of the House – Adrian Rurawhe until 5 December, then Gerry Brownlee

Prime Minister – Jacinda Ardern until 25 January, then Chris Hipkins until 27 November, then Christopher Luxon

Deputy Prime Minister – Grant Robertson until 25 January, then Carmel Sepuloni until 27 November, then Winston Peters

Leader of the House – Chris Hipkins until 25 January, then Grant Robertson until 27 November, then Chris Bishop

Minister of Finance – Grant Robertson until 27 November, then Nicola Willis

Minister of Foreign Affairs – Nanaia Mahuta until 11 November, then Grant Robertson until 27 November, then Winston Peters

christ almighty when is he going to die in a hole i hope its soon <3

oooh shit ren might have been old enough to vote in that election

and idk if he'd vote by himself but i feel like georgia would have encouraged it

okay back to the list of cities. we have:

auckland (still do not agree he's from auckland)

christchurch

wellington

hamilton

tauranga

okay cool so technically there might be others but im sorry palmerston north is not a city

making myself reread the book gave me a new perspective bc i was gonna say he's from like levin or somewhere

obscure like that

te puke perhaps

but no! he's from a city which means i can't take the angle of "ren didnt think places looked like this in 1996. not even wellington." but thats okay!

i'm leaning towards hamilton myself

just obscure enough

but still a city

pretty far up in the north island

oooh i kinda wanna write georgia as living in wellington she would thrive in wellington i think

@antisocialgaycat tagging u as always <333

[selamat-linting]

its not even the shipping stuff that really pisses me off. its everything about it... a mainstream political page about indonesia thats entirely written in english and mired with stan culture (butchered AAVE) language and chock filled with usamerican pop culture references. the way it only focuses itself on electoralism and voting as the only valid way of political struggle as if we didnt have a struggling yet developing grassroot orgs and protest scenes of our own. its the pessimistic comments of im moving out im moving out of this shithole to europe/usa/aussie/japan.

it paints a segment of indonesian youth who is choking on their own self-hate and powerlessness and yet never even consider to unlearn their own internalized racism and colonial mentalities. very much a slave for the "international rules based order", never wants to learn about the role of imperialism, colonialism, and us-backed intervention in this country and how it perpetuates it in the modern day. but then its not like they want to learn. most of them are in that upper-middle class strata who aspire to leave and be good immigrants and progressive liberals in the imperial core. the actual horrors of the oligarchy never touches them. dont get me wrong, aspiring to work or live abroad isnt bad actually, got get that bag sister, i want to do the same, but the way some of them look down on ppl who dont leave, or absentmindedly paint their own home country as a backwards hellhole that needed saving. ugh. its disgusting.

tbf, theyre just a small yet vocal minority online, theyre very much apathetic from the get-go so its very much me getting annoyed at terminally online losers. but still. ANNOYING AS HELL

also the admin of that page likes hamilton. so obviously i'd hate them.

[theworstfoundingfathers]

Who is the worst founding father? Round 4: Henry Laurens vs Alexander Hamilton

Henry Laurens (March 6, 1724 [O.S. February 24, 1723] – December 8, 1792) was an American Founding Father, merchant, slave trader, and rice planter from South Carolina who became a political leader during the Revolutionary War. A delegate to the Second Continental Congress, Laurens succeeded John Hancock as its president. He was a signatory to the Articles of Confederation and, as president, presided over its passage.

Laurens had earned great wealth as a partner in the largest slave-trading house in North America, Austin and Laurens. In the 1750s alone, this Charleston firm oversaw the sale of more than 8,000 enslaved Africans.

Laurens’ oldest son, Colonel John Laurens, was killed in 1782 in the Battle of the Combahee River, as one of the last casualties of the Revolutionary War. He had supported enlisting and freeing slaves for the war effort and suggested to his father that he begin with the 40 he stood to inherit. He had urged his father to free the family’s slaves, but although conflicted, Henry Laurens never manumitted his 260 slaves.

---

Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 or 1757 – July 12, 1804) was a Nevisian-born American military officer, statesman, and Founding Father who served as the first United States secretary of the treasury from 1789 to 1795.

Early during the Constitutional Convention Hamilton made a speech proposing a President-for-Life; it had no effect upon the deliberations of the convention. He proposed to have an elected president and elected senators who would serve for life, contingent upon “good behavior” and subject to removal for corruption or abuse; this idea contributed later to the hostile view of Hamilton as a monarchist sympathizer, held by James Madison.

During the Revolutionary War, affluent citizens had invested in bonds, and war veterans had been paid with promissory notes and IOUs that plummeted in price during the Confederation. In response, the war veterans sold the securities to speculators for as little as fifteen to twenty cents on the dollar. Hamilton felt the money from the bonds should not go to the soldiers who had shown little faith in the country’s future, but the speculators that had bought the bonds from the soldiers.

Strong opposition to Hamilton’s whiskey tax by cottage producers in remote, rural regions erupted into the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794; in Western Pennsylvania and western Virginia, whiskey was the basic export product and was fundamental to the local economy. In response to the rebellion, believing compliance with the laws was vital to the establishment of federal authority, Hamilton accompanied to the rebellion’s site President Washington, General Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee, and more federal troops than were ever assembled in one place during the Revolution. This overwhelming display of force intimidated the leaders of the insurrection, ending the rebellion virtually without bloodshed.

During the election of 1796, Hamilton urged all the northern electors to vote for Adams and Pinckney, lest Jefferson get in; but he cooperated with Edward Rutledge to have South Carolina’s electors vote for Jefferson and Pinckney, in an effort to elect Pinckney as president, but it did not work. The Federalists found out about it and northern Federalists voted for Adams but not for Pinckney, in sufficient numbers that Pinckney came in third and Jefferson became vice president.

In the summer of 1797, Hamilton became the first major American politician publicly involved in a sex scandal, culminating in Hamilton's publication of a 100-page booklet, later usually referred to as the Reynolds Pamphlet, discussing the affair in indelicate detail for the time in an effort to fight back against charges of improper speculation.

Hamilton served as inspector general of the United States Army from July 18, 1798, to June 15, 1800. If full-scale war broke out with France, Hamilton argued that the army should conquer the North American colonies of France’s ally, Spain, bordering the United States, funded by a direct tax. The eventual program included taxes on land, houses, and slaves, calculated at different rates in different states and requiring assessment of houses, and a stamp act like that of the British before the Revolution, though this time Americans were taxing themselves through their own representatives.

Hamilton is not known to have ever owned slaves, although members of his family were slave owners. At the time of her death, Hamilton’s mother owned two slaves and wrote a will leaving them to her sons. However, due to their illegitimacy, Hamilton and his brother were held ineligible to inherit her property and never took ownership of the slaves. He occasionally handled slave transactions as the legal representative of his own family members.

[publius-library]

What was Burr's and Hamilton's relationship like through the war to politics and then the duel?

The truth is, they didn’t really have much of one. They were likely aware of one another before the war, as they were within the same social circles, so I don’t doubt that they would have knew of one another, or even met some time in 74 or 75.

During the war, they didn’t have many opportunities to meet. I’m a bit rusty on Burr’s timeline, but I do know that he volunteered in Washington’s staff (whether or not that overlapped with Hamilton’s time there, I’m not sure), and participated at the Battle of Monmouth. I can’t remember whether or not he was stationed at Valley Forge. Either way, they weren’t very relevant to one another at the time, and had few opportunities to meet.

After the war, they had much more interaction, as they were both in the upper class of New York, and were both lawyers. They worked on a few case’s together, including the famous murder trial where one of them (probably Burr) gestured at the defendant with candles because it was so dark in the court, claiming he was the murderer. Burr’s household hosted frequent parties, and I don’t doubt that Hamilton attended them. They weren’t close, or even necessarily friends, but they didn’t really dislike each other either, though there was some passive aggression.

During the Washington and Adams Administrations, Burr gained a reputation for being willing to do anything to gain votes, and Hamilton had his infamous financial plan. This is when their views really started to diverge. During the Election of 1800, Burr did cater to the Federalists, but Hamilton didn’t want him to take office. Now, the exact reasons why Hamilton didn’t want Burr to be president vary, but the one that is clear is because he saw Burr as entirely lacking sound morals. He spread a lot of rumors about him, but what made Burr lose the election was Hamilton convincing a Federalist elector to vote for Jefferson, which broke the stalemate. Unlike the musical says (or what Chernow attempts to imply), Hamilton and Burr were never in the same political party, and they were never friends.

The duel happened because Burr heard that Hamilton was the root of a particularly nasty rumor at the time, and Hamilton wouldn’t confirm or deny the allegation. It wasn’t because of the election, since I highly doubt Burr really cared that much. It’s clear from his filibustering expedition that his goal wasn’t to be in power to be a dictator, but because he wanted to have the money and power without having to actually do anything. Hamilton’s animosity for Burr was clearly at it’s peak, and Burr was incredibly frustrated with him because he was being an annoying bitch. And also slandering him I guess.

Both of them had experience with duels (Hamilton didn’t really participate in as many as Burr), so it wasn’t a wild idea for them to settle it through that route. The duel story is a whole other thing and there’s a lot of sides to it, but the general conclusion is that Hamilton and Burr were never more than acquaintances before they were rivals. Thanks for the ask!!

[handeaux]

Cincinnati’s 1885 Election Involved Every Trick, Up To Hiding Votes In A Whorehouse

Frankly, today’s elections are absolute yawners compared to the voting squabbles of yore. Stolen ballots? Phony registrations? Dead voters? Cincinnati elections featured all of that and more. The 1885 contest, for example, was extreme in every respect.

For nearly 20 years, Cincinnati had been ruled by a corrupt Democratic political machine. The kingpin of this cabal in 1885 was John Roll McLean, publisher of the Cincinnati Enquirer. The machine owned the entire legal and judicial system in Hamilton County, with judges, prosecutors and even jurors on its payroll. The egregious mishandling of capital murder cases, in which obviously guilty criminals walked free, inspired the Courthouse Riot of 1884. Elections were flagrantly bought and sold. Charles Goss, author of the 1912 history, “Cincinnati – The Queen City,” could hardly contain his revulsion:

“Undoubtedly these miserable arrangements would have superinduced dishonesty in the most ethical of decades; but in one of so low a tone as the ‘eighties’ it was certain that the consequences would be appalling. And they were! The stories of ‘miscounting,’ of ‘repeating,’ of ‘stuffing,’ excite a feeling of amazement, while those of buying ballots and of breaking the heads of those who refused to vote the proper ticket awaken a feeling of horror.”

By 1885, Cincinnati reached the limits of tolerance and launched a reform movement aimed at ousting the Democrats by voting in a completely fresh slate of Republican office holders. The Cincinnati Post, at the vanguard of the reform movement, launched [9 October 1885] a bold attack against the machine:

“It is in the interest of good government that the infamous, abominable, disgraceful, coal-oil Legislature, and every similar Legislature, if (may God forbid) Ohio should ever elect another, should be deeply buried beneath the ballots of honest men, and the party rebuked by the election of its opponents. On this ground, and not on the personal fitness of the candidates, The Post earnestly advocates the election of the Republican Senatorial and Legislative ticket in Hamilton County and throughout the State.”

The McLean machine smelled trouble and poured money, booze and muscle into its efforts to salvage its throttlehold on power. The Republicans, backed by some of Cincinnati’s wealthiest men who had lost patience with the arrogance of the Democratic machine, understood they would have to use every means – legal or not – at their disposal to depose McLean and his minions.

The lines were so clearly drawn that few of the newspapers even ran the names of the candidates. Voters in the 1885 election almost exclusively voted straight tickets – either Republican or Democrat. A few radicals “scratched” a candidate or two, but otherwise voted their party’s ballot in total.

Each party shouted claims of shameful electoral malfeasance and most of the accusations were true. In one precinct, Democratic poll watchers arbitrarily added 200 fake votes to their candidate’s tally. In another precinct, there were 131 more votes cast for Republican candidates than there were registered voters. Influential citizens reported having their arms twisted in private meetings with John McLean himself at his Enquirer office. Each party employed “booze and boodle” – free drinks and cash bribes – and imported “voters” from Kentucky and Indiana. Some polling stations reported fisticuffs between members of the Lincoln Club (Republican) and the Duckworth Club (Democrat).

One delicious bit of chicanery involved “Fort Metz,” the notorious bordello run by Louisa Metz on Walnut Street just above Fifteenth. The incident involved the official returns from the Ninth Ward’s Precinct F, an historically Democratic stronghold in the Over-the-Rhine. At the end of election day, Precinct F’s official tally sheet was nowhere to be found. Instead, in the official envelope, monitors discovered a handwritten tally on Duckworth Club stationery of what purported to be the votes for that polling station. It seemed obvious that the Democrats had mandated the outcome in advance, and their on-site flunkies were too stupid to transfer the phony results to the official reporting document.

Someone must have disposed of the authentic tally sheet. Where was it? Burned up? Tossed in the privy? In John McLean’s desk? A young Republican operative named Phillip Alberts appointed himself as an unofficial electoral investigator and went looking. Along the way, according to the Post [19 November 1885] Mr. Alberts acquired several unsavory sources:

“Among them is a woman going by the name Lillie, an inmate of Fort Metz, a disreputable saloon and bawdy house on Walnut-st., almost opposite Turner Hall. Several days ago she told Alberts that another inmate of the house, known as Leslie Herbert, had in her possession some election papers which she was trying to keep hidden.”

Alberts visited Mrs. Metz’s brothel – strictly in the interest of free and fair elections, of course! – and found Leslie Herbert perusing “a curious document.”

“Alberts quietly passed behind the woman, and, looking over her shoulder, was almost dumfounded at discovering that the paper was the missing tally sheet of Precinct F, Ninth Ward.”

Alberts asked for the paper, but Ms. Herbert spirited it away and her fellow “inmates” closed ranks and sent Alberts packing. He returned the next day with a Post reporter, who was informed that Mr. Alberts was sadly mistaken. Ms. Herbert had no election papers in her possession. The document he glimpsed was nothing other than the manuscript copy of a song, and a lyric sheet was produced to support this alibi.

After all the dust settled, the Republican party had demolished the Democratic machine. Joseph Benson Foraker of Cincinnati was elected Governor of Ohio and led a statewide Republican sweep. Among the first gubernatorial actions Foraker blessed was a "ripper" bill removing the authority of the Cincinnati Board of Public Works, an elective body, to dispense patronage jobs and conferring that power on a new Board of Public Affairs, appointed by the Governor. To head the new Board, responsible for some 2,000 patronage positions in the city, Foraker selected George Barnsdale Cox. The Governor’s plum appointment marked the beginning of “Boss” Cox’s long dynasty atop his own political machine.