February 24, 1824. Treaty With Tunis Amended.

As follows:

Whereas Sundry articles of the Treaty of peace and friendship concluded between the United States of America and Hamuda Bashaw, of happy memory, in the month of Rebia Elul in the year of the Hegira 1212, corresponding with the month of August of the Christian year 1797; have by experience been found to require alteration and amendment: In order therefore that the United States should be placed on the same footing with the most favored Nations having Treaties with Tunis, as well as to manifest a respect for the American Government and a desire to continue unimpaired the friendly relations which have always existed between the two Nations, it is hereby agreed & concluded between His Highness Mahmoud Bashaw Bey of Tunis, and S. D. Heap Esquire Charge d'affaires of the United States of America, that alteration be made in the Sixth, eleventh, twelfth and fourteenth articles of said Treaty; and that the said articles shall be altered and amended in the Treaty to read as follows.

ARTICLE 6th

If a Tunisian Corsair shall meet with an American vessel & shall visit it with her boat, two men only shall be allowed to go on board, peaceably to satisfy themselves of its being American, who as well as any passengers of other Nations they may have on board, shall go free both them & their goods; and the said two men shall not exact any thing, on pain of being severely punished. In case a slave escapes and takes refuge on board an American vessel of war he shall be free, and no demand shall be made either for his restoration or for payment.

ARTICLE THE 11th

When a vessel of war of the United States shall enter the port of the Goletta she shall be saluted with twenty one guns, which salute, the vessel of war shall return gun for gun only, and no powder will be given, as mentioned in the ancient eleventh article of this Treaty, which is hereby annulled.

ARTICLE THE 12th

When Citizens of the United States shall come within the dependencies of Tunis to carry on commerce there, the same respect shall be paid to them which the Merchants of other Nations enjoy; and if they wish to establish themselves within our ports, no opposition shall be made thereto, and they shall be free to avail themselves of such interpreters as they may judge necessary without any obstruction in conformity with the usages of other Nations; and if a Tunisian Subject shall go to establish himself within the dependencies of the United States, he shall be treated in like manner. If any Tunisian Subject shall freight an American vessel and load her with Merchandise, and shall afterwards want to unload, or ship them on board of another vessel, we shall not permit him untill the matter is determined by a reference of Merchants, who shall decide upon the case, and after the decision, the determination shall be conformed to.

No Captain shall be detained in port against his consent, except when our ports are shut for the vessels of all other Nations, which may take place with respect to merchant vessels, but not to those of war. The Subjects and Citizens of the two Nations respectively Tunisians and Americans, shall be protected in the places where they may be by the officers of the Government there existing; but on failure of such protection, and for redress of every injury, the party may resort to the chief authority in each country, by whom adequate protection and complete justice shall be rendered. In case the Government of Tunis shall have need of an American vessel for its service, such vessel being within the Regency, and not previously engaged, the Government shall have the preference on its paying the same freight as other Merchants usually pay for the same service, or at the like rate, if the service be without a customary precedent.

ARTICLE THE 14th

All vessels belonging to the Citizens and inhabitants of the United States, shall be permitted to enter the ports of the Kingdom of Tunis, and freely trade with the Subjects and inhabitants thereof on paying the usual duties which are paid by other most favored Nations at peace with the Regency. In like manner all vessels belonging to the subjects and inhabitants of the Kingdom of Tunis shall be permitted to enter the different ports of the United States, and freely trade with the Citizens and inhabitants thereof on paying the usual duties which are paid by other most favored Nations at peace with the United States.

Concluded, signed & sealed at the palace of Bardo near Tunis the 24th day of the Moon jumed-teni in the year of the Hegira 1239: corresponding the 24th of February 1824: of the Christian year; and the 48th year of the Independence of the United States; reserving the same nevertheless for the final ratification of the President of the United States by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(Signed) S. D. HEAP

Charge d'affaires of the U. States of America at Tunis

(Seal of MAHMOUD BASHAW.)

(Seal of HASSAN BEY.)

The immediately prior treaty, from 1816, read:

Treaty of Peace and Amity, concluded between the United States of America and the Dey and Regency of Algiers.

The President of the United States and the Dey of Algiers being desirous to restore and maintain upon a stable and permanent footing, the relations of peace and good understanding between the two powers; and for this purpose to renew the Treaty of Peace and Amity 1 which was concluded between the two States by William Shaler, and Commodore Stephen Decatur, as Commissioners Plenipotentiary, on the part of the United States and His Highness Omar Pashaw Dey of Algiers on the 30th of June 1815.

The President of the United States having subsequently nominated and appointed by Commission, the above named William Shaler, and Isaac Chauncey, Commodore and Commander in chief of all the Naval Forces of the United States in the Mediterranean, Commissioners Plenipotentiary, to treat with His Highness the Dey of Algiers for the renewal of the Treaty aforesaid; and they have concluded, settled, and signed the following articles:

ARTICLE 1st.

There shall be from the conclusion of this Treaty, a firm, perpetual, inviolable and universal peace and friendship between the President and Citizens of the United States of America on the one part, and the Dey and subjects of the Regency of Algiers in Barbary on the other, made by the free consent of both parties, and on the terms of the most favoured Nations; and if either party shall hereafter grant to any other Nation, any particular favor or privilege in Navigation, or (commerce, it shall immediately become common to the other party, freely, when freely it is granted to such other Nations, but when the grant is conditional, it shall be at the option of the contracting parties, to accept, alter, or reject such conditions in such manner as shall be most conducive to their respective interests.

ARTICLE 2d

It is distinctly understood between the contracting parties, that no tribute, either as biennial presents or under any other form, or name whatever, shall be required by the Dey and Regency of Algiers from the United States of America on any pretext whatever.

ARTICLE 3rd

Relates to the mutual restitution of prisoners & subjects and has been duly executed.

ARTICLE 4th

Relates to the delivery into the hands of the Consul General of a quantity of Bales of Cotton &c and has been duly executed.

ARTICLE 5th.

If any goods belonging to any Nation with which either of the parties are at War, should be loaded on board vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free and unmolested and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.

ARTICLE 6th.

If any citizens or subjects belonging to either party shall be found on board a prize-vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be liberated immediately and in no case, or on any presence whatever shall any American citizen be kept in captivity or confinement, or the property of any American citizen found on board of any vessel belonging to any Nation with which Algiers may be at War, be detained from its lawful owners after the exhibition of sufficient proofs of American citizenship and American property by the Consul of the United States, residing at Algiers.

ARTICLE 7th.

Proper passports shall immediately be given to the vessels of both the contracting parties on condition that the vessels of War belonging to the Regency of Algiers on meeting with Merchant vessels belonging to the Citizens of the United States of America shall not be permitted to visit them with more than two persons besides the rowers; these only shall be permitted to go on board, without first obtaining leave from the Commander of said vessel, who shall compare the passports and immediately permit said vessel to proceed on her voyage; and should any of the subjects of Algiers insult or molest the Commander or any other person on board a vessel so visited, or plunder any of the property contained in her, on complaint being made to the Consul of the United States residing in Algiers, and on his producing sufficient proofs to substantiate the fact, the Commander or Rais, of said Algerine ship or vessel of War, as well as the offenders, shall be punished in the most exemplary manner.

All vessels of War belonging to the United States of America on meeting a cruiser belonging to the Regency of Algiers, on having seen her passports, and certificates from the Consul of the United States residing in Algiers; shall permit her to proceed on her cruize unmolested and without detention.

No passport shall be granted by either party to any vessels but such as are absolutely the property of citizens or subjects of the said contracting parties, on any presence whatever.

ARTICLE 8th

A citizen or subject of either of the contracting parties, having bought a prize vessel condemned by the other party or by any other Nation, the Certificates of condemnation, and bill of sale, shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for six months, which considering the distance between the two Countries, is no more than a reasonable time for her to procure passports.

ARTICLE 9th

Vessels of either of the contracting parties, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies shall be furnished at the Market price, and if any such vessel should so put in from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and reembark her cargo, without paying any customs or duties whatever; but in no case shall be compelled to land her cargo.

ARTICLE 10th

Should a vessel of either of the contracting parties be cast on shore within the territories of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her crew; no pillage shall be allowed. The property shall remain at the disposal of the owners, and if re-shipped on board of any vessel for exportation, no customs or duties whatever shall be required to be paid thereon, and the crew shall be protected and succoured until they can be sent to their own country.

ARTICLE 11th.

If a vessel of either of the contracting parties shall be attacked by an enemy party within cannon-shot of the forts of the other, she shall be protected as much as is possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized or attacked when it is in the power of the other party to protect; her; and when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be permitted to pursue her from the same port within twenty four hours after her departure.

ARTICLE 12th

The commerce between the United States of America and the Regency of Algiers, the protections to be given to Merchants, Masters of vessels, and seamen, the reciprocal rights of establishing consuls in each country, the privileges, immunities, and jurisdictions to be enjoyed by such consuls, are declared to be on the same footing in every respect with the most favoured nations respectively.

ARTICLE 13th

The Consul of the United States of America shall not be responsible for the debts contracted by the citizens of his own country, unless he gives previously, written obligations so to do.

ARTICLE 14th.

On a vessel or vessels of War belonging to the United States, anchoring before the city of Algiers the consul is to inform the Dey of her arrival when she shall receive the salutes which are by Treaty, or custom given to the Ships of War of the most favoured nations on similar occasions and which shall be returned gun for gun; and if after such arrival so announced, any Christians whatever, captives in Algiers, make their escape and take refuge on board any of the said ships of war, they shall not be required back again, nor shall the Consul of the United States or Commander of the said ship be required to pay any thing for the said Christians.

ARTICLE 15th.

As the Government of the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of any Nation, and as the said states have never entered into any voluntary War or act of hostility, except in defence of their just rights on the high seas, it is declared by the contracting parties, that no pretext arising from Religious Opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the Harmony between the two Nations; and the Consuls and Agents of both Nations shall have liberty to celebrate the rites of their respective religions in their Own houses.

The Consuls respectively shall have liberty and personal security given them to travel within the territories of each other by land and sea and shall not be prevented from going on board any vessel they may think proper to visit; they shall likewise have the liberty to appoint their own Drogoman and Broker.

ARTICLE 16th

In case of any dispute arising from the violation of any of the articles of this Treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms, nor shall War be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, the Government of that country, shall state their grievance in writing and transmit the same to the Government of the other, and the period of three months shall be allowed for answers to be returned, during which time, no act of hostility shall be permitted by either party; and in case the grievances are not redressed and a War should be the event, the Consuls and Citizens and Subjects of both parties, respectively shall be permitted to embark with their effects unmolested, on board of what vessel or vessels they shall think proper, reasonable time being allowed for that purpose.

ARTICLE 17th.

If in the course of events a War should break out between the two Nations the prisoners captured by either party, shall not be made slaves; they shall not be forced to hard labour or other confinement than such as may be necessary to secure their safe-keeping, and shall be exchanged rank for rank; and it is agreed that prisoners shall be exchanged in twelve months after their capture and the exchange may be effected by any private individual, legally authorized by either of the parties.

ARTICLE 18th

If any of the Barbary powers or other States at war with the United States shall capture any American vessel and send her into any port of the Regency of Algiers, they shall not be permitted to sell her; but shall be forced to depart the Port on procuring the requisite supplies of provisions; but the vessels of War of the United States with any prizes they may capture from their enemies shall have liberty to frequent the Ports of Algiers for refreshment of any kind, and to sell such prizes in the said Ports, without paying any other Customs or duties than such as are customary on ordinary commercial importations.

ARTICLE 19th.

If any of the Citizens of the United States or any persons under their protection, shall have any disputes with each other, the Consul shall decide between the parties, and whenever the Consul shall require any aid or assistance from the Government of Algiers to enforce his decisions it shall be immediately granted to him: and if any disputes shall arise between any citizens of the United States and the citizens or subjects of any other Nations having a Consul, or Agent in Algiers, such disputes shall be settled by the Consuls or Agents of the respective nations; and any disputes or suits at law, that may take place between any Citizens of the United States and the subjects of the Regency of Algiers, shall be decided by the Dey in person and no other.

ARTICLE 20th.

If a citizen of the United States should Kill, wound or strike a subject of Algiers, or on the contrary, a subject of Algiers, should kill, wound or strike a citizen of the United States, the law of the country shall take place and equal justice shall be rendered, the consul assisting at the trial; but the sentence of punishment against an American citizen shall not be greater, or more severe, than it would be against a Turk, in the same predicament, and if any delinquent should make his escape, the Consul shall not be responsible for him in any manner whatever.

ARTICLE 21st

The Consul of the United States of America, shall not be required to pay any customs or duties whatever on any thing he imports from a foreign country for the use of his house and family.

ARTICLE 22d

Should any of the Citizens of the United States of America die within the Regency of Algiers, the Dey and his subjects shall not interfere with the property of the deceased, but it shall be under the immediate direction of the Consul, unless otherwise disposed of by Will. Should there be no Consul, the effects shall be deposited in the hands of some person worthy of trust, until the party shall appear who has a right to demand them, when they shall render an account of the property; neither shall the Dey, or his subjects give hindrance in the execution of any will that may appear.

ARTICLE ADDITIONAL & EXPLANATORY

The United States of America in order to give to the Dey of Algiers a proof of their desire to maintain the relations of peace and amity between the two powers upon a footing the most liberal; and in order to withdraw any obstacle which might embarrass him in his relations with other States, agree to annul so much of the Eighteenth Article of the foregoing Treaty, as gives to the United States any advantage in the ports of Algiers over the most favoured Nations having Treaties with the Regency.

Done at the Palace of the Government in Algiers on the 22d day of December 1816. which corresponds to the 3d Of the Moon Safar Year of the Hegira 1232.

Whereas the undersigned William Shaler a (citizen of the State of New York and Isaac Chauncey, Commander in chief of the Naval Forces of the United States, Stationed in the Mediterranean, being duly appointed Commissioners by letters patent under the signature of the President and Seal of the United States of America, bearing date at the City of Washington the twenty fourth day of August A. D. 1816. for negotiating and concluding the renewal of a Treaty of Peace between the United States of America, and the Dey and subjects of the Regency of Algiers.

We therefore William Shaler and Isaac Chauncey, Commissioners as aforesaid, do conclude the foregoing Treaty, and every article and clause therein contained, reserving the Same nevertheless for the final ratification of the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice, and consent, of the Senate of the United States.

Done in the Chancery of the Consulate General of the United States in the City of Algiers on the 23d day of December in the Year 1816 and of the Independence of the United States the Forty First

[Seal] Wm SHALER

[Seal] I. CHAUNCEY

Blog Mirror: The Irish Rebellion of 1798 and the Battle of Vinegar Hill

 

The Irish Rebellion of 1798 and the Battle of Vinegar Hill

Democracy in peril. . . maybe the fix is to amend the Constitution. . .

The one thing, and seemingly right now the only thing, that Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on is that democracy in the United States is in extreme peril, although not for the same reasons.  Democrats have looked out stunned at the Republican failure to defend democracy in the wake of a Trumpist coup attempt and wonder what happened to the Grand Old Party.  Republicans, or at least many of them, seemingly not aware that they are a minority party whose membership erodes daily, have accepted the lie that it simply can't be possible that they lost, and are further revealed to basically hold Democrats in deep, deep suspicion if not outright alien enemies.  To some degree, that's a Republican response to a Democratic belief that Republicans are basically stupid, a view reinforced by the public face of the insurrectionist and the stunning acceptance of a patently false lie.

Now, it seems that Republican populist are set to attempt a second coup and the Republican establishment won't stand in the way of it, and Democrats have demonstrated themselves to once again be legislatively incompetent.  While I don't think we'll get there, lots of Americans believe we're about to drive democracy right over a cliff.

So what can be done?

Well, the Democrats do have a proposal, or actually two, in front of Congress to address this, one being The Freedom To Vote Act and the other being The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.  I don't know that either actually are aimed to address the problems we're now facing, however.  What would address them is taking on and amending The Electoral Count Act of 1887, which everyone agrees is a sloppy statute to start with, and which the hold out Democrats want to amend.  Mitch McConnell has hinted he'd like to take a look at it.  Of course, Chuck Shumer, for inexplicable reasons, doesn't, a typical boneheaded Democratic leadership position.

So let's start there, but let's get a little background.

The founding fathers, . . . they didn't always get things right.

Our Original System.

Whenever we get into this, we tend to get the American version of ancestor worship, with people sooner or later dragging out the Founding Fathers as if they took a break from giving recommendations to the Oracle at Delphi to draft the Constitution.  They didn't, and were just men, and therefore there's no reason to endow them with perfection, but nonetheless, let's take a look at  the system they created, so we can get a grasp of the structure that we largely still hold

This is how it worked.

The House of Representatives was based on the British House of Commons, and was directly elected by the citizenry.  The British system is based on ridings, where the voters  reside, and ours was based on districts organized in states.  It's a modified and actually somewhat less democratic variant of the House of Commons, as the Commons aren't organized into political subdivisions such as states.  But the Constitution was heavy on states, as we are after all the United States.  

We still have that system.

The Senate was elected by the State legislatures and was to represent the states as states.  It was not directly elected.

The President was elected by the Electoral College. This was as compromise between those who wanted the President elected by the state legislatures, directly elected, or elected by the Congress. The first President of the United States, who was not George Washington, was elected by the Senate.  Nobody liked that system much, and the Constitution proposed to give the Executive branch grater powers than he had under the Articles of the Confederation. The question was how to pick him. Radical democrats wanted the people to elect him.  Reluctant aristocrats weren't so keen on that, and after all we already had the House of Representatives. But then, we also had the Senate.  

So the Electoral College was come up with, with the original concept being that the people would vote for electors who were to vote for the winning candidate, with the second place person getting the Vice President slot, but with there being some room to say now if the people voted for a dud.

What we have now

The electoral college system proved to be problematic right from the onset, as did having the runner up end up Vice President. That just meant the runner up could spend four years throwing rocks as the President, so the system was modified to make the VP a slot that was tied to the President. 

By the time of the Compromise of 1877 (that again) it was clear that the Electoral College didn't make very much sense any longer as the President had been an office directly campaigned for nearly the entire time.  Moves existed to abolish it but Reconstruction made that problematic and instead the system was modified statutorily in 1887 to attempt to prevent a Constitutional crisis.  Early inklings that the nation was headed into a crisis over the College resulted in the House voting to approve an amendment to the Constitution in 1969 to abolish the Electoral College. It passed overwhelmingly in the House in 1969 but failed in the Senate in 1970.

So its still around.

In 1913 the Constitution was amended to make Senators directly elected.

So what's that all mean?

Well, what it all means is that we retain an Electoral College that's subject to influence of outside forces and which sets up a system in which a President can be elected after having lost the popular vote. This was regarded as being nearly impossible up until George Bush won over Al Gore, but now it's repeating.  In each instance, it's been in the case of very close elections, hence Trump's efforts to frustrate the mail-in vote and to "find" votes in Georgia.

It also means that the system which imagined the voice of the people coming through the House of Representatives and the voice of state governments coming though the Senate is completely torpedoed.  Frankly, all Senators are, really, is long serving Commons members from giant ridings.

So what?

Well, this system has slowly evolved to where the government isn't really functioning except through its long serving beurocrats.  Gerrymandering of districts has made most districts safe, so things don't change much.  Like it or not, the House is ineffective even though the Democratic Party outnumbers the Republican Party, as it splits pretty evenly most of the time anymore.  The Senate does the same.  There's not much change, and Senate rules designed for a collegial body operate to prevent any action in one that's pretty divided.

And with the Imperial Presidency first brought in by Theodore Roosevelt, an outsized Executive has powers far beyond that imagined by the framers, a fact that's aided by a Congress that hasn't been governing for nearly twenty years.

Can that be fixed?

Oh yes, it can.

Fix No. 1. Abolish the Electoral College.

If this was done, the entire crisis that we're now in, regarding the Oval Office, would not exist or at least it'd make it much harder to come about.

I used to support the Electoral College as, at one point, as George F. Will used to point out, it amplified the popular vote giving the illusion of a mandate in an election that's typically pretty evenly divided.  Now its not doing that at all,, but that frankly is its only remaining purpose.

The Presidency is the one office that is supposed to represent the opinion of everyone.  The Electoral College only existed as plutocrats feared that the people wouldn't install plutocrats.  We don't want to install plutocrats, however.  

We should do what Congress attempted to do in 1969, abolish the Electoral College.  There's no excuse not to, even though Republicans right now come out against it. The real reason they do that is they fear they can't win  the Oval Office if it's abolish, and in fact they would not have elected a President since George Bush I if it didn't exist. That, however, is a Republican problem they should fix. As they win state elections easily enough in spite of being a minority party, nationally, they can fix it.

The overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of abolishing the Electoral College.  Abolishing it might not fix anything else, but if we are going to continue to have an outsized Presidency, we ought to at least make it one in which election mischief can't develop into a coup.

Fix No. 2.  Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment

Eh?  Have Senators elected by legislatures?

Yes.

Now, at first blush this would appear to flying the face of Fix No. 1, which I'd do at the same time. But it doesn't.

The Senate was always intended to be the voice of states, not of the people.  If it is a directly elected office, it actually serves no point whatsoever and should be abolished (which will be fix no. 3).  All the Senate is right now is a place for really long serving members of a Commons district with state boundaries. Why bother?

Indeed, because the Senate has retained rules from an earlier era, and because its nearly evenly split liek the House, it can't get anything done.  Right now, it's divided 50/50.

If Senators were chosen by legislatures, however, it wouldn't be.

This is a little tricky, but basically (but not really quite) the GOP controls 30 legislatures our of 50, or 60%.  If this was reflected in the US Senate, which it would not be perfectly, the Senate would be 60% Republican.

It'd likely be a little higher or lower than that, but the point is that the Senate would be cleanly the house of one party, the Republicans, reflecting its original purpose of representing the states.  And with those numbers, it could actually do something.

Yes, this is less democratic than the existing system, but it was intended to be. That was the point of the Senate.  And it would ironically function much better this way.

But if we don't like that, then;

Fix No. 3.  Abolish the Senate

If all the Senate is, is a giant House of Representatives, which is exactly what it is right now, just do away with it. We don't need it.

Indeed, right now, it's hard to see what the Senate actually does.  It has some Constitutional roles, to be sure, but they can simply be transferred to the House if it is just a big House with huge ridings.

This may sound radical, but this is how Nebraska's legislature works right now, and Nebraska has not descended into left wing anarchy.  If we really want a democratic senate, well, let's just not have one. The House reflects the vote of the people better and in a more cogent fashion.

That of course means that we'd be creeping up on a modified parliamentary system. Well, so what.  The British, who over the years have more and more sidelined the House of Lords, and most other democratic nations, work just this way.  

Indeed, if we did this, once again, much of the current drama wouldn't be there, as the Senate, which is serving as the blocker of things right now, wouldn't be in the way. Yes, Republicans would be upset, but if the Electoral College was also gone, they'd be working hard to appeal to the voters directly, rather than being mired in conspiracy theories.

Now, am I really in favor of this?  No, I'm not.  I'm in favor of the Senate functioning the way it was originally supposed to, but in the absence of that, this would be the next best thing.

Fix No. 4.  Do away with the quasi official nature of the parties.

Listen to any political discussion, and sooner or later you'll hear the falsehood that "the United States has a two party system".

It does not, at least not existentially.

It has a two party system as we became lazy and let the parties create one, and because of the operation of Duverger's Law which holds that plurality based deliberative institutions devolve into two parties, whereas as proportional institutions evolve into multi party institutions.

It nearly goes without saying that multi party institution are of course more democratic than two party systems.

The two party nature of our political culture has become so ingrained that Congress itself has organized itself accordingly, and in many state laws things have evolved to where boards are supposed to be made up of members of both parties. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party, therefore, while vying for control of the government, become, to some extent, arms of it.

This could, and should, be addressed by wiping out the aspects of our system which favor this.

The first thing to do would be to make all elections non-partisan.  The 49 member Nebraska legislature provides an example here again.  It's non-partisan.  Nebraska's Senators, which is what they are termed, are elected in a single non-partisan election. Get the top vote, and you are it.

That's  the way the elections for every elective office should work.  Yes, you could be a member of a party, and yes, you could let everyone know that, but there'd be no primary and whoever the top vote getter would be, would be the winner.

Taking that a step further, not only should that be how the larger US elections work, but in the national legislature itself the practice of having caucuses and Majority and Minority Speakers and Leaders should be abolished as official practices.  If the Republicans and Democrats, when they are out of power, want to gather in a basketball court somewhere and vote somebody their spokesman, have at it, but that person ought to get no special cred in the chambers of Congress itself. The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader are real positions, to an extent, so they'd stick around, but no more organizing on party lines officially.

Would that make a difference?  I  think it would.

For one thing, you'll hear around here that Harriet Hageman came in third when she ran for Governor behind Gordon and Freiss. But not really.  Mary Throne, the Democrat, came in second.  If the race had actually been come all and come in, how would that have looked?  I suspect that Gordon would still have one, but I strongly suspect that probably Throne would have been second or third, giving the current reflection back on the state's Governor a considerably different one than we now have.  Indeed, in Wyoming politics, nearly every election would be pulled toward the center as the Democrats and the middle of the road Republicans would have more of a voice, which they should as they are part of the population. The primary system silences those voices.

And wiping out the party organizations inside of Congress itself would definitely have an impact on government.  Minority leaders could run around trying to martial opposition or support for something, but their impact would be much smaller.  Without the ability to control committee membership and the like by party, at least openly, a greater emphasis would develop on getting things done and getting along, rather than getting in the way.

Taking this to the Oval Office itself, if the Presidential election was the top vote getter, in one single election, there's no earthly way we'd have had the last several Presidents.  Trump would not have been President at all.  Nor would have Barrack Obama.  Nor would have George Bush II.  Only a long primary system lead to their rise.  One election, in November, would have no open winnowing system and now way to weed out people's real views.

Yes, that would mean that a President might frequently get in with only 30% of the vote. But that President would also be less imperial by default.

And yet?

Any of this stuff likely to happen?

Probably not.

Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming Myths. Sacagawea

Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming Myths. Sacagawea: 

Wyoming Myths. Sacagawea

Mural in the Montana State House by Edgar Paxson depicting Sacagawea and the Corps of Discovery in Montana.  Sacagawea's actual appearance, of course, is known only by description, but Paxon was a Montana artist particularly noted for his attention to close detail.  Having said that, she was just a teenager at this time and likely appeared younger than the female figure in this depiction.

Wyoming has an association with Sacagawea, sort of.

But not quite as close as we sometimes like to claim.

Route of the Corps of Discovery.  It wholly avoided Wyoming.

Sacagawea, the Corps of Discovery's justifiably famous guide, or pilot, or interpreter, has a real world close connection with our state in that she was a Shoshone.  Having said that, she was a Lemhi Shoshone. a name they would not have recognized.  To her band, and her times, she was a Akaitikka meaning "Salmon Eater".*  At the time of her birth in 1788 the Shoshone were widely spread throughout Wyoming, Montana and Idaho and, if you consider that their split with the Comanche had already occurred, but that the Comanche are an extension of the Shoshone people, they were widely spread indeed.**

She was born in Idaho what is now near the Idaho-Montana border.  No such border existed at the time, of course, and the Shoshone, including the Lemhi, ranged over wide territories.  Her band most likely ranged into northwest Wyoming, with it being certain of course that other Shoshone bands inhabited the area.

In 1800, at age 12, she was taken in a Hidatsa raid.  The Hidatsa are a Siouan people who are closely related to another Siouan people, the Crows.  Some consider the tribes to be the same, with the Hidatsa the parent tribe to the Crows.  It's important to note, however, that when the Sioux are referred to, its typically the Lakota and Dakota, and related groups that are meant. Indeed the Sioux and the Crows would be bitter enemies in the 19th Century, as would the Sioux and the Shoshone for that matter.

The Hidatsa were wide ranging and she was taken to a location that today is near Washburn, North Dakota. This means that the raiders had effectively traversed what is now Montana, an impressive feat for a raiding party.  The taking of captives in this manner was not unusual, and while this undoubtedly meant that the very young Shoshone girls life had taken a disastrous turn, her captivity by the Hidatsa, while real, was probably not terribly harsh.  In other words, she was a captive, but a captive with domestic duties that were likely not far removed from that of Hidatsa girls of the same age.

At age 13 she was sold to Toussaint Charbonneau as a "wife".  

Histories have sometimes addressed this in various ways, including using such terms as "non consensual wife", but there is no such thing.  Indeed, it's remarkable that even though the circumstances of her initial union with Charbonneau are well known, she's still usually routinely referred to as Charbonneau's "wife."  Effectively she was purchased as a slave, and if the niceties are stripped off of it, she was kept as a involuntary concubine at first, basically, or if you really want to strip the niceties off of it, as sort of sex slave with domestic duties, at first.  She was Charbonneau's second such slave, the first being the equally juvenile Otter Woman who was probably also a Shoshone captive of the Hidatsa.***

Edgar Paxon's depiction of Toussaint Charbonneau, notable perhaps in that its a flattering illustration.  In reality, of course, we have no period depiction for Charbonneau and his reputation has never been what can be called flattering.

In 1804 the Corps of Discovery visited Hidatsa villages in the fall in anticipation of their press across the the upper West to the Pacific the next Spring. They were in search of guides, and in that context hoped to find somebody who knew the territory. They were visited by Charbonneau, who was a French Canadian fur trapper.****  William Clark noted in his journal:

french man by Name Chabonah, who Speaks the Big Belley language visit us, he wished to hire & informed us his 2 Squars (squaws) were Snake Indians, we engau (engaged) him to go on with us and take one of his wives to interpret the Snake language.…

Spelling obviously had yet to be standardized and Clark puzzled out Charbonneau's last name.  He also used a lot of colloquialisms for the names of Indian bands.  The Snakes referred to the Shoshone, which is of course not what they call themselves (like most Indian bands, they call themselves "The People").  

It's of note, fwiw, and noteworthy without trying to be "woke", that the commanders of the Corps of Discovery did not appear bothered that  about Charbonneau's irregular situation with the two teenaged Indian girls.*****  They also didn't claim, as other writers have, that either of his girls were his "wives".  They only claimed that they were his "Squars", meaning his Indian women.  Polygamy was of course illegal in the United States, and Louisiana, the vast newly acquired territory, was within the United States, but there's no good evidence in this early entry that they regarded Sacagawea or Otter Women as wives, but rather simply his held women.  And of course Lewis and Clark were both fully acclimated to slavery, something they did not regard as abnormal nor wrong, and they had a slave with them of their own, York, who belonged to Clark and who was Clark's lifelong body servant.******

On that date in 1804 Charbonneau was contracted to be a guide that following spring and to bring one of his teenage women along with him as an interpreter.  They had no apparent early preference which one that would be.

Charbonneau apparently did, as that following week he'd bring Sacagawea into the Corps of Discovery camp and they took up residence there.  He did not bring Otter Woman.*******  Prior to the Spring she'd give birth to their son, who was named Jean Baptiste Charbonneau, who'd live into his sixties and whom would have an adventuresome life and be the subject of his own Wyoming myth.  We'll get to that one later.

Otter Woman disappeared from history.  She was left with the Hidatsa and while there are oral history references to her, the story grows thin and her fate is unknown. She likely merged into the tribe that captured her and lived the rest of her life as part of the Hidatsa, but its of note that her story does not resume when Charbonneau returned to the Hidatsa for a time after completing his role with the Corps of Discovery.

Charles Russell's painting of the Corps of Discovery arriving at the camp of her native band, which was then lead by her brother.  This reunion occurred, in real terms, only a few years after she had been kidnapped by the Hidatsa.  Note that Russel, who was keen on detail, depicts one of the Shoshone as already being armed with a rifle, which was no doubt correct.

Everyone is of course familiar with the yeoman role that Sacagawea performed for the Corps of Discovery and therefore we'll omit it here.  Suffice it to say, she became the star critical guide, and a sort of diplomatic delegate for the expedition, outshining Charbonneau who seems to have been widely disliked, although the full degree to which he was disliked can be at least questioned as he'd retrain an occasional guiding role for the US Army into the 1830s, that coming to an end when Clark died.  Prior to that, he and Sacagawea would briefly live on a farm in Missouri, where she gave birth to a second child by him, named Lizette.  The invitation to live in Missouri came from Clark.  About Lizette little is known, and she's believed to have died in childhood.

Russell painting depicting the Corps of Discovery on the lower Columbia, with Sacagawea with arms outstretched.  One of the impacts of her presence on the trip was the effect it had on Indian bands they encountered, which convinced them that their intent was not hostile.

Following the experiment with farming, the couple, which by that time they seem to have been, returned to the Hidatsa.  Sacagawea died of what was described as "putrid fever" in 1812.^ At the time, it seems that she left the security of Fort Manual Lisa, where they were living, to return to the Hidatsa in what would have been sort of a premonition of death.  It also seems that she had a daughter with her at the time, who may have been Lizette, or who may have been a subsequent child about whom nothing else was known.  Jean Baptiste was left in Missouri at a boarding school which had been arranged for by Clark.

And with Sacagawea's death in 1812, the myth starts to kick in.

Truth be known, in the 18th and early 19th Centuries deaths in the United States were not well tracked in general and they certainly weren't in the West.  Birth Certificates and Death Certificates were not issued.  Nobody made really strenuous efforts, moreover, to keep track of the deaths of Indians up until the Reservation period, which was far in the future in 1812.  That we know as much as we do with the post 1804 life of Sacagawea is testimony to how important in the Corps of Discovery, and hence notable, she really was.  Period recollections on her fate can be regarded as beyond question.

None of which has kept people from questioning it.

Grace Raymond Hebard, educator, suffragist, feminist, and mythologist.

In the early 20th Century the remarkable University of Wyoming political economy professor, Dr. Grace Raymond Hebard, took an interest in Sacagawea and, with scanty evidence, concluded that she had not died in 1812 but rather had traveled to the Southwest and married into the Comanche tribe, and then came to Wyoming after her husband was killed. These claims surrounded a woman who was known by various names, including "Chief Woman", or Porivo.

The woman in question seems to have come on to the reservation in advanced old age and to have arrived with an adult son.  White figures on the Reservation at the time, including a prominent Episcopal missionary, became fascinated with the elderly woman.^^  Of note, resident Shoshone had a difficult time speaking to her, which was a clue to her actual probable origin.  Be that as it may, her advanced aged and presence with an adult son lead the European American figures on the reservation to believe that she must be the famous female "pilot", Sacagawea, and the adult son, must be Jean Baptiste Charbonneau, apparently not aware that Jean Baptiste's life was very well recorded, including his travels abroad and ultimate death in his early 60s.  No matter on any of that, those in question wanted to believe that the figures must be Sacagawea and Jean Baptiste.

In reality, they were almost certainly surviving Sheep Eater Indians.  

The Tukudeka, or Sheep Eaters, are a Shoshone band who ranged in the mountainous regions of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana.  Like the Lemhi, they were named by outsiders for their principal foods source, which in their case was Mountain Sheep.  

The Sheep Easters are the Shoshone band about which the least is known.   They always lived in what European Americans regarded as remote areas.  They were highly adapted to their lifestyle and remains of their sheep traps and other high mountain artifacts are fairly common, but encounters with them were actually very rare.  They did not routinely share their existence with other, lower altitude, Shoshones. Their encounters with European Americans were fairly rare, and they didn't have hostile encounters with them until very late in the Indian War period.  The Sheep Eater War of 1879 was the last major Indian War in the Pacific Northwest for that reason.

Sheep Eaters were a presence on the Wind River Reservation as early as 1870, when the Federal Government acknowledged them as a band entitled to the Shoshone allotment, and Shoshone Chief Washakie accepted them as a Shoshone group, but they had no high incentive to come onto the reservation voluntarily and generally only did very late, as the era of Indian free ranging was drawing down.  In spite of their enormous success in their environment, they were not numerous and generally melted into the Reservation populations when they came in, but they were different at first.  Included in their uniqueness was a linguistic one.  Their language varied from other Shoshones to an extent.

Most likely the elderly woman and her son who came in onto the Reservation and were noted by the Episcopal and Reservation figures were Sheep Eaters.  Their language was different and they just showed up.  By the time that they did, the Sheep Easter era was drawing very much to a close.  Most likely the adult man and his elderly mother decided that they couldn't make it as a solitary two.  Or some variant of that, as in the son deciding that caring for his mother in the mountains had become too burdensome.

The figures noted very much took to them, although conversing with them proved difficult.  The degree to which they adopted their view of what she was saying to fit their romantic conclusion of the rediscovery of Sacagawea or that the elderly woman.  Whomever she was, she passed away in 1884.  If she was Sacagawea, which she was not, she would have been 96 years old, certainly not an impossibly old age, but certainly an old one, both then and now.

Dr. Charles Eastman.

By 1919 the myths regarding Chief Woman had spread sufficiently that they were referenced in a 1919 account on the Corps of Discovery in a second hand way, noting that that a sculptor looking for a model of Sacagawea had learned of her 1884 death on the Wind River Reservation and her supposed status as Sacagawea.  In 1925 Dr. Charles Eastman, a Sioux physician, was hired by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to locate Sacagawea's remains.  He also learned of Porivo's 1884 death and conducted interviews at Wind River.  Those interviews, conducted nearly forty years after her death, included recollections that she had spoken of a long journey in which she's assisted white men and, further, that she had a sliver Jefferson Peace Medal such as the type carried by the Corps of Discovery.  He also located a Comanche woman who claimed Porivo was her grandmother.  He claimed that Porivo had lived at Fort Bridger, Wyoming for sometime with sons Bazil and Baptiste and that ultimately that woman had come to Fort Washakie, where she was recorded as "Bazil's mother"  It was his conclusion that Porivo was Sacagawea.

Not all of Porivo's reputed accounts, if taken fully at face value, are fully easy to discount at first, but by and large they become so if fully examined.  Long journeys are in the context of the teller, and peace medals were much more common than might be supposed.  None the less, the retold story was picked up by Dr. Grace Raymond Hebard who massively romanticized it.  Hebard's historical research has been discredited, but her 1933 book caused a widespread belief to exist that Sacagawea didn't die in her late 20s but rather in her 90s, and not in North Dakota, but in Wyoming.  That suited Hebard's Wyoming centric boosting of her adopted state, and her feminist portrayal of an Indian heroine.  It provides a massive cautionary tale about the reinterpretation of history in the context of ones own time and to suit a preconceived notion of how the past ought to be a perfect prologue for hte future.

It is, however, simply, if unknowingly, false.

And the falsity of it gives Wyoming a claim on Sacagawea that it frankly doesn't merit.  One that lead to monuments in the state to Sacagawea, to include a tombstone or over Porivo's grave that identified her as Sacagawea, which is a sort of tourist attraction.

Indeed, there's no actual indication that Sacagawea ever set foot in Wyoming.  She may have, as a young girl, as the Lemhi Shoshone ranged over the mountainous regions of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.  Be that as it may, the Lemhi Valley of Idaho is named after them for a reason.  They're not one of the Shoshone bands that distinctly associated with the state prior to the Reservation era.  Be that as it may, during the known established period of her life, we can place her in Idaho, Montana and North Dakota, in terms of regional states, but not Wyoming. . . at any time.

That does not mean, of course, that she's not an admirable and important figure.  Nor does it mean that she was not an important Shoshone figure, and the Shoshone are an important people in Wyoming's history.  Its almost certainly the case that relatives of her, but not descendants, live on the Reservation today, although that claim would be even better for the Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho.  Through her son, Jean Baptiste, she likely has living descendants today, although not ones who would identify as Shoshone.

But giving people a long and romantic life rather than a short and tragic one doesn't do them or history any favors.  In reality, Sacagawea's life was heroic, tragic and short.  She was just a girl when she was kidnapped from her family, and still just a girl when she was sold to a man a good twenty years older than she was and of an alien culture to be a type of domestic slave, kept along with another similarly youthful domestic slave he already held.  In that capacity she went across half the continent and back with an infant, and did come to be hugely admired by the members of the Corps of Discovery.  It was that respect that lead, in part, to the post expedition opportunities afford to her and Toussaint Charbonneau, who seems to have evolved into her actual husband over time.  That also lead to the education of her son at the behest of William Clark.  It didn't save her, however, form a 19th Century death, still in her twenties.

She was a remarkable young woman by all accounts, and deserves to be remembered as such, and accurately.

*Lemhi comes from Fort Lemhi, which was a Mormon mission to the Akaitikka.

**Comanche is a Shoshone word meaning "Arguer"  The argument was over the adoption of horses, and the argument took place in southeastern Wyoming at the time that the Shoshones first encountered horses.  The Comanches were the early adopters of horses.

***The details regarding Otter Woman are extremely obscure.  It's known that she was in an identical status to that of Sacagawea in 1804 and the best evidence is that she was a captive Shoshone.  There are other claims for her tribal origin, however and additional assertions as to her fate.  Like Sacajawea, her history suffers from an unfortunate association with the work of Dr. Grace Raymond Hebert who places Otter Woman in the Corps of Discovery camp in the winter of 1804 and who even has her remaining in domestic union with Charbonneau in later years, along with Sacajawea.  In reality, she seems to have simply been abandoned in 1804 or 1805.  Charbonneau's reasoning for this isn't clear, but Sacajawea was pregnant at the time that Charbonneau was hired by the Corps of Discovery.  It is clear that the Corps desired that one of Charbonneau's wives accompany them to act as interpreter, and he may have chose her due to her pregnancy, not wishing to abandon her in that condition.

Of course, if Otter Woman was in fact not Shoshone, but Mandan or some other tribe as has been claimed, that would also explain why she was not chosen.  

What occurred to her is not realistically capable of being known.

****Toussaint Charbonneau was probably born in 1767 and was from a town that is near Montreal.  His first name means "All Saints Day" or "All Saints".  He had been a fur trapper for an extended period of time by 1804.  His reputation has never been particularly good and for good reason.  One of the earliest records regarding him, prior to his time as a trapper, notes him being stabbed by a woman in defense of her daughter whom Charbonneau was attempting to rape.  

Charbonneau appears to be almost uniformly disliked by people who associated with him over the course of his long life.  He appears to have been temperamental.  He also seems to have a predilection for young women as he had four or five Indian "wives" during his lifetime, all of whom were teenagers at the time of their "marriages".  This includes one who was a teen at the time of his death , which is notable as he was in his 76 at the time, assuming the 1767 birth year is correct (if it isn't, he would have been 84, which seems unlikely).  The name of at least one of his wives is unknown (the name of another was Corn Woman, leaving at least one, or perhaps, unknown as to name).  It's known that two of the four or five where Shoshone, if Otter Woman was Shoshone, and one was Assiniboine.

His estate was settled by his son Jean Baptiste, which is interesting in that it would indicate that he was in some sort of contact with his son at the time of his death in about 1843, at which time he was back in North Dakota.  It's also interesting in that it would suggest that Jean Baptiste may have been his only survivor.  The existing information confirms that he had at least two children, both by Sacagawea, and may have had a third by her.  Only Jean Baptiste is known to have survived but the information about the possible third is very limited.  This is notable as his having four or five native women in domestic arrangements, with only one bearing children, would seem to be unlikely.

Charbonneau's long life is testament to his lifestyle in the wild being of a generally healthy nature.

*****Nor were they apparently bothered by the fact that the enlisted men of the Corps of Discovery indulged themselves with the favors of Indian women, making treatment for venereal disease a medical necessity for the expedition.  This was at least in part due to the fact that some Indian tribes of the period offered Indian women as favors to visitors, although I'm not noting that in regard to the Shoshone but rather to other bands the Corps encountered early in its trip across the western half of the continent. This is significant here only in noting that while Clark in particular came to really respect if not outright adore Sacagawea, the overall view of the men of the Corps was of a rather isolated and not egalitarian nature.

******York had been a slave in the Clark household and had grown up with Clark.  His post Corps of Discovery fate is poorly documented but it seems that Clark likely freed York at some point, probably a decade or so after the expedition, and due to repeated York requests that he be set free.  During the expedition he became a fairly participating member and his slave status, therefore, would have started to wear off.  He seems to have entered the freighting business upon being freed, and it further seems that Clark had granted him a status approach freedom sometime prior to actually freeing him.  York died at approximately age 60, apparently from cholera.  His death in his sixties came a few years prior to Clark's in his sixties.

*******Hebard says that Otter Woman spent the winter of 1804/05 win camp with Sacagawea and Charbonneau and was reunited with them upon the Corps of Discovery's return. She has Otter Woman going to Missouri with them and then returning to North Dakota with Lizette.

In short, it seems that Hebard disliked abandonment and death, and who likes them?  She was an important Wyoming figure and educator, and a suffragist.  Never married, a person is tempted to see in some of this a large element of projection of a period feminist sort in which not only is Sacagawea an important figure in the Corps of Discovery, but a feminist herself, with Otter Woman as an unconventional companion, associate and friend.

The reality of it was much more harsh.  Charbonneau abandoned Otter Woman upon obtaining employment with the Corps of Discovery, which at least left the pregnant Sacagawea with support.  As noted above, her pregnancy may explain why she was chosen over Otter Woman.  At least some oral histories indicate that Otter Woman later married an Indian man, and irrespective of their accuracy this is likely.  Given her slave status, Charbonneau's abandonment of her may have been a better fate for her in real terms.

^There's always a temptation to speculate about what a disease like "putrid fever" is, but in the context of the times its impossible to know.  While in a year like this one its easier to understand than others, even routine diseases could be lethal at the time and a disease like influenza was a real killer.

On an unrelated topic that fits in to this period, it might be worth noting that the actual story of Sacagawea, like that of several other 18th and 19th Century Indian women heroines, was uncomfortable for their European American contemporaries as well as for later generations, and therefore its continually recast.  Sacagawea is, like Pocahontas or Kateri Tekakwitha, an uncomfortable example of a Native American who was acculturated to more than one culture.  This was much more common among Indians than modern Americans would like to believe.

In her case, she had spent the first twelve years of her life about as isolated from the European Americans culture for an Indian as would have been possible south of the 48th Parallel and perhaps about as much as possible outside of far northern North America. This would have changed once she was with the Hidatsa, particularly upon her enslavement to Charbonneau.  It would have changed even more upon her accompaniment with the Corps of Discovery and its notable that at the time of her reunion with the Lemhi she made no apparent effort, nor did they, to rejoin them.  By that time, of course, she had a child and in the reality of the 19th Century her die may have been caste, if not by her own will.  Indeed, her fate was was at that point similar to that of the Sabean women who plead for their attackers after becoming pregnant by them in legend.

But only a few years later she was found in Missouri, a farmer's wife, with the farmer being Charbonneau.  She felt sufficiently comfortable with European American society to surrender Jean Baptiste to Clark before returning to North Dakota.  Her going back and forth between the Indian world and the European world is not seamless, but its not absent either.  This is true of many other period Native Americans including some very well known ones.

^^The Episcopal connection is what caused this thread to be written, although we'd debated doing it for years.  On one of our companion blogs, Churches of the West, a recent comment was posted about the Episcopal church in Atlantic City, with it being noted that the church had been moved from another location and that "Sacagawea" had been baptized there.

It's perfectly possible that the church had been moved from the Wind River Indian Reservation or some other locality in Fremont County, but Sacagawea wasn't baptized there.  Porivo may very well have been, given her close connection with the resident Episcopal missionary at the time.  It isn't known if Sacagawea was ever baptized, but if she was, and its quite possible that in fact this occurred, she would have been baptized as a Catholic.  Charbonneau had been baptized as a Catholic in his infancy.  It's additionally clear that Charbonneau, in spite of his lifestyle, gave his children distinctly French Catholic names and that a known descendant of Jean Baptiste Charbonneau was baptized as a Catholic.

Boston 1775: Abigail Adams’s Quiet Thanksgiving in 1798

Boston 1775: Abigail Adams’s Quiet Thanksgiving in 1798: On 29 Nov 1798, Abigail Adams sat down to an unusually small Thanksgiving dinner . An autumn Thanksgiving feast was an important tradit...

2020 Election Post Mortem VIII. What in the world is Donald Trump doing?

I guess the safest thing to say is that neither I, nor anyone else, has any idea, but he should stop it.

Let's start with some things that few people are willing to acknowledge right now.  While the Trump Administration has been a roller coaster ride, and an unwilling one for many people, its had its accomplishments.  Setting aside the constant drama of the last four years, his judicial appointments have been excellent and many business people feel that his management of the economy and roll back of regulations was well done.  Opponents of abortion could note that he's the most pro life President in years.  Populists can claim him as the most populist President since Andrew Jackson, if you like populism.  People who wanted a draw down in military engagements overseas got that.  His taking on China in trade was also long overdue.

None of this is to say he is without critics, but rather if you look at things from the 30,000 feet view, he had some real accomplishments and it can be argued. . . .or could be argued that his oppressors were simply unreconstructed leftists who just hated what he was accomplishing.  Not that this view would really be correct or at least fully correct either.

Now, all of that is changing.  Donald Trump is going to be remembered as the President who made a desperate last ditch effort to subvert the election after the fact and hold on to power by any means.  That will be the single biggest thing he's remembered for.

Remember Richard Nixon?

Of course you do. And when you recall him, you think of Watergate right away.

Yup.

So why on earth is Trump doing what he's doing?

Before we look at this, we need to note something else. The damage being done by the sitting President to American democracy right now is a the epic level.  We are looking like a third world country to the outside world and the constant legal actions and attacks on the process are convincing a certain section of the population that the world's fairest election system is corrupt.  It's inexcusable and it will take at least a decade to overcome it.

It will also do untold damage to the Republican Party which is on shaky ground to start with. Right now, I'd give the GOP even odds on actually surviving or splitting into two parties.  If that sounds surprising I've heard Republican after Republican of the old school openly criticizing their party.  One person I know called the party "bat shit crazy".  Another GOP member I know told me that he's leaving the party after its safe to go to the courthouse and re-registering as an independent as he "doesn't want to be a member of a fascist party".

Now most Republicans won't leave the party, of course.. . . unless the Ben Sasse, Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney wings of the party can't reconcile with the Trump wing.  In that case, we're going to have two parties.

And all of this is being done in a doomed effort.

Indeed, if it isn't doomed, it will actually destroy American democracy to some degree. Trump will not be able to govern if he actually takes the Oval Office this way.  Protests, and extremely violent protests, will occur across the nation. Trump will call for the use of the National Guard against the protestors but some Governors won't do that, and at this point I'd guess that a fair number of National Guardsmen, quite a few of whom are minorities, wouldn't report if called.  It would be a mess of epic proportions.  A second effort to impeach the President would occur, but this time in a very closely divided Senate where some Republicans would definitely cross the isle.  Republicans won't all want to be associated with the mess.  We will have seen nothing like it since 1859 and 1860.

And as noted, it won't work.

So why is this going on?

It's almost impossible to say but it boils down to about three things.  Perhaps Trump really believes he won, in which case he's delusional to the extent that there's be some sort of disorder associated with it.  That's possible, as some people come to love themselves and believe themselves so strongly, that they actually can't accept defeat.

Nobody can psychoanalyze a person remotely, but lots of people try.  With Trump its been done before and there are those who have claimed him to not be quite right.  Earlier in his administration it was claimed that a lot of his his staff routinely work to simply defeat his various notions.  Now we could be seeing him essentially unleashed with no restraint.

Or it could be that all of this is necessary as there's something to hide.  That's been suggested a lot recently, but if that's the case he was never going to be President forever and whatever needed to be hidden ought to be well hid by now, unless of course once again the staff prevented it and this is a last ditch effort at distraction.  That seems unlikely.

Or it could be a genuine effort at what would amount to an electoral coup.  The Atlantic warned of this possibility in what seemed to me to be a farfetched scenario at the time, but now the script that they set forth looks as if its being read by the administration.  In the last three weeks the Trump campaign has attacked the process again and again and it made a real effort to have the Michigan legislature decide the electors this past week.  It doesn't seem to have calculated that state laws don't allow for this process everywhere in an unrestrained manner and it didn't figure either that in some states, like Georgia, the Republican Party wouldn't participate in it.  That effort still is going on, however, with various states still having not certified. Therefore, it remains a theoretical, but extraordinarily remote, possibility that the Trump campaign could be successful at this effort in one or more states, with enormously disastrous results.

If that's the attempt, a person has to ask why its being attempted, as it would suggest that Trump is willing to subvert democracy to stay in office. But why?  It would be a national disaster as noted.

Usually when this occurs its because the forces backing it believe that they have a moral imperative to rule that overrides democracy.  In the 20th Century we saw fascist and communist parties that absolutely took that position, and in some cases they in fact rose to power initially in an election.

We also saw in the 20th Century, and earlier, the same thing with personalities that claimed a right to rule in that fashion.  In Spanish the term is Caudillo. The man on horseback.  An entire series of such rulers governed Mexico until the fall of Porfirio Diaz, who provides a good example.  He couldn't imagine the country ruled by anyone other than himself and fought a civil war over it.  Many other such examples exist, however, such as Franco of Spain and Salazar of Portugal.  Franco might provide a better example in that he continued his rule well after there was any reason for him to claim a need to do it, he just couldn't step down. And he didn't.  At least realizing that the country would transition to democracy after his death, he took steps for that to happen only after he passed away.

If that's the goal, it won't work.  But what it will do is cause the party backing the effort to look like the parties that backed those figures.  Does the GOP want to be compared to the Spanish Falangists?

None of this will work, but its making the transition to the Biden Administration problematic and it also stands, for conservatives, to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. The GOP had a good election and just a few days ago it looked like it would retain the Senate.  Now it looks like the Democrats are going to take it. Every day in which this drama goes on makes things worse and worse for Republicans.

Which brings us to the final potentiality.  Maybe Trump knows all of this is doomed but he wants to run in 2024 and this is his way of keeping the Party under his control and retaining his base.  If that's his goal, at least its the least distressing one, even if its pretty distressing.  The problem with that, beside everything noted above, is hubris.  It's an assumption that an elderly man who is overweight and doesn't look to be in good health is going to be able to run in 2024 or even that the natural winding down of the clock of time, which none of us can control, won't run down.  At his age, after all, he's blisteringly close to the end of his naturally allotted years.

In an earlier post, I predicted November and December were going to be a mess.  But I sure didn't see anything like this.

One final thought.  For the first time yesterday I saw pundits referencing the Sedition Act.

In 1973 Gerald Ford made the mistake of pardoning Richard Nixon.  He shouldn't have.  Ford's pardoning of Nixon cost him the 1976 election and it further failed to provide an example which should have been provided that a President isn't above the law.  I know all of the excuses for doing it, but they don't meet the test.  Nixon should have been tried and convicted and served time for his crimes.

Democrats are now so enraged that there's real talk of prosecuting Trump for crimes, if there are any. This is going to be an early nightmare for the Biden Administration.  Having said that, there's now talk of the Sedition Act which addresses attempts to subvert the transfer of power.  Nobody would have mentioned that just three weeks ago.  It's being mentioned now.  Donald Trump, through this conduct, will not only be remembered for his actions in November 2020, but he's beginning to become the first President to have Sedition attached to his name.

This really needs to stop for the nation's sake.  But it doesn't look like it will.  Franklin stated that the Founders gave us a republic "if we could keep it".  Jefferson didn't think we would keep it after we ceased to be agrarian and that we'd descend to rule by the mob inevitably.  Whether they were right or not, we look pretty pathetic right now.

The GOP can still save itself, and the country, from this, but it has to do so right now.  And it has to involve a unified front of major Republican figures.  They should do it as its the only rational thing to do. But so far, they seem to have simply assumed that time will fix it and people will forget it.  If they keep up not saying anything, they're going to lose in Georgia and have a party that's effectively two parties in 2021.

Blog Mirror: “Bring Out Your Dead”: The Yellow Fever Epidemic of 1793

“Bring Out Your Dead”: The Yellow Fever Epidemic of 1793

May 16, 1920. The Canonization of Joan d'Arc

A doodle of Joan d'Arc by Clément de Fauquembergue on the margin of the protocol of the Parliament of Paris from May 10, 1429, two years prior to her death.  Clément de Fauquembergue was the parliamentary registrar and the news of the her victory at Orleans had just reached Paris.  The doodle is the only know illustration of her done during her lifetime.

On this day in 1920, Pope Benedict XV canonized Joan d'Arc, the 15th Century peasant girl who lead French forces in a revived effort to recapture lost grounds from the English after hearing voices commanding her to act for the French crown.  She ultimately paid for her efforts with her life, being burned at the stake after being falsely convicted of heresy, a charge now universally regarded as absurd and which was itself reversed in 1456.

Even no less of figure as Winston Churchill regarded Joan as a saint.  That the illiterate farm girl was able to gain access first to the French crown and then the army in the field commander was and is proof of her divine mission. With the army, she offered advice to its noble commanders which was frequently taken and French fortunes against the English in fact reversed and their army started to do remarkably well.

She is believed to have been born in 1412 in a region of Lorraine that retained loyalty to the French crown during the Hundred Years War, a contest between the Plantagenets, the Norman rulers of England, and the House of Valois, the rulers of France, over who should rule France. The house she grew up in and the village church there still stand.  As those who have ready Henry V know, the English long maintained that they should rule both kingdoms and they often regarded France as more important than in England.  That contest commenced in 1337 and featured a long running series of campaigns.  Trouble in the French royal family had been taken advantage of by Henry V who had been able to greatly expand the amount of English controlled territory in the 1415 to 1417 period.  By 1429, when Joan commenced her mission, half of France was controlled directly by England or by French duchies that were loyal to England.

The English commenced a a siege of the FRench city of Orleans in 1428, a town that was a holdout in its region for the French king, Charles VII.

Joan began to have visions in 1425, at which time she was 13 years old.  She identified the first figures she saw as St. Michael, St. Catherine and St. Margaret, who told her to drive the English out of France and take the Dauphin to Reims for his consecration.  At age 16 she made demands upon a relative to take her to see the crown which were received with scorn.  Nonetheless she was taken to Vaucouleurs where she demanded an armed escort to the royal court, which was denied. Returning the following year, she secured the support of two soldiers and their urgings and support she was conducted to the court after she reported the results of a distant battle she had not been at two days prior to messengers arriving to report it.  She as then escorted to the court disguised as a male soldier as it involved crossing hostile Burgundian territory.  At that time she was 17 years old and Charles VII 26.

She secured permission to travel with the army, which was granted.  Everything she used in the mission was donated to her, including the banner that she used.  She never used any weapons in battle but rode under her banner. She did, however, gain access to councils of war and was listened to. As noted, the fortunes of the French reversed in this period.  The siege of Orleans was broken by the French and Reims taken. The Dauphin was crowned as a result in Reims.

After a brief truce between the English and the French she was captured in battle in 1430 and put on trial for heresy.  Heresy being a religious offense, she was tried by English and Burgundian clerics, but the English officers oversaw the trial.  The trial was irregular and conducted without religious authority and without the individual commissioned to find evidence against her being able to find any.  Her conviction hinged on her having worn male clothing when under escort across hostile Burgundian soil.  She was convicted by this tribunal of heresy and burned at the stake in May 31, 1431.  Her executioner later greatly feared that his service in this role would result in his damnation.

In spite of her death, the dramatic reversal in French fortunes continued on and by 1450 the English had been pushed off the continent.  In fact, French borders surpassed their current ones, as France's resulting borders included what is now part of Belgium, a not surprising result given that Belgium is a multiethnic state.

A regular canonical trial to examine the first one's propriety was convened in 1455 and reversed the conviction in 1456.

She's been a popular figure ever since her death and in any age the nature of her mission is hard to deny.  Illiterate and born in a region separated from the retreating French royal lands, she nonetheless managed to convince the French crown and the chivalric leaders of its army that she had a divine mission, something that was aided by her knowledge of things that she could not have known but for her commission.  Under her, in spite of the fact that she was a teenage girl with no experience in military matters, French military fortunes permanently reversed.

It's no doubt her youth and gender that have caused her popularity to remain outside of France, but she is a saint whose nature should cause moderns to pause.

MKTH photograph of the statue of St. Joan d'Arc in Notre Dame de Paris.

She was not, as some no doubt imagine her, as some sort of proto feminist teenage leader in an age of male patrimony and would not have seen things that way.  She was singularly devout and saw her mission as a religious one.  She was known to be opposed to the heresies of her era and Islam. She was intensely Catholic and caused the army she lead to be adherent to the faith.  The war for control of France changed from a contest between two royal families to a war with religious overtones and even, as viewed from a modern eye, as one involving nationalism in an early form.  Her modern fans would do well to take note of her mission and the fact that its impossible to imagine it without crediting the divine voices that she attributed it to.

And indeed, her mission did have impacts on the religious map of Europe in ways that would not be possible to appreciate at the time of her execution at age 19 in May, 1430.  England was pushed off the continent in 1450 by which time Henry VI was king. That same year he was forced to put down a rebellion against the crown in England.  In 1533, a mere 83 years later during a period of time in which events often moved slowly, King Henry VIII would take the formerly devout England away from the Church and marry his pregnant mistress Anne Boleyn, bringing the Reformation to England in a personal effort to generate a male successor through a fertile female. The following acts would result in crown licensed theft of church property, murder and decades of strife and war.  While France would fall to secularism in 1790, its position up until that time remained stalwart.