We’re barely into the new year, and there’s talk of impeachment. Of course, some of that is current rhetoric against Pres. Trump, but today’s #HistoryMonday is all about impeachment of a president who refuses to follow congressional rules and has a tumultuous cabinet.
On this day in 1868, the House of Representatives adopt articles of impeachment against Pres. Andrew Johnson. These in response to continued efforts by Pres. Johnson to remove his Secretary of War. Leading the impeachment effort against Pres. Johnson was Thaddeus Stevens (R) of Pennsylvania. Stevens was quoted as saying, “This [impeachment] is not to be the temporary triumph of a political party” which sounds remarkably similar to the most recent statements about Pres. Trump’s impeachment.
Pres. Johnson had earned the ire of Congress prior to ascending to the presidency in 1865. Following a policy of Pres. Lincoln to extend mercy to Southerners, Pres. Johnson sought to forgive Confederate sympathizers after the end of the Civil War. This was hardly surprising as Pres. Johnson was a Democrat from Tennessee who wasn’t opposed to slavery in the South but was opposed to the secession from the United States. Republicans who wanted to punish Southerners for seceding equating it to treason were opposed to Pres. Johnson and others’ leniency during Reconstruction.
During Reconstruction, the South was divided into districts to be governed by the military. These military governors would be overseen by the Secretary of War. Pres. Johnson was at odds with Sec. Edwin M. Stanton who tended to agree with the Republicans who pushed for stronger discipline against the South. Congress had passed the Tenure of Office Act in 1867 to prevent the President from firing officials who are confirmed by the Senate without submitting the request to fire the official to the Senate for the same advice and consent. While the law was worded ambiguously, it was understood by most to be a protection for Stevens.
Pres. Johnson knew the Tenure of Office Act didn’t preclude him from suspending officials during congressional recesses, so in August of 1867 he took advantage of that loophole. While Stanton was suspended, Pres. Johnson appointed Ulysses S. Grant as Interim Secretary of War. When Congress reconvened later that winter, Grant resigned to avoid punishment by Congress. In response, Pres. Johnson selected Lorenzo Thomas as Interim Secretary of War on February 22, 1868 when he submitted the name to the Senate and asked Thomas to relieve Stanton of his duties. Stanton then barricaded himself in his office and had Thomas arrested.
The Republicans in Congress who wanted to keep Pres. Johnson in check and asked Stanton to withdraw the arrest of Thomas in order to proceed towards impeachment. Reviewing the acts leading to that point, Congress passed a resolution to impeach Pres. Johnson 126-47, which fell mostly along party lines. Although 4 Democrats voted for the resolution, and 2 Republicans voted against. Oddly enough, 17 representatives abstained from voting.
Congress drafted 11 articles of impeachment against Pres. Johnson on March 4 after the resolution to impeach. Most of these articles were specifications of the impropriety about Stanton’s suspension and firing, as well as appointing others to the position that couldn’t assume it since the office was improperly vacated.
The Senate began its trial later that same day with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding over the trial. As this was the first instance of impeachment, Chase wasn’t sure of his authority and neither was the Senate. After objections to early rulings, Chase decided not to issue rulings to keep the peace. A challenge was presented for ruling but was left undecided regarding the president of the Senate pro tempore, Benjamin Wade. As there was no Vice President at that time, Wade would accede to the presidency should Pres. Johnson be convicted and removed from office. So, it was argued that this was a conflict of interest for Wade, who did vote to convict.
On May 16, the Senate voted 35-19 that Pres. Johnson was guilty of the 11th Article, falling one vote shy of the threshold to convict. The Senate took a 10-day-recess and voted on the 2nd and 3rd Articles, and again missed by one vote to convict. The Senate then adjourned without addressing the other eight articles. Inquiries from both sides determined that patronage and bribery had been employed to sway votes. Given these improper attempts to influence the votes, it made sense to move on.
Of course, we have seen in the last five decades that impeachment is still a tool of Congress to keep an eye on the President and attempt to maintain a balance of power and check on authority of the executive. In those five decades, we have seen an impeachment process begun against Pres. Richard Nixon, Pres. Bill Clinton, and Pres. Donald Trump. Pres. Nixon resigned before the impeachment trial in the Senate, so it’s unclear what might have happened with their decision(s). The two most recent impeachments also resulted in acquittal like Pres. Johnson. Given the high threshold to convict, it’s unlikely that an impeached president is convicted in the Senate unless that president grossly and/or maliciously violates the law.
We’re at the finish line of another week again and today’s #CurrentEventFriday looks at the wild events that played out of the finish line of the Great American Race—the Daytona 500 on Monday. More specifically, the attention paid to the fourth-place competitor.
The finish of the race saw the second-closest result in the race and was won by Denny Hamlin. After this win, Hamlin won his third Daytona 500 race and the second in consecutive years. Before crossing the finish line, Hamlin was running in third place but was able to gain the lead in the last few hundred feet as Ryan Newman lost the lead while being spun out by Ryan Blaney.
What makes this noteworthy is that Newman lost the lead while blocking Blaney from performing a bump-and-run maneuver that sent Newman into the outside wall and turned Newman’s car upside down which was then struck by Corey LaJoie’s car. After being struck by LaJoie, the car piloted by Newman began to ignite.
Hamlin’s crew and team owner began to celebrate their victory while many fans booed the celebration given the damage to Newman’s car and Newman himself. Newman was rescued from the car and was transported by ambulance to a nearby hospital.
NASCAR officials released a press statement about Newman’s condition later that night. Many took to social media to offer thoughts and prayers for the veteran driver. Of course, many were concerned about his condition eliciting a parallel to the announcement following 2001’s Daytona 500 that ended with Dale Earnhardt’s death.
Thankfully, for Ryan Newman there are several safety measures and equipment in place after Earnhardt’s death. The modern car includes a Head and Neck Safety (HANS) device that protects the driver’s head and neck, a roll cage with several reinforcements including an Earnhardt Bar and a Newman bar that were added after previous crashes that injured the driver the bars are named for.
As these safety measures have become standard and protect the driver’s more each year it’s no surprise that Wednesday afternoon that Newman was released from the hospital, alert and walking. Some on social media created memes of Dale Earnhardt acting as a guardian angel for Ryan Newman. Surprisingly, many who passively follow NASCAR demonstrated concern for Newman while he was hospitalized and celebrated his release.
For LaJoie and Hamlin’s part they were both concerned for Newman after the race and offered prayers and support for his recovery. An image of LaJoie praying for Newman near his own still smoldering car was shared on social media. Roush-Fenway the company that Newman drives for announced that Ross Chastain will drive the car until Newman is medically cleared to return to the car.
An interesting wrinkle in this story involves Ryan Newman and his wife Krissie. Just before the Daytona 500, the couple announced that after 16 years of marriage they were separating. In statements from both Ryan and Krissie, they announced they would raise their two young children as co-parents despite their own relationship.
After the accident and subsequent hospitalization, Krissie posted on Twitter & Instagram a photo of Ryan awake and posing with the girls and later a video of Ryan walking out of the hospital with their children. Some fans believe that after this brush with mortality, the Newmans may reconsider their separation. Neither Ryan or Krissie Newman has offered an update on their marital status since the accident, so they may still proceed towards separation amicably or they might reconcile. Optimists no doubt are pulling for the latter over the former, and why not stranger things have happened.
Another week is upon us, and that means it’s time to discuss an event in history, and today’s event is all about being framed. Now, this isn’t about people being unfairly convicted of a crime, but about works of art being celebrated and displayed. Today’s #HistoryMonday looks at of all things an art show that was the first of its kind in the United States.
On this day in 1913, the International Exhibition of Modern Art opens in the National Guard’s 69th Regiment Armory in New York City. The location of this exhibition would give it its more familiar name, the Armory Show.
Art shows in the United States were nothing new in 1913 of course, but this show featured works of modern art. Among this classification, styles like Fauvism, Cubism, and Futurism were observed by Americans for the first time. These schools had already achieved acclaim in Europe, but now had a chance for Americans to see these new works.
The exhibition was informally organized by a handful of artists in 1911. As they and other influential folks in the art world had continued discussion, they formed the Association of American Painters and Sculptors (AAPS) to promote contemporary art. After forming as the AAPS, the members began to plan the International Exhibition of Modern Art, and selected the Armory for its large space needed to display the works of art.
Conceptual artist Marcel Duchamp drew the most attention for his Cubist/Futurist work Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2. The work features successive images of a human figure superimposed on each other in a Cubist style. These images are similar to stop motion art like flip books and cartoons. Although the Cubist style makes the human features indistinguishable, the title gained attention. Even Pres. Teddy Roosevelt who saw the work disparaged it, comparing a Navajo rug as a better work of art than Duchamp’s. Other well-known artists featured in the show include Pablo Picasso, Mary Cassatt, Paul Cézanne, and Wassily Kandinsky just to name a few.
Oddly enough, this was the only exhibition that the AAPS mounted. The organization did take the show to two more locations after the success in New York City. The second city to feature the show was not surprisingly the Second City—Chicago at the Art Institute of Chicago nearly a month after its opening in New York. The final location was at The Copley Society of Art in Boston, although the works by American artists were soon removed from the show as this location lacked enough space for all the works.
Many who observed the modern art were scandalized by the shift from realism that had existed in the centuries prior. The odd use of colors, subjects, and unconventional techniques caused many to question the legitimacy of the works as art. Like Pres. Roosevelt’s critique of Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase, many others lampooned or criticized the newer works as folly and not worth the attention of serious artistic folks.
Not everyone was opposed to the newer art and many found elements of art in the works featured in the show. The exhibition has been recreated in other locations in the United States during the 20th Century, including one in 1966 featuring performance artists at the 69th Regiment Armory. Centennial celebrations of the show were held in a handful of locations in 2013 including the 69th Regiment Armory and the Art Institute of Chicago like the original show.
As modern art has given way to postmodernism, other art shows have featured even more unconventional and provocative works. Of course, as the envelope is pushed further each successive generation, the debate draws more attention to the shows than if presented without the debate. Admittedly, much of the modern art and postmodern art is not my cup of tea, and I probably would side with Pres. Roosevelt and others that satirize and critique the newer and unconventional art.
Do you like works of art by Picasso, Duchamp, or Cassatt?
Remember when air travel was an exciting event that people dressed up for and looked forward to? Those days have gone the way of records, analog televisions, and cursive writing. Now, air travel provides opportunities for people to become angry as they are hopefully trying to escape stress to a vacation hotspot or they’re returning rested and refreshed. Sadly, two passengers couldn’t get along and are today’s #CurrentEventFriday.
A traveler flying from New Orleans to Charlotte with American Airlines on Jan. 31 posted an incident from that flight to her social media, and the video quickly went viral. In the video posted, another traveler, an unidentified man begins punching the woman’s seat.
Reading that summary, it’d be easy to say that the would-be-boxer is in the wrong and should apologize. Yet, the woman posting the video had reclined her seat and when doing so it invaded the unidentified man’s space. So, maybe he has at least a legitimate gripe with the woman. Given that airplanes don’t really offer that much space, having a passenger in front of you take away any more of that space by reclining could be a point of contention.
Of course, most of us would just be angered and vent to family or friends after disembarking. But both of these passengers decided if they’re going to go at it over something so trivial, they should turn it up to eleven. The video shows the two passengers loudly arguing about who is in the right, and eventually a flight attendant tries to intervene. The woman posting the video claims the flight attendant asked her to stop the recording and offered the angry man an alcoholic beverage to calm down.
That should be the end of the story, but no such luck. Now the woman who posted the video is seeking legal action and plans to sue the punching man and the flight attendant. She adds that she has reported the incident to the FBI. To support her case, the woman claims she has had to have x-rays, suffers from headaches and has lost time from work.
The legal action is why people tell lawyer jokes. Parents with kids who kick their seats in cars are no stranger to the same issue as the lady posting this video. When’s the last time you heard one of these parents having headaches or missing work from their kids throwing these tantrums? I’ll admit the guy should have refrained from punching the seat and it wouldn’t have risen to this level. Even those who are angry in the moment about strangers’ behavior on planes usually find passive-aggressive ways to deal with it or as the cool conflict managers and elementary teachers instruct, “use their words” to solve problems.
I’m also probably the last person to weigh in on no space on airlines. I’m 5’6” so I don’t take up much space on planes anyways, so I’m not bothered, plus I’m pretty sure that airplane seats barely recline anyways. It’s not like automobile seats that recline to nearly 90o that end up on the laps of backseat passengers.
Regardless, civility and understanding are sorely missed in society nowadays. Airplane travelers need to be aware that other people are on the plane and realize those travelers might be a little stressed from early wakeups or long security checks too. Basically, if everyone could remember the lessons of kindergarten and respect others and their spaces, we’d be better off.
Should the lady who posted the video been more understanding?
One of the promises included in last week’s State of the Union was the announcement about the Space Force and a commitment to put a man on Mars. While many have mocked Pres. Trump about the Space Force, it’s not exactly that different than ideas promoted by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy.
Since the earliest days of man, we have been interested in outer space, and as we discovered more about it, we have wondered if there is life out there. Tales of alien or extraterrestrial encounters have been along the same timelines of astronomy.
Today is Extraterrestrial Culture/Extraterrestrial Visitor Day, so discussing whether there is life in outer space seems appropriate. I’m almost sure that there is some sort of life on other planets in our solar system, and even more likely in other galaxies. We seem to have an innate sense that we are not alone in the universe. Of course, as a religious person I will admit that the most important higher power or other-worldly being is God, but I think that extraterrestrials also exist.
I don’t know if these extraterrestrials have the same appearance as presented in Science Fiction stories or they are much closer to our own appearances but have a chemical makeup connected to a different element different than our own carbon-based existence. The same could also be true of the extraterrestrial spacecraft as well.
Admittedly, many more are fascinated with extraterrestrials and aliens as we see memes featuring an expert from the History Channel program Ancient Aliens. These memes often feature some unexplained phenomenon and simply include the word ‘Aliens’ as a simple explanation.
Even this last fall, several folks on Facebook seemingly planned to storm Area 51 to find the hidden aliens that the United States Air Force and military had been secretly keeping there for years. In the lead-up to the date, everyone shared images celebrating what they might do with the aliens they planned to liberate. Somewhat unsurprisingly, the viral effect of the event and the hype were much more than the event as only a few dozen showed up outside Area 51 and didn’t even attempt to cross onto the military installation. Yet, I’m sure that people will still continue to believe Area 51 houses secret extraterrestrials and those same people would like to free the aliens. I’m also sure that if anyone does liberate one of these aliens, many more that would call themselves skeptics will also want to see the alien.
A new week is upon us, and that means looking at an historical event that occurred on this day. I’ll get into the post fairly shortly, and that’s not an unsafe speed which is good thing for you the reader as well as for me the author. Oddly enough, congressional testimony like today’s #HistoryMonday is rarely going to be associated with speed and danger, but that’s exactly what today’s event is all about.
On this day in 1966, Ralph Nader presents findings from his work, Unsafe at Any Speed in testimony before Congress. Nader had published the book in November of 1965, shortly before Congress had asked him to testify.
Nader, an attorney was concerned with design choices of the automobile industry and detailed the danger of these choices in the book. Particularly, dangers from automobiles were caused by automobile makers that prioritized aesthetics and power over any safety. Highlighting the unregulated nature of automobile design, Nader suggested that congressional oversight would be beneficial.
General Motors (GM) felt the criticism most from Unsafe at Any Speed, particularly for its suspension system which was blamed for rollovers and other accidents. Nader discovered that GM had over 100 lawsuits pending in connection with crashes involving the Chevrolet Corvair. Through his research into these lawsuits, Nader discovered that crucial parts in the car’s suspension were left out for economic reasons.
Thanks to Nader’s testimony, Congress unanimously passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act later that enabled the federal government to set requirements for safety measures in automobiles.
For GM, things only got worse. Shortly after Nader’s testimony before congress it was discovered that a private investigator had been hired by GM to find damaging or compromising information about Nader. After discovering this investigation, Nader sued GM for harassment and invasion of privacy and won a settlement. Sales of the Corvair would also find its way into a nadir thanks to the negative publicity, and it was soon discontinued.
Ralph Nader would go on to create the consumer protection group Public Citizen to promote lobbying and activism for consumer rights’ interests. The book Unsafe at Any Speed also became a bestseller in the few months after Nader’s Congressional testimony and especially after the harassment lawsuit against GM.
Shortly after Nader’s rise to prominence in the mid 1960’s and his consumer advocacy efforts in the 1970’s, he would make four unsuccessful runs for Presidential election in 1972, 1992, 1996, 2002, 2004, & 2008 most often as a member of the Green Party. A couple of these campaigns seemingly had a spoiler effect and drew votes away from progressives in the Democratic Party concerned with free trade and environmental causes.
Let’s play Hide and Seek. 1, 2, 3…28, 29, 30. Ready or not here I come. To be clear, I am not writing a blog post with hidden Easter eggs hidden throughout. The hide and seek is about one of the Democratic hopefuls for president. Today’s #CurrentEventFriday is all about that candidate’s attempt to disguise what could be seen as hypocrisy. Somewhat coincidental, this post like the latest #HistoryMonday is all about a plane and Iowa.
I’m tempted to offer you 3 guesses on which candidate hid when caught being less than truthful and you’ll probably guess easily. If you guessed Elizabeth Warren, you’d be right. She’s seemingly always being caught in a lie or mistruth. This week while returning from Senate obligations to Iowa for the final push in the Iowa Caucuses, Warren was spotted disembarking from a private plane, but realized she was being filmed and hid behind a staffer.
Liz Warren seen getting off private plane; seems to hide from camera.
Candidates traveling by private plane wouldn’t normally be newsworthy, but when you’ve railed against the rich and powerful using private planes which contribute to climate change, then it seems a bit hypocritical. When asked at a climate event in New Hampshire in October, “What specific steps have you taken in your campaign to ensure that your campaign’s environmental impact is as limited as possible?” Warren responded by telling the host: “So, I’ve mostly been flying commercial, um, but we’ve been trying to look at other ways that we can reduce our carbon footprint and it’s everything from the kind of car we drive, uh and down to … do we purchase offsets, can we make that work as a way to try to reduce the footprint.”
Flying private planes which have been argued as damaging to the planet and a luxury only the evil wealthy seem to own, tends to devalue the argument that climate change is serious. Other politicians who advocate for more regulation to curb climate change have also undermined their argument when buying coastal properties and using transportation like private planes and gasoline-powered ground transportation. Examples of this hypocritical sanctimony about climate change include Leonardo DiCaprio flying all over the world on a private plane to advocate for climate change or Pres. Obama attending an European summit in “The Beast” a diesel-powered limousine while promoting climate change regulations at the summit. Even recently, the Obamas purchased coastal property which might lead skeptics to believe that climate change isn’t as serious as we are led to believe.
Even the newest darling of the Democratic base, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has backed down on climate alarmism. Shortly after being elected to the House of Representatives, AOC said in an interview that the world had at most 12 years, when asked how she arrived at that number, she clarified she used 12 as a placeholder number to mean not in the immediate next few years, but just a little longer.
Admittedly, I’m skeptical of the climate change argument and the near religious belief of its proponents. In the last four decades, the shift in what climate change is upon us seems too flexible to be believed, In the 1970’s the fear was the earth would cool to a drastic level bringing a 2nd Ice Age. When the 2nd Ice Age didn’t happen after a decade and a half of fearmongering, then we were told that the earth was dangerously heating. Then after similar fears didn’t materialize after a decade and a half we were told that the new fear was climate change. I’m willing to believe and admit that the climate is changing, I tend to question the degree or the complete blame on humanity for it. This position seemingly is the conservative position, but there are some on the right who deny any climate change and by extension human responsibility.
Back to Elizabeth Warren, there’s already footage of her on the plane before she hid behind the staffer so she can’t pretend she wasn’t on the plane. She could easily admit that a commercial flight was unavailable to accommodate her schedule, and she made a one-time flight on a private plane and this goes away. Although given her spotty record with the truth, she doesn’t have a lot of credibility to begin with if she made such a statement. The better approach is quit attacking the people who have just as much money and influence as she does. Basically, follow the old adage about throwing stones when living in glass houses.
Should Elizabeth Warren fly on private planes and stop condemning those who do?