Two US Supreme Court Rulings in 1898 and 2025

There is so much we can learn from history! Today’s headlines often mirror events that happened years ago.

You get a bonus blog post from me this week. As I explained yesterday, what I wanted to say this week amounted to more than anyone wants to read in one sitting.

Today’s post is about a couple of US Supreme Court rulings. Tomorrow’s post is about Hurricane Helene recovery in western North Carolina six months after the storm

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898

My sister made me aware of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark US Supreme Court case. This ruling about American birthright came down in 1898.

The 14^th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868 – 30 years before the Wong Kim Ark case. The wording of the 14^th Amendment seems straightforward, but our current US President wants to do away with it.

The first clause of the 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Let’s take a step back and see what prompted Mr. Wong Kim Ark to take his complaint all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Who was Wong Kim Ark and what was this Court Case about?

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, California in 1873. His parents were subjects of the Emperor of China but were permanently residing in the United States. The family still lived in San Francisco in 1890 when Wong Kim Ark took a trip to China.

He returned to his home in San Francisco on July 26, 1890. He lived there and worked as a laborer as a US citizen. In 1894 he took another trip to China but, when he returned to the US in August 1895, he was denied entry on the grounds that he was not a US citizen.

A lower court ordered him to be released because he was a US citizen. The United States appealed the lower court’s decision, and the case went to the US Supreme Court.

Justice Horace Gray delivered for the majority in the 6-2 ruling by the US Supreme Court. In his statement he indicated that the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 had no relevance in this case.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first law of any significance that limited immigration into the United States. The Act was the result of violent acts committed against Chinese workers. It prohibited Chinese laborers from entering the US for ten years. Exceptions included merchants, teachers, students, travelers, and diplomats.

Justice Gray wrote, “It is conceded that, if he is a citizen of the United States, the acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him.”

As in most cases that reach the level of the US Supreme Court, there is more here than meets the eye. Having taken one Constitutional Law course in college does not qualify me as a Constitutional scholar, so I’ll just leave it at that.

If you wish to delve more deeply into the United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision, you may do so. I just found it serendipitous that the anniversary of this case fell during a time when the 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution is under fire.

Why is the 14^th Amendment under attack by Trump?

It is obvious that the president does not want children of undocumented Hispanic immigrants who are born in the US to automatically have US citizenship as guaranteed by the 14^th Amendment.

The White House appears to be arguing its case on https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/. It seems short-sighted to me for Trump to “show his hand” on this matter since it is destined to go before the US Supreme Court if he insists on pursuing his contempt for the 14th Amendment.

We have not heard the last of this.

A March 5, 2025 US Supreme Court ruling to consider

On March 5, 2025, we saw only five of the nine US Supreme Court Justices vote that the United States should be required to honor its promises of $2 billion in foreign aid through the now-possibly-defunct United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The slim majority decision gave me a sigh of relief but immediately angered me because the vote should have been 9-0.

What is it in the life experiences of Associate Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Gorsuch that influenced them to vote in the negative? What made those four men believe that funds authorized by the US Congress and promised to other countries and organizations should not be honored? Should not be paid?

What makes those four men think the United States should not be a country of its word? I really want to know.

Justice Alito argued in an eight-page dissent that resembled a pro-MAGA social media post that a US District Court Judge could not compel the US Government to spend money authorized by Congress. He essentially went after Judge Amir Ali, the lower court judge who had ruled in the case.

From what I have read, I think his anger is misplaced. It is the US Constitution that gives Congress the authority to allocate money. If Mr. Alito has a problem with that, perhaps he should have stated his disfavor with the Constitution instead of against Judge Amir Ali.

I certainly hope Justice Alito was not lashing out at Judge Ali because Judge Ali was born in Canada. I hope he wasn’t lashing out at Judge Ali because he was appointed by President Joe Biden. And I certainly hope he wasn’t lashing out at Judge Ali because he is a Muslim.

Perhaps I’m looking for a “there” when there’s no “there” there, but the current US Supreme Court in general seems to be in Trump’s pocket. This is the same group of Justices that ruled in 2024 that nothing a US President does is illegal.

I pray we haven’t heard the last of this!

Arlington National Cemetery

With so much going on, and a couple of long blog posts in March, I waited until today to mention how the US Department of Defense is erasing history specifically on the Arlington National Cemetery website. US history seems to be in Trump’s cross-hairs.

Under the heading, “Arlington National Cemetery removed links to webpages about Black, Hispanic and female veterans,” Snopes.com (published March 14, 2025; updated March 15, 2025) verified that the following links have been removed from the Arlington National Cemetery website:

African American History, removed from the Notable Graves subsection;

Hispanic American History, removed from the Notable Graves subsection;

Women’s History, removed from the Notable Graves subsection;

African American History, removed from the Themes drop-down menu of the Education section; and

Civil War, removed from the Themes drop-down menu of the Education section.

This should be no surprise, since Trump has called veterans suckers and losers.

The latest US Department of Defense blunder

It seems to me that our Department of Defense (DoD) needs to spend less time erasing history and more time holding top secret war plans in a secure location (which until the Trump Administration was the policy) and much less time holding top secret war plan meetings via text messages.

Thank you, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, for being a true patriot and not leaking the plans for the United States bombing the Houthis in Yemen last week. Leaking the plans that you were texted would have put US military personnel is grave danger. Were you included on the text list by mistake, or is there someone in the DoD who wanted this information leaked to a journalist?

I wonder who DoD Secretary Hegseth will text top secret information to next.

Until my next blog post

I hope you have a good book to read.

Hold your family close.

Remember the people of Ukraine and western North Carolina.

Janet

“First they came for the…”

Every week I think I’ll write a shorter blog post, but every week there’s something in the news about which I’m compelled to comment. Every week I think I’ll get back to work on the novel I’m writing.

The original blog post I wrote for today came in at more than 3,000 words. No one wants to read a 3,000-word blog post, so I’ve divided it into three posts.

Tomorrow I will blog about a couple of US Supreme Court rulings made in 1898 and 2025 that I initially was going to blog about today.

Wednesday’s post will include a breakdown of the $524 million bill passed by the NC General Assembly and signed by Governor Josh Stein las week as well as highlights from the National Hurricane Center’s final report about Hurricane Helene.

And you know me… if something else happens before I post tomorrow and Wednesday, I’m liable to go off on another tangent. While we still have a modicum of free speech in America, I will take advantage of every opportunity to speak out about injustice and actions that run counter to the US Constitution.

A blog post update

Last week I reblogged Tangie T. Woods’ post from her “Mrs. T’s Corner” blog about Lt. Col. Charles Calvin Rogers’ information being taken down from the Department of Defense (DoD) website.

The DoD seemed to get confused about exactly what on its website qualified as the “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) that the Trump Administration wants eradicated from all federal government departments and resources.

Under the Trump Administration, the online record of the Medal of Honor that Lt. Col. Rogers received on May 14, 1970 was changed to read, “dei-medal-of-honor.” There is no such medal and there was no such thing as DEI in 1970.

Of course, the teenagers working for Elon Musk would not know that. They wouldn’t care that Lt. Col. Rogers served in the war in Vietnam. They probably could not find Vietnam on a map if their lives depended on it.

And, since Elon Musk is from South Africa, he probably doesn’t know anything about the war in Vietnam either.

The last I heard, Lt. Col. Rogers’ information has been corrected, but the bigger problem still exists as every single day something else is erased from history by the computer geeks working for Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency.

According to the Associated Press on Saturday, March 22, 2025: “The restoration process has been so hit or miss that even groups that the administration has said are protected, like the Tuskegee Airmen, the first Black military pilots who served in a segregated World War II unit, still have deleted pages that as of Saturday had not been restored.”

Would someone please explain to me what the online removal of the records of the Tuskegee Airmen and military Medal of Honor recipients has to do with “Efficiency” because I’m having trouble understanding it?

Last week, Principal Chief Mitchell Hicks of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians issued a statement about how indigenous peoples on the North American continent have been marginalized by the government since European settlers arrived here.

Chief Hicks pointed out in his statement that even though the US Government tried to wipe out the Cherokee language, during World War I it was the Cherokee who developed a secret code based on their language for the US military to use. He said in his statement that the Cherokee people will make sure their military history is not erased.

Thank goodness the Cherokee people are doing this, because we cannot depend on the United States Government to preserve it.

We are not stupid. We all know exactly what is behind all these anti-DEI actions. White men have dominated politics and business in the US since the country’s formation, and many of them cannot accept the fact even in the 21^st century that women and people whose skin is all shades of brown and black have brains.

Many of them claim to be Christians, but they reject the essence of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Their words and actions fly in the face of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

As a Presbyterian, I believe that in the eyes of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, all people – women and men – of every shade of skin hold equal value. It is offensive when someone claims to be a Christian but they endorse political leaders who demean women and disrespect people of color.

If some of those old white men in the White House, the US Congress, and the US Supreme Court are not getting that message at their churches, maybe they need to find another church.

If you think I’m being disrespectful to the US President and other old white men, my words don’t hold a candle to the disrespect they are showing me and my fellow citizens every day through their words, their actions, and their inactions.

DEI was about making sure everyone had an opportunity to get into the college they were academically-qualified to attend. It did not guarantee that they would pass the courses and graduate. It was about everyone having the opportunity to apply for a job. It did not guarantee them the job. It was about making sure everyone had a chance to sit at the proverbial table.

When I was a little girl in the 1950s, it wasn’t like that. In fact, when I was a teenager in the late 1960s, things were just beginning to change. I pray our country never goes back to the dark days of racial segregation and gender discrimination.

The Republican Party (i.e., Donald Trump, for he is the Republican Party now) has twisted the opportunities that DEI offered into something ominous, vile, and discriminatory. Through Project 2025 that his friends wrote, he is attempting to erase opportunity and history.

But some of us were entering the workforce in the 1970s and we know from personal experience how it was. It makes me sick to my stomach to know that my four great-nieces who are in their early twenties will not have the same opportunities their mothers had in the 1990s.

You see, the problem wasn’t solved when Lt. Col. Rogers’ military record was restored to a website. That was accomplished only after a public outcry. But the evil, hate, ignorance, small-mindedness, and fear (yes, fear!) that resulted in his record being mislabeled and removed is very much still with us.

If you think I’m reckless in my use of the word “evil,” according to Merriam-Webster, evil is defined as “morally reprehensible,” “arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct,” “causing harm,” and “something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity.”

The Trump Administration and his Department of Government Efficiency is all about evil, hate, ignorance, small-mindedness, and fear (yes, fear!). They work from a place of evil. They set out to hurt everyone they hate, don’t understand, and fear. They fear that white people will soon be in the minority in the United States. They fear that since women are going to colleges and universities in greater number than men, that eventually more women will attain positions of leadership in government and business.

Elon Musk has been quoted as saying that the biggest weakness of “the West” is empathy. I beg to differ. I think empathy has been one of our strengths. We showed empathy through the work of the USAID. Through the Voice of America radio broadcasts we showed empathy toward people who were trapped in authoritarian governments.

Trump and Musk have ended USAID and stopped the Voice of America. Being from South Africa, though, Mr. Musk has little experience with empathy. The word “empathy” is not in Trump’s vocabulary.

That takes us to “ignorance.” The people who took down the photograph of the Enola Gay airplane took it down because it had the word “Gay” in it. Well, duh! “Gay” just happens to be a woman’s name.

If you don’t believe me, look it up. And if you don’t know what the Enola Gay was, by all means, look it up if you still can.

While we’re on the topic of Government Efficiency…

US Department of Agriculture has halted $500 million in deliveries to food banks nationwide that the Biden administration announced last year. Even The Washington Post has reported this. One more slam at farmers and people who need a little help putting food on the table.

And even though under 26 U.S. Code 7213 it is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, a $5,000 fine, and mandatory termination of employment for a federal employee to give anyone access to a taxpayer’s tax return information, the US Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is working on an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to gain access to private tax records.

ICE claims to only be going after the tax records of undocumented immigrants, but this is a slippery slope.

If you aren’t careful, Mr. Trump, someone outside the IRS could someday gain access to your tax records! We all know how much you don’t want that to happen, even though every US President for decades before your first term made their tax records public. You promised to follow suit as soon as your 2015 tax audit was completed. We’re still waiting….

Until my next blog post

I hope you have a good book to read.

Hold your family close.

Remember the people of Ukraine.

And remember the people of western North Carolina where a half-dozen wildfires were still burning out-of-control yesterday afternoon. Three of them are in Polk County, which was hit hard by Hurricane Helene last September.

Look for my next blog post tomorrow!

Janet

I was so moved, I just had to repost…

Highest-Ranking Black Medal of Honor Recipient Removed from DoD Website

#OnThisDay: Ramifications of Backgrounds of US Supreme Court Justices

When I read that today is the anniversary of the 1777 birth of Roger Brooke Taney, I wondered why his birthday appeared on any lists. When I learned that Mr. Taney was a US Supreme Court Chief Justice when the landmark Dred Scott decision was made, I knew there was a story behind the story.

We are all products of the times in which we live but, fortunately, we can be influenced by forces other than majority or peer pressure. We each have freewill to come to our own conclusions and beliefs.

Some US Supreme Court Justices try harder than others to disregard their personal backgrounds and experiences when considering a case. Some don’t seem to try at all in the 2020s.

Photo of US Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC — US Supreme Court Building, Washington, DC. (Photo by Brad Weaver on Unsplash.)

Let’s learn who Dred Scott was, and then we’ll look at how the life experiences of Roger Brooke Taney and the other six Justices in majority vote probably played into the US Supreme Court Dred Scott v. Sandford case.

Settle in. This gets complicated.

Who was Dred Scott?

Dred Scott was born a slave in Southampton County, Virginia around 1799. He moved to Alabama with his owner, Peter Blow, in 1818. In 1830, he moved to St. Louis, Missouri where Mr. Blow ran a boarding house.

Dr. John Emerson purchased Mr. Scott after Mr. Blow died in 1832. Dr. Emerson took Mr. Scott to Illinois and later to the Wisconsin Territory. Illinois was a free state, and slavery was illegal in the Wisconsin Territory.

Mr. Scott married Harriet Robinson, who was also a slave. Ms. Robinson’s owner sold her to Dr. Emerson. Things got more and more confusing in the ensuing years after Dr. Emerson moved back to St. Louis, but hired out Mr. and Mrs. Scott, leaving them in Wisconsin.

Dr. Emerson moved to Louisiana. He married Eliza (Irene) Sandford in 1838. Dred Scott went there, but shortly thereafter the Emersons and their slaves, including Mr. Scott, moved back to Wisconsin.

Dr. Emerson was discharged from the US Army in 1842 and – you guessed it – he and his wife and the Scotts moved back to St. Louis. Mr. and Mrs. Scott, by then, had two daughters.

Dr. Emerson seemed to have financial problems, so he and his wife moved to Iowa. It is unclear whether the Scotts went with them or if they were hired out and remained in Missouri.

When Dr. Emerson died in 1843, the Scotts and all his other slaves became the property of his widow, Irene Sandford. She moved back to St. Louis, retained ownership of the Scotts, and hired them out.

Mr. Scott tried repeatedly to purchase his freedom from Irene, but she would not hear of it.

Photo of a dark-skin wrist and clenched fist with a rope tied around it. — Photo by Tasha Jolley on Unsplash

Dred and Harriet Scott lawsuits

Dred and Harriet Scott separately filed lawsuits against Irene Emerson in April 1846. They were firmly based on two Missouri statutes. One allowed anyone of any color to sue for wrongful enslavement. The other statute said that any slave transported to a free territory automatically became free and would remain free even when taken back into a slave state.

The Scotts’ church, abolitionists, and you’ll never guess who: Dred’s previous owner’s family, the Blows, gave their support. Since neither Mr. or Mrs. Scott could read or write, they needed all kinds of support to fight their cases.

The St. Louis Circuit Court ruled against the Scotts in 1847, on a technicality. The cases were heard again in 1850 and the Scotts won their freedom. That should have been the end of it, but it wasn’t.

Irene Emerson appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. That court combined the two cases and reversed the decision of the lower court in 1852, making the Scotts slaves again!

Then, Irene Emerson transferred ownership of the Scotts to her brother, John Sandford, or so was thought. (Actually, the transfer did not happen, but that’s why the case was called Dred Scott v. Sandford as the Scotts’ legal struggle continued.)

In 1853, Dred Scott filed a federal lawsuit with the United States Circuit Court for the District of Missouri. The case was heard in May 1854, and the court ruled against Mr. Scott.

The Dred Scott Decision/Dred Scott v. Sandford

US Supreme Court Building, Washington, DC. (Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash.)

Later that year, Mr. Scott appealed his case to the US Supreme Court. The case gained support and notoriety by the time the Justices heard the case in 1856. A curious aside is that by then, Irene Sandford Emerson had married Calvin Chaffee. An abolitionist, Mr. Chaffee was also a US Congressman.

When Mr. Chaffee learned that Irene still owned Dred Scott and his family, he sold the Scotts to Taylor Blow, the son of Scott’s original owner, Peter Blow.

On March 6, 1857, the US Supreme Court announced its 7-2 decision in favor of Mr. Sandford.

On May 26, 1857, Taylor Blow freed the Dred Scott family. Sadly, Mr. Scott died of tuberculosis just 16 months after finally becoming a free man.

What was Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s background?

Roger Brooke Taney was born in Maryland on March 17, 1777. He was educated in France. After coming home from France, he graduated from Dickinson College in Pennsylvania, and studied law with Judge Jeremiah Chase of the Maryland General Court.

In 1806 he married Francis Scott Key’s sister, Anne.

He had a private law practice. After being nominated by President Andrew Jackson, Roger Taney was sworn in as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court in March 1836, replacing John Marshall.

Oh… and did I mention that he was a slave owner?

But what was Roger Taney’s personal track record with slaves?

Taney freed seven of his slaves on July 14, 1818. He also provided for the emancipation of the three older children of one of his freed slaves at later dates – one of them would be freed in 1836 at age 25, one in 1843 at the age of 30, and the other one in 1845 at the age of 30.

As a young lawyer, Taney was quoted as calling slavery a “blot on our national character,” but by 1857 (the year of the Dred Scott decision) he was an advocate in favor of slavery. It was then that he called the abolitionist movement “northern aggression.”

He wrote for the majority in favor of Dred Scott’s owner in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Taney seemed to be conflicted on the subject of slavery. Yes, he gradually freed his slaves, but why did he drag it out over 27 years? If he was indeed against slavery as a young man, what didn’t he free all his slaves at that time instead of waiting until 1845 to free the last one? He made the children remain slaves until they were 25 to 30 years old. Where is the humanity in that?

What about the six Justices who sided with Chief Justice Taney?

Justice John Catron, a lifelong slave owner, joined in the majority opinion.

Justice Peter V. Daniel, who owned slaves throughout his adult life, joined in the majority opinion.

Justice Samuel Nelson voted with the majority but disagreed with Chief Justice Taney’s reasoning. Justice Nelson maintained that the states had the right to determine whether slavery was legal within their boundaries and that the federal government did not have the authority to tell the states what to do in that matter.

Justice Robert Cooper Grier voted with the majority and concurred that slaves were not citizens.

Justice James M. Wayne was a lawyer, politician, and judge from Savannah, Georgia. I did not find that he owned slaves. He agreed with President Andrew Jackson on the forced removal of Indians to the Oklahoma Territory. Surprisingly, he was against the formation of the Confederate States of America.

Justice John A. Campbell was a lawyer in Georgia and Alabama. Even though Justice Campbell did not believe that the Court could determine whether Dred Scott was a citizen, he agreed with the Chief Justice on most other points. He agreed that, as a slave under Missouri law, Mr. Scott could not sue in federal court.

The Majority Opinion of the US Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford

Although basing its decision on what was stated in the US Constitution at that time, the words are chilling. I’ll share just a fraction of the decision here.

Writing for the majority in the Dred Scott case, Chief Justice Taney stated, “A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a ‘citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

“When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its ‘people or citizen.’ Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them.

“And not being ‘citizens’ within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.”

And, “The plaintiff having admitted, by his demurrer to the plea in abatement, that his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as slaves, he is not a citizen of the State of Missouri according to the Constitution of the United States, and was not entitled to sue in that character in the Circuit Court. This being the case, the judgment of the court below, in favor of the plaintiff of the plea in abatement, was erroneous.”

Chief Justice Taney said in the majority decision that slaves were property and the ownership of slaves was on the same footing as the ownership or anything else. It said, that the courts could not at that time, under the Constitution, deprive a citizen of their property. It said that just because a citizen took their property into “a particular Territory of the United States,” (Rock Island, Illinois) did not mean they did not still own that property.

The majority decision referred to the Missouri Compromise, enacted in 1820, which admitted Missouri to the Union as a state allowing slavery, but it outlawed slavery from the rest of the Louisiana Purchase lands located north of the southern border of Missouri (the 36-degree 30-minute parallel.)

In the Dred Scott decision, the court ruled that the Missouri Compromise (which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854) was unconstitutional and, therefore, Dred Scott and his family “were not made free by being carried into this territory….”

Background of the 36-degree 30-minute parallel

Since our current president likes to call borders artificial lines drawn by someone with a ruler decades ago, I looked into the history of the 36-degree 30-minute parallel. It was originally drawn as the boundary between the Colonies of Virginia and North Carolina. Later, it was extended to be the border between Kentucky and Tennessee. When the Missouri Compromise came along, that line was extended to balance the number of states that allowed slavery and the states that did not allow slavery.

The moral of the story

The next time there is a vacancy on the US Supreme Court or on your state’s Supreme Court, you need to pay attention. Dig into the nominee’s background and let your elected officials know what your concerns are or if you think that nominee will make be a fair, honest, law-abiding Justice with integrity. Watch the Congressional hearings and listen carefully to the nominee’s answers – to what they say and what they don’t say. Watch their body language. Are they at ease? Do they smirk? Do they easily lose their cool?

Hurricane Helene Update

As of Friday, 152 roads in North Carolina were closed due to Hurricane Helene damage and repairs. That count included 11 US highways, 17 state highways, and 124 state roads. This is an overall increase over a couple of weeks ago.

Asheville’s application for a $225 million Disaster Recovery Block Grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is in limbo because it includes a $15 million Small Business Support Program that would prioritize Minority and Women Owned Businesses. The City, which sustained more than $1 billion in damage in Hurricane Helene, has been given until April to submit a plan that is in line with Trump’s anti-minority and anti-women regime.

Keep in mind that the application was submitted last year according to the regulations that were in place at the time. Does anyone else found it ironic that HUD Secretary Scott Turner, who is a black man, wrote that “DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] is dead at HUD”?

As employees of the National Park Service and National Forestry Service are fired by the Trump Administration in the name of “waste and fraud,” you can expect to see fewer post-Helene clean-up activities in the parks and forests in western North Carolina.

As you plan a trip to the mountains in western North Carolina this spring, here’s a link to important details about the Blue Ridge Parkway: https://www.nps.gov/blri/planyourvisit/helene-recovery-projects-at-a-glance.htm. We probably need to continue to plan our mountain visits avoiding most of the parkway.

Since my last blog post

I heard from a number of you in reference to my March 10, 2025, blog post. I heard from fellow-Americans, and I heard from people in various parts of Europe and the Caribbean.

It seems we still have a lot in common with our European allies (I can’t bring myself to refer to them as “former allies” yet): We’re all deeply concerned – and dare I say scared – over the current political situation into which the US President has thrown us.

The people in Mexico, Canada, and Europe did not ask for this… and half of the Americans didn’t ask for or vote for this. The brave people of Ukraine certainly didn’t ask for and don’t deserve this chaos.

Until my next blog post

I hope you find a good book to read that will inform you and/or give you a few hours to escape into a fictional place or time.

We didn’t all vote for this, but we’re all in it together now. We’ll be watching in the coming days, months, and years to see how the US Supreme Court will rule on cases resulting from the chaos we’ve been thrown into since January 20^th.

I hope my next blog post will be shorter than this one. It depends on what’s going on.

Please remember the people of Ukraine and western North Carolina… and all the people terrorized by tornadoes over the weekend.

Janet

An Historical & Current Look at “America First”

It is sad that many Americans do not know history. I blame the results of the 2024 US Presidential election on that along with today’s popular mindset that is only concerned with how something affects “me” instead of being concerned with “the common good.”

A policy of isolationism has never turned out well for the United States, and I doubt it will as we find ourselves in a true global economy in which no country can thrive in isolation.

Donald Trump campaigned for President on an America First agenda. That apparently sounded good to half the population. The picture he painted of America First did not include alienating the allies we’ve had for our entire 248-year history. It did not include turning our backs on Ukraine and embracing Vladimir Putin. Trump so successfully sold half the voters a bill of goods that they find themselves unable to admit they were hoodwinked. They cannot admit they made a grave mistake in the voting booth.

They interpreted “America First” as an idyllic country in which we would literally build walls instead of bridges, we would have cheap eggs and cheap gasoline, we would not be bothered by having under-paid migrants picking our fruits and vegetables, we would not be bothered with immigrants cleaning our hotel rooms or cutting our grass, and we would not have to compete with highly-qualified foreigners for jobs we have not prepared ourselves to assume.

It is a fact that Americans already have cheap gasoline compared to such places as Great Britain. As the “Bird Flu” continues to spread, we already look back on $4.00-a-dozen eggs as “the good old days.” And how many of us are lining up to make the beds and clean the toilets in hotels for $7.25-an-hour?

Much of America finds itself in an “us versus them” mentality. It is a mindset based in a belief that anyone who doesn’t look and talk like I do doesn’t have the right to live… not a right to live in the United States, at least. When I voiced my political views on social media in January, one commenter told me I should find another country to live in.

I was fortunate to have been born in the United States. I did nothing to deserve that. My immigrant ancestors came here in the 1700s and — fortunately for me — were not deported by the Native Americans who had been living here for thousands of years.

By merely being born in the United States I am the recipient of blessings and opportunities about which the majority of people in the world can only dream.

Photo of the Statue of Liberty with the New York City skyline in the background — Photo by Priyanka Puvvada on Unsplash

Don’t get me wrong… illegal immigration into the United States needs to be addressed, but the mistakes of the past have turned Americans into an “us versus them” mentality in which the “us” no longer view “them” as human beings. The dehumanization of people leads to hate and violence.

It is tragic that we now have a President who repeatedly tells us that we are victims, suckers, and losers being taken advantage of by other countries.

“What’s the history of “America First?” you may ask.

Former Secretary of State, the late Madeleine Korbel Albright, explained it well in her book, Fascism: A Warning, in 2018, so I will quote some of what she wrote:

“America First is a slogan with a past. Founded in 1940, the America First Committee (AFC) brought together pacifists, isolationists, and Nazi sympathizers to fight against the country’s prospective entry into World War II. The AFC opposed creation of the Selective Service and also a Roosevelt initiative known as Lend-Lease, to keep the British in food and arms as they struggled to survive the German onslaught. Within twelve months of its founding, the committee had built a membership of more than 800,000 and attracted support from across the political spectrum – corporate tycoons and Socialists alike.”

Photo of a barbed wire fence at a Nazi concentration camp during World War II — Fence at a Nazi concentration camp. (Photo by Darshan Gajara on Unsplash.)

Albright also wrote, “Four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war on the United States. The AFC soon disbanded and, in the intervening decades, its name has carried a stigma of naivete and moral blindness. Now ‘America First’ is back – but what does it mean?”

Donald Trump stated at an assembly of the United Nations that every country should put its interests first. But Albright maintains, “What the assertion ignores is the stake that all countries have in the fates of others.”

My thoughts

I started Janet’s Writing Blog more than a decade ago. Until recently, I planned to basically blog about my journey as a writer and my journey as a reader. As time passed and I wanted to establish my credibility as a writer of history and historical fiction, I began to blog about historical events and documents, usually on anniversary dates.

I did not plan, intend, or want to turn my blog into a political platform. I still do not want to do that, but I find myself in a situation in which I cannot avoid it. I must live with myself. I cannot have this public platform and pretend that everything in our country and world are going well.

Writers are cautioned against being too political, but aren’t writers, teachers, and scientists the first groups and individuals fascist governments go after? I don’t want to turn my blog into nothing but a political sounding board; however, I will not sit idly by while our government is dismantled.

Until the day that I am silenced, I will continue to voice my opinions and speak out against injustices. I will come down on the side of the United States Constitution, and I will come down on the side of the downtrodden. My Presbyterian faith instructs me to do so.

The growing mindset in the United States is “us” versus “them.” I think the 2024 Presidential Election bears that out. In the words of Secretary Albright, “To reduce the sum of our existence to a competitive struggle for advantage among more than two hundred nations is not clear-eyed but myopic. People and nations compete, but that is not all that they do.”

Photo of a painting of the western hemisphere. — Photo by Elena Mozhvilo on Unsplash

We have just experienced a week of whiplash caused by the policies, pronouncements, Executive Orders, and constantly changing mind of Donald Trump. One day we have tariffs, the next day we don’t, but the next day we do, and no one knows – apparently, not even Trump – whether they’re on or off later today, much less tomorrow.

The words of Trump supporters that “we need a businessman in the White House” echo in my head. Being a student of government and political science, I bristled at that mindset when it was first voiced and I continue to bristle and cringe at it today.

If this is the way businesses operate, I don’t think our democracy (or any democracy) can afford it. I know a democracy cannot afford this in a constitutional way – in a “this is what we stand for” way.

When facing excessive debt, do businesses fire all their employees only to try to locate and rehire the good ones later? Do businesses issue blanket lies in writing about the performance of the employees they fire or layoff in mass reorganizations in order to make it more difficult for them to find new jobs?

Oops! We didn’t mean to fire the air traffic controllers. We didn’t mean to fire the people who safeguard our nuclear stockpiles. We just meant to fire the scientists working on cures for cancer, the people who are trained to fight wildfires, the people who work at the Veterans Administration and the VA hospitals, and the people who make sure we have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and safe food to eat.

We just meant to cancel classes at the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland, the premier fire academy in the US where firefighters from all over the nation come for special training. (Too bad for the firefighters who had already bought their plane tickets, etc. for the new round of classes that were scheduled to begin this week.)

We just meant to traumatize the millions of disabled and elderly citizens who rely on Social Security. After all, we must find the money somewhere to give the millionaires and billionaires more tax breaks.

To me, that’s a sign of insanity, but I did not major in business administration in college. I majored in political science and my graduate degree is in public administration.

The government is not supposed to be a profit-making entity. It is service oriented. The government does not manufacture things. It contracts with private companies (and billionaires like Elon Musk) for those things. If the federal government is “getting ripped off” as Trump says, perhaps someone needs to take a look at federal contracts with private companies and see where the waste is.

Photo of a contract marked with a "sign here" sticky note — Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

When I worked in government, I was required to recommend to the elected governing body that a contract be given to the lowest bidder unless the lowest bidder was deemed unable to fulfill the contract and accomplish the work as specified. If we think the federal government is paying too much for water faucets or whatever, perhaps the fault likes with the private company selling us those faucets.

If contracts are being issued to the highest bidder because an elected official has a personal relationship or a financial relationship with that bidder, perhaps the elected official needs to be impeached. And the bidder attempting to defraud the government (i.e., the American people) needs to be exposed.

In the Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln reminded us that in the United States of America we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is time for we, the people, to remind all three branches of the federal government of that.

Photo of the tops of three heads: a blonde, a brown, and a black haired and skinned group of people — Photo by Clarissa Watson on Unsplash

We are the government. We, the people, are not the enemy of the government. A free press is not the enemy of the people.

Until my next blog post

It is tempting during these uncertain and chaotic times to withdraw and stop listening to or reading the news; however, it is more important than ever that we pay attention. We need to stay as informed as possible about what is happening in and to our government. We need to get our information from a wide range of reliable sources.

I deleted my weekly western North Carolina Hurricane Helene Update today due to the length of my blog post. It should return next week.

I hope you have a good book to read. I have several going now, as usual. Regardless of your political leanings, I encourage you to read Fascism: A Warning, by Madeleine Korbel Albright.

Remember the people of Ukraine and western North Carolina.

Janet

Inauguration Day and Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday

Sometimes what I want to say in a blog post flows smoothly from my brain, through my fingers, and onto the keyboard. Other times, I struggle. I have struggled with today’s post. I have lost track of how many edits and rewrites I’ve done over the last couple of weeks.

Photo of a pair of hands typing on a laptop computer keyboard — Photo by Kaitlyn Baker on Unsplash

Today’s post is a bit long, but please bear with me and read it to the end.

A blog isn’t a monologue. A blog is meant to be a conversation. It is a way for the blogger and the reader to connect.

Common Ground

You and I might not agree on some things. We might not agree on many things. I hope we agree on the most important things. When we disagree, I hope we can find that common ground.

I assume we all love our families, we want the next generation to have a happy and peaceful life, we want the best for all people, we want the best for whatever country we live in, we want a roof over our heads and enough food to keep us healthy, and we want to find and fulfill our purpose.

Photo of a blue metal cargo container with the words Common Ground printed on the side in white letters — Photo by Hill Country Camera on Unsplash

I assume we all want to know the truth. Lies being spread at lightning speed across the internet and social media platforms serve no constructive purpose. Lies told by either side of the political spectrum or by foreign entities undermine the common good and the very fabric of our society.

Hail to the Chief

I have watched every US Presidential Inauguration since 1961 except the one in 2017 and today’s. I was in the second grade when John F. Kennedy was inaugurated in 1961. Tim Jenkins’ mother brought a small black-and-white portable TV to our classroom so we could watch the festivities.

I was too young to grasp or understand President Kennedy’s speech, but I still remember being in awe to see Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower wearing top hats! Those hats told my seven-year-old brain that I was seeing something very important take place. The images that day made a lasting impression on me!

In case you don’t know what a top hat is, here’s the best free image of one that I could find to include in my blog post. The statue has nothing to do with Presidents Eisenhower or Kennedy. It is merely to illustrate the top hats like they wore for the 1961 Presidential Inauguration.

Black-and-white photo of the statue of a man wearing a top hat — Photo by Remy Gieling on Unsplash

It’s time to have a difficult conversation.

The person I voted for didn’t always get elected, but I accepted the results of every election. I wasn’t afraid that any of those US Presidents would do irreparable damage to our democracy until the 2016 election.

I respect the Office of the United States President; however, I do not automatically respect the person who holds the office. Mr. Trump has shown us what he is.

I do not think a person who treats people with disrespect, who goes out of his way to spread untruths, who brags about sexually assaulting women, who has paid off a porn star with whom he had an affair, and who makes fun of disabled people should have been under consideration for US President.

I do not think a person who belittled John McCain’s more than five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam and said, “I like people who weren’t captured,” who tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election, who wants to be a dictator today (but “only for one day,” so he says), who admires and praises dictators, who said there were “good people on both sides” in Charlottesville should have been under consideration for US President.

I do not think a person who encouraged his supporters to go to the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 to protest the verification of the November 2020 election, who sat idly by for hours before telling the rioters to go home, who was convicted of 34 felonies should have been under consideration for US President.

I do not think a person and who appears to base most decisions either on revenge or how he and his friends can benefit financially should have been under consideration for US President.

Photo of a scattered pile of various political party campaign buttons — Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash

It grieves me that this is the best the Republican Party – “the party of family values” — could do, but it grieves me exponentially more that this is the best half the voters could do in November. They might be disappointed tomorrow when the price of eggs doesn’t plummet. That seemed to be what the majority of voters based their choice for US President on.

The most baffling part for me is that some Christians seem to believe that Donald Trump is almost the second coming of Christ. When I hear him talk and see his actions, I do not hear or see anything that remotely reflects the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I have tried to understand why anyone would vote for Donald Trump over a black woman who has seven years of experience as a District Attorney, has six years of experience as a state attorney general, has four years of experience as a US Senator, has four years of experience as US Vice-President, and speaks in complete sentences.

I’m left to assume that there were three qualities that she could not overcome: She is black, she is a woman, and she speaks in complete sentences. Her opponent has no such resume, although his companies have filed for bankruptcy six times.

Surely, that’s not it

I must have misread the American people. Surely, they did not vote for Donald Trump just because he is white, male, and rarely speaks in complete sentences. Surely, they voted for him in spite of his deeply flawed character. But why? I sincerely want to understand what happened in November.

I thought enough people would remember the chaos of 2017-2021 and not want that again. I thought enough people would want our country to take the high road and vote for decency. I thought enough people would conclude that democracy is more precious than the economy and that only by everyone having a shot at the proverbial American Dream can our economy thrive.

I was wrong. It all started to make more sense this weekend when I saw people more concerned over losing Tiktok than they are over the risk of losing our democracy.

Photo of a hand holding a cell phone. The Tiktok symbol is on the cell phone's screen. — Photo by Olivier Bergeron on Unsplash

A Glimpse at the future

Brace yourself for the Executive Orders and Congressional actions that will, no doubt, commence today. Pay attention! Stop saying, “I don’t watch the news because it’s too depressing.”

We were given some teasers yesterday about ten Executive Orders planned for issuance today. If you like pollution, you’ll be happy.

Are you aware of what happened on January 3, 2025? A bill (H.R. 191) was introduced in the House of Representatives to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. You can follow its progress and see who sponsored and co-sponsored it at https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/191/all-info.)

Just so you know… it was the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 that enabled Medicare to negotiate the price of drugs in an incremental way over the next years. Did you think in November that you were voting to repeal the law that capped the price of insulin for seniors at $35 per month?

And Virginia Foxx, the US Representative from North Carolina’s 5^th Congressional District, has been rewarded for being a staunch Trump supporter. She is the new Chair of the US House Rules Committee.

If you don’t know her by name, you’ll recognize her as the 81-year-old woman in many of Donald Trump’s photo ops. She’s the one who told a reporter to “Shut up!” when the reporter asked Representative Mike Johnson a question about the part he might have played in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

Virginia Foxx voted not to certify the 2020 election. She called the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepherd “a hoax.” Her spokesperson, Aaron Groer, said in 2009, “Virginia’s not here to become a Washington insider or part of the good ol’ boy network,” but apparently in 2025 she’s been accepted.

The House Rules Committee used to be known as “the Speaker’s Committee” because for a long time the Speaker of the House served as its chair. It is the House Rules Committee that controls which bills reach the chamber floor for consideration.

Nine of its members are from the majority party and four are from the minority party. It seems like the deck is stacked against whichever party is in the minority

The Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday

It is unfortunate that this Inauguration Day coincides with the official Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday. Nothing should overshadow the accomplishments of Dr. King today. His life and values are in stark contrast with those of the man being inaugurated as the US President today.

Photo of The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. — The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Photo by Unseen Histories on Unsplash

Dr. King preached and worked for societal change and reform through non-violent means, while the man being inaugurated today encouraged rioters on January 6, 2021, and continues to encourage division and violence through his rhetoric.

Until my next blog post and thereafter

I know you might decide that you can no longer follow my blog due to today’s post. I’ll hate to see you go, but please understand that I feel strongly about the fragility of our democracy, and I believe that God expects me to use my platform – small as it is – to speak out. My parents taught me through their words and their example “to stand on my own two feet.”

I have ancestors who fought in the American Revolutionary War. I owe it to them and to my great-nieces and their future children to stand up for our democracy.

I will continue to pray that our democracy will be recognizable in 2029 and beyond. For the sakes of my future great-great-nieces and great-great-nephews, I pray that my gut inclinations turn out to be very, very wrong.

You know where I stand. It’s your turn, if you want to join in this difficult conversation. Let’s see what conclusions we can draw together.

Support investigative journalists. True journalists are not the enemy of the people even though Donald Trump has called them that. True journalists stand in the gap between politicians and citizens.

Remember the people of Ukraine, western North Carolina, and Los Angeles County.

Janet

#OnThisDay: 19th Amendment to U.S. Constitution, 1920

The 19^th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It was 104 years ago today that women in the United States finally got the right to vote. The year 1920 might seem like ancient history to some of you, but I always think of it in terms of my mother having her eighth birthday that autumn.

Early- to mid-1800s

Women getting the right to vote came after a long, hard fight. In the early- and mid-1800s, women advocated for the abolition of slavery. Their speeches evolved into words in support of women’s suffrage. Two such women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, organized a women’s suffrage convention in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848.

Sojourner Truth and Sarah Redmond, two former slaves – who could not vote because of their race and their gender – organized women’s suffrage conventions. Slowly, it was becoming more of a public issue of discussion.

Post American Civil War/Reconstruction Era

The State of Michigan allowed women to vote in school board elections after the Civil War.

With the passage of Reconstruction Era U.S Constitutional Amendments granting black men the right to vote came contentious political and public discourse because it brought to the forefront that women still could not vote. As a result of their disfavor with women still not being granted the right to vote, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton left the American Equal Rights Association (AERA), which they had founded in 1866, and formed the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) in 1869. Later that year, women who thought it more plausible to push for women’s suffrage by getting it adopted state-by-state formed the American Women Suffrage Association.

The Territory of Wyoming (it was not yet a state) granted women full voting rights in 1869. The Territory of Utah followed Wyoming in 1870, but Congress took that right away in 1887.

Photo of an "I Voted" sticker on a woman's finger — Photo by Joshua Sukoff on Unsplash

Virginia Minor of Missouri, after being denied the right to vote in 1872, took her complaint to the U.S. Supreme Court. Minor maintained that the 14^th Amendment gave her the right to vote because it stated that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

In a classic example of the high court going by the “letter of the law” instead of taking a more pragmatic stance, the Court, in its majority decision in Minor v Happersett, said that the right to vote was not a necessary privilege of citizenship because it was not a right included when the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788.

The “bottom line” of this decision was that states did indeed have the authority to deny women the right to vote. Let that sink in for a few minutes.

Late 1800s

In 1878 and again in 1887, there were efforts in Congress to introduce a women’s suffrage amendment, but they failed.

The AERA and NWSA merged in 1890, but some of the leaders worked to exclude black women from participating in events. In 1896, the black women formed the National Association of Colored Women to advocate for women’s voting rights along with other issues that were important to women of color.

Photo of a woman putting her ballot in the voting box — Photo by Unseen Histories on Unsplash

In 1896, the Constitution of the State of Utah once again gave female citizens the right to vote.

1910s

By 1916, 11 western states had granted women the right to vote, but petitions to Congress and litigation in federal courts repeatedly came up short. In the election in Montana that year, Jeannette Rankin was elected to Congress. She was the first women elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

The joint resolution to propose a women’s suffrage amendment (See the 1878 and 1887 references above) was reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1917 – thirty years after it had last been shot down. Proponents of states’ rights argued that the passage of such an Amendment would interfere with each state’s authority to dictate the composition of its electorate and that it would also disrupt the traditional family. Some lawmakers opposed it because they feared it would give black women the right to vote.

(Does anything about the states’ rights argument sound familiar? The current U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 conveniently decided to give states the authority to pass laws about women’s health.)

Photo of turn of the 20th century women — Photo by Library of Congress on Unsplash

The opposition was narrowly defeated as a two-thirds majority voted to pass the proposed Amendment on January 10, 1918. The Senate debated the joint resolution for months with many of the same arguments that had been overcome in the House. President Woodrow Wilson spoke in favor of the Amendment on October 31, 1918, citing the contributions women had made on the home front during World War I.

The following day, the resolution was defeated in the Senate. It failed again in the Senate on February 10, 1919. But President Wilson called a special session of Congress in May 1919. The House passed the 19^th Amendment on May 21, 1919, and it was approved by the Senate on June 4, 1919.

During World War I, some of the views of gender roles in the country began to change as women took on many of the jobs that had earlier been considered men’s work. The 19^th Amendment was proposed in Congress in June 1919.

August 26, 1920

It took 14 months for a three-fourths majority of states to accept the 19^th Amendment. It was ratified on August 18, 1920 and on August 26, 1920, U.S. Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby certified that the Amendment had been ratified.

Photo of "I Voted" stickers — Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash

Obstacles such as poll taxes and literacy tests continued to prevent many black women and other females of color from voting until the 24^th Amendment was ratified in 1964 and enforced by the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

Since my last blog post

I’ve been reading several books, pushing myself to do some yard work, and watching some online videos about the craft of writing. I’m motivated to get back to work on my novel!

Until my next blog post

I hope you have a good book to read.

Don’t take your family for granted.

Remember the people of Ukraine.

Janet

#OnThisDay: Presidential Succession Act of 1947

Today’s topic is somewhat obscure and isn’t given much thought by the average citizen until it comes into play. When it needs to be put into action, it is of monumental importance.

The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman on July 18, 1947. To fully appreciate US Presidential Succession, however, we need to first look at the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Acts prior to 1947. Later in this post, we’ll learn about what has happened on this matter since 1947.

My post today is longer than usual, but please read on. You might learn something. I did!

US Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 6

The vice president is designated as the first in the presidential line of succession by Clause 6 in Section I, Article II of the US Constitution. That is all many Americans know, since we’ve never lost a sitting president and sitting vice president at the same time… or lost a president who has assumed the office due to the death or incapacity of his predecessor.

Clause 6 also gives Congress the authority to provide for the line of succession after the vice president.

US Presidential Succession Act of 1792

The Presidential Succession Act of 1792 designated the US Senate president pro tempore as next in line after the vice president, followed by the Speaker of the House.

US Senate Practice in the 1800s

During most of the 19^th century, the US Senate assumed it could elect a president pro tempore only during the absence of a vice president. With Congress only being in session approximately half the year at that time, concerns were raised over the high mortality rate of the era. What if the president and vice president both died or became incapacitated during Congress’ adjournment?

The solution was for the vice president to voluntarily exit the Senate chamber before the current session of Congress ended. While the vice president was out of the room, the Senate would elect a president pro tempore.

That scheme sort of worked for decades, but then vice presidents from the minority political party started fearing that in their absence from the Senate chamber, someone not from their political party might be elected. To remedy that, some vice presidents refused to leave the chamber while the vote was taken.

Congressional Action in 1886

No deed goes unpunished, and it seems that Congressional members are always looking for something they can change and take credit for. In 1886, Congress changed the presidential succession order after the vice president cabinet secretaries in the order in which their federal departments had been created.

No Act of Congress goes uncriticized. Proponents of the 1886 Act maintained that the office Senate pro tempore is filled based on parliamentary skills and not on the person’s executive skills.

The Death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1945

Vice President Harry Truman was in House Speaker Sam Rayburn’s office enjoying a glass of bourbon when they received word that President Roosevelt had died and Truman was to take the oath of office for the Presidency as quickly as possible.

Mr. Truman was friends with Sam Rayburn and had a somewhat strained relationship with Senate President Pro Tempore Kenneth McKellar. It came as no surprise then when President Truman started campaigning for a change in presidential succession.

Arguing that Sam Rayburn had been chosen by his Congressional peers to be their leader in the office of Speaker of the House, Truman pushed for a change in the law.

This was completely political. Although Truman, Rayburn, and McKellar were all Democrats, Truman preferred Rayburn over McKellar and saw his chance to reinstate two elected officials in the line of succession after the vice president and before cabinet members. Cabinet members, of course, are not elected. They are nominated by the sitting US President and reflect the governing philosophy or the President.

The Presidential Succession Act of 1947

President Truman prevailed. The result was the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, which established the line of succession as the vice president, the Speaker of the House, the Senate President Pro Tempore, followed by the cabinet secretaries in the order in which their departments were created.

When House and Senate Leaders are in Opposition to the President

Of the 76 years since the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the Speaker of the House has not been from the President’s political party 44 years. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate has not been from the President’s political party for 36 of those 76 years.

As we have witnessed in recent years, these situations can create stalemates in Congress when it comes to a US President being able to get his legislative issues passed into law. It boils down to the balance of power between the three branches of the federal government and the system of checks and balances. Sometimes it’s a good thing, and sometimes it’s a bad thing. It all depends on which political party or philosophy you align yourself with and how quickly you want to see the laws of the land changed.

The 25^th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1967

Until the adoption of the 25^th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1967, there was no way to replace a deceased, incapacitate, or resigned US vice president or one who had moved into the office of US president due to an unexpected vacancy in that office.

Prior to the 25^th Amendment, therefore, the office of vice president remained vacant until the next presidential election. That meant the Speaker of the House was first in line if something happened to the president.

With the 25^th Amendment in place when Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned, President Richard M. Nixon had the authority to nominate Gerald R. Ford on October 12, 1973. Mr. Ford was confirmed by Congress on December 6, 1973. It is ironic, then, that Gerald Ford became the president when Richard Nixon was forced to resign. I was majoring in political science in college at the time. It was a great time to participate in political debates. There was never a dull moment in poli sci class!

When Presidential Succession becomes a concern, it suddenly becomes a big concern

When President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1962, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson became the President. Next in line for the office were 73-year-old Speaker of the House John W. McCormack and 86-year-old Senate President Pro Tempore Carl Hayden.

Photo by History in HD on Unsplash (I couldn’t help but notice there’s not a woman or a person of color in the entire photo. It’s an image that epitomizes government in the US in the early 1960s.)

Our current US president is 79 years old. He might run for reelection in 2024. Regardless of one’s political leanings, age is an issue. That said, though, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that a 73-year-old and an 86-year-old in the year 1962 were definitely considered elderly. Seventy-three isn’t considered as old as it did in 1962 – and I’m not just saying that because I’m in my late 60s.

Spiro Agnew resigned as vice president in 1973. When that happened, Carl Albert was in line for the presidency. I’ve read that Mr. Albert had an alcohol problem and didn’t want to be president; however, when Gerald R. Ford became president less than a year later, Mr. Albert was still next in line. That was not a good situation for the country.

Think back to the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. “He who shall not be named” was the US president. He was hospitalized with Covid-19. What if he had died and Vice President Mike Pence had also succumbed to the virus? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was next in line and from the other major political party. Even if you’re a Democrat, you must admit such a transition of power would have created political havoc in our country.

This possible scenario, along with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, raise the question of presidential succession anew. It has been suggested that the Secretary of Homeland Security should be elevated from last in the line of succession to a higher position in that line

What do you think?

Is it time for Congress to revisit the line of presidential succession?

I think it is, but members of Congress and the American public are too polarized in 2022 for anything of such importance to be considered. Everything today is decided along political party lines – even in the US Supreme Court and perhaps within the US Secret Service.

When the political pendulum swings back to a more moderate place of common sense and an adherence to the philosophy that all elected officials should only work for the common good, perhaps then the issue of Presidential Succession can be revisited.

Since my last blog post

My sister and I enjoyed an overnight trip to the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. (By the way, I wrote a vintage postcard book by that name a few years ago and it’s still available on Amazon and from Arcadia Publishing. You just might like to read it and see the postcards which all date prior to 1970, with most being from the 1940s and 1950s. Pardon the shameless plug for my book. I must blow my own horn.)

*The Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina*, by Janet Morrison

It poured rain on us most of the way to Boone on Sunday, and then dense fog set in and blocked our views along the Blue Ridge Parkway most of the way to Asheville. Even so, it was good to get away if just for a couple of days.

Upon returning home, I took the plunge and purchased access to Atticus writing software. I’ve started my first book on the platform, which formats one’s writing ready for electronic and print publication. That first book is tentatively called The Aunts in the Kitchen: Tried and True Recipes from the Aunts in Our Family.

I read a book that’s been on my “To Be Read” (TBR) list for several years. One down, 300+ books to go.

It’s been a good week.

Until my next blog post

I hope you have a good book or two to read. I’m listening to and reading books by some authors I’ve not read before.

Take time for family, friends, and a hobby.

Remember the four-year-old little girl in Ukraine who was pushing her baby stroller one minute and was killed by a Russian rocket the next; the surviving children in Uvalde and the parents who lost children in the domestic terrorist attack there; and the orphaned two-year-old boy, the partially-paralyzed little boy, and all the grieving and traumatized people in Highland Park. Unfortunately, the list could go on and on.

Value each day you have.

Janet

#OnThisDay: Explosion Aboard Steamship, 1844

Sometimes it angers me that the history classes I sat through as a child and teen didn’t include little bits of information like I’m sharing with you today. Instead of memorizing names of general and battles and dates, how much more interesting class would have been if we’d been told stories like this one.

Knowing this story could have served as an example to students of how history can turn on a dime. I’d like to think students learned that last week when Russia invaded Ukraine without provocation.

The incident I write about today brings to mind the following for each of us to think about: If not for ___(you fill in the blank)____, then ___(you fill in the blank)____ wouldn’t have happened OR would have happened.

The 1840s USS Princeton

I don’t recall ever hearing about the USS Princeton until recently, and I wouldn’t have heard of it then if I hadn’t been looking for a topic for #OnThisDay for my blog.

There have been a series of US Naval vessels christened with the name USS Princeton. The one I write about today, as you can see from my blog post title, was the one built in the early 1840s. It was a state-of-the-art warship powered by coal-produced steam. It was built in Philadelphia and was best-known for its two 12-inch cannons/carronades, called “The Oregon” and “The Peacemaker.”

“The Oregon” was of revolutionary design, made of wrought iron, and manufactured in England. It was designed by John Ericsson, a Swede who later designed the Monitor of American Civil War fame.

“The Peacemaker” was manufactured in New York under the partial supervision of Captain Robert Stockton, a political supporter of US President John Tyler. It’s thought that it was believed and claimed to be comparable to “The Oregon,” but there were design differences and short cuts were taken in The Peacemaker’s testing. This was a recipe for disaster, and that’s what happened on the Potomac River on February 28, 1844.

Let’s set the stage

The state of politics in the United States in 1844 contributed to the inevitable disaster. William Henry Harrison was elected US President in 1840, but he died in 1841 only a month after his inauguration. John Tyler being the US Vice President, assumed the office of President. It was the first time in American history that a president died in office and was replaced by the vice president. Tyler had been a Democrat, but he was elected as a Whig. Soon after he assumed office, he openly disagreed with the Whig Party over economic policy, and the Whigs kicked him out of the party. The Democrats didn’t want him back, so he became a US President without a political party.

Tyler wanted to be reelected President in the 1844 election. He thought by running on a promise to annex the Republic of Texas into the United States would win him the election. Mexico and Great Britain opposed the idea.

To ward off foreign opposition to that annexation, Tyler ordered the construction of the USS Princeton. Most warships in the world at that time were sailing ships or steamships with fuel limitations. The USS Princeton was designed with a collapsible smokestack, allowing it to also navigate as a sailing ship. A hybrid in the 1840s! It’s engine and propeller system were below the water line, making it less vulnerable to enemy attack than ships propelled by paddlewheel.

Back on the scene to partially supervised the construction of the warship, Captain Stockton bragged about the ship’s prowess, calling it “invincible.” He thought by bringing the ship to Washington, DC and entertaining politicians, he’d get the money to build more ships.

What happened on February 28, 1844

An afternoon excursion from Washington, DC on the Potomac River was planned for February 28, 1844. President Tyler (who had no Vice-President), members of Congress along with their wives, and some Cabinet members were wined and dined on the ship and were scheduled to witness the fire power of the ship during three demonstrations.

It was Stockton’s decision to fire “The Peacemaker” for all three demonstrations. After two successful firings, a third was launched in honor of George Washington. On that third firing, “The Peacemaker” exploded, sending its parts – some weighing in excess of a ton – flying across the deck. Eight people were killed and more than two dozen were injured.

Secretary of State Abel Upshur and Secretary of the Navy Thomas Gilmer were killed. If President Tyler had not been unexpectedly detained on the stairs below deck, he undoubtedly would have been standing with them.

The hole in the US Constitution

What happened in US Presidential succession in the 1840s should have been remedied posthaste. It was the first time a Vice President had to step up and into the Presidency due to the death of a President; however, we know from history it was not the last time.

It would be 1967, four years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, before the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution would provide a process through which a Vice President would be replaced in the event of the vacancy of that office.

If President Tyler had been killed in the explosion on the Princeton, the president pro tem of the US Senate, Willie Mangum – a North Carolinian who had been one of the founders of the Whig Party – would have become US President. Among other things, Mangum was an avowed opponent of the annexation of the Republic of Texas.

This fact alone brings us back to the fill-in-the-blanks line from the third paragraph of this blog post: If not for ___(you fill in the blank)____, then ___(you fill in the blank)____ wouldn’t have happened OR would have happened.

If you’d like to learn more

If you want to learn more about the USS Princeton of 1844, I recommend https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/181834, by Stan Haynes, published on November 21, 2021. Also, https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/USS_Princeton_(1843). I drew information from both of these online resources which include more detail than I shared in my post today. In addition, I understand that Stan Haynes has written a historical novel, And Tyler No More, which includes this tragic incident.

Since my last blog post

Our world has changed forever. NATO is being tested like no other time since its inception. No one knows what the future holds for Ukraine, Europe, and the rest of the world. I believe in His perfect wisdom, God doesn’t allow us to know the future.

Until my next blog post

I hope you have a good book to read and time for a creative outlet.

It’s been an unsettling week in our world since last Monday, to say the least. No one knows what this week holds. My heart goes out to the people of Ukraine who are suffering so. May the world continue to condemn Vladimir Putin for his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

Thank you for taking the time to read my blog.

Janet

Janet's Writing Blog

Category: Politics

Two US Supreme Court Rulings in 1898 and 2025

“First they came for the…”

I was so moved, I just had to repost…

#OnThisDay: Ramifications of Backgrounds of US Supreme Court Justices

An Historical & Current Look at “America First”

Inauguration Day and Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday

#OnThisDay: 19th Amendment to U.S. Constitution, 1920

#OnThisDay: Presidential Succession Act of 1947

#OnThisDay: Explosion Aboard Steamship, 1844

Other Books Read in October and an Election

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: