Peace & Justice History for 1/27

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistoryjanuary.htm#january27

Letters From An American

January 26, 2025 by Heather Cox Richardson Read on Substack

On January 27, 1838, Abraham Lincoln rose before the Young Men’s Lyceum in Springfield, Illinois, to make a speech. Just 28 years old, Lincoln had begun to practice law and had political ambitions. But he was worried that his generation might not preserve the republic that the founders had handed to it for transmission to yet another generation. He took as his topic for that January evening, “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.”

Lincoln saw trouble coming, but not from a foreign power, as other countries feared. The destruction of the United States, he warned, could come only from within. “If destruction be our lot,” he said, “we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

The trouble Lincoln perceived stemmed from the growing lawlessness in the country as men ignored the rule of law and acted on their passions, imposing their will on their neighbors through violence. He pointed specifically to two recent events: the 1836 lynching of free Black man Francis McIntosh in St. Louis, Missouri, and the 1837 murder of white abolitionist editor Elijah P. Lovejoy by a proslavery mob in Alton, Illinois.

But the problem of lawlessness was not limited to individual instances, he said. A public practice of ignoring the law eventually broke down all the guardrails designed to protect individuals, while lawbreakers, going unpunished, became convinced they were entitled to act without restraint. “Having ever regarded Government as their deadliest bane,” Lincoln said, “they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much as its total annihilation.”

The only way to guard against such destruction, Lincoln said, was to protect the rule of law on which the country was founded. “As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor…. Let reverence for the laws…become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.”

Lincoln was quick to clarify that he was not saying all laws were good. Indeed, he said, bad laws should be challenged and repealed. But the underlying structure of the rule of law, based in the Constitution, could not be abandoned without losing democracy.

Lincoln didn’t stop there. He warned that the very success of the American republic threatened its continuation. “[M]en of ambition and talents” could no longer make their name by building the nation—that glory had already been won. Their ambition could not be served simply by preserving what those before them had created, so they would achieve distinction through destruction.

For such a man, Lincoln said, “Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm; yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down.” With no dangerous foreign power to turn people’s passions against, people would turn from the project of “establishing and maintaining civil and religious liberty” and would instead turn against each other.

Lincoln reminded his audience that the torch of American democracy had been passed to them. The Founders had used their passions to create a system of laws, but the time for passion had passed, lest it tear the nation apart. The next generation must support democracy through “sober reason,” he said. He called for Americans to exercise “general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws.”

“Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its basis; and as truly as has been said of the only greater institution, ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’”

What became known as the Lyceum Address is one of the earliest speeches of Lincoln’s to have been preserved, and at the time it established him as a rising politician and political thinker. But his recognition, in a time of religious fervor and moral crusades, that the law must prevail over individual passions reverberates far beyond the specific crises of the 1830s.

—

Notes:

https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm

I Know, As To All Of Us Here. From Ben Werdmuller:

In the face of this, who do you want to be?

I was out buying eggs when I saw a video of Elon Musk giving a Hitler salute at the inauguration.

In the movies, this stuff is highlighted and separated: punctuation in itself instead of an event that you see in the background of your everyday life. Hannah Arendt talked about “the banality of evil” in the context of Eichmann, one of the core organizers of the Holocaust, telling prosecutors that he was just doing his job. But banality pervades. Sometimes, you need to buy eggs. And sometimes, when you get back in the car and pick up your phone, you get a notification about the richest man in the world signaling his intentions on the world stage.

There has subsequently been much discussion about whether it really was a Nazi salute. It’s insultingly stupid. Even if he truly didn’t intend to throw three successive Sieg Heils, he certainly knows what one is, and most of us have enough self awareness not to accidentally look like a Nazi on national television. He had to know what he was doing. It was a deliberate Nazi salute. The act itself, and the subsequent denials, serve to normalize fascism; just another banal event for you to scroll past on your phone.

Still, these conversations serve a purpose. It’s worth noticing who wants to downplay the Nazism, which, after all, is not “just” manifested in the world’s richest man doing a Hitler salute on national TV. Make no mistake, Musk’s salute was a clear signal, but it’s far from the only one. It’s part of a broader pattern of normalization, visible in policies and actions designed to dismantle rights and embolden oppression.

Will they also downplay executive orders that repeal important civil rights gains from sixty years ago (as an appellate court simultaneously reinstates a Jim Crow era voter suppression law, with doubtless more to follow), or encouraging employees to inform on their colleagues?

Or decimating rights and protections for transgender people, preparing for mass deportations including by removing protections for schools and churches from raids, pardoning January 6 extremists who vow revenge on their perceived enemies, or deploying the military as internal law enforcement in border states?

Or freezing scientific research at the NIH and thereby putting universities and research organizations at risk, or attempting to end Constitutionally-protected birthright citizenship?

“Optimistic and celebrating,” Mark Zuckerberg said, on the same night that Musk Sieg Heiled the room three times. “I’m not going to agree with him on everything, but I think he will be incredible for the country in many ways,” Sam Altman said. Microsoft put out a statement saying that “the country has a unique opportunity to pursue […] the foundational ideas set for AI policy during President Trump’s first term”.

And those are public figures in technology. My Facebook feed, and likely yours, is loaded with acquaintances and extended family members who welcome the change; one on mine welcomed “the return to logic and reason”. My LinkedIn feed is worse, with many business leaders echoing Zuckerberg’s “optimistic” language, and some calling the Nazi salute into question.

We’ve tumbled into a deep, dark hole, and, as it turns out, many of us are glad to be there.

It’s just not always clear who.

Though dated in some ways, this 1941 Harper’s Magazine article still resonates. The question then was, “Who goes Nazi?” Who is going to be a sympathizer or even a collaborator with a regime that seeks to subjugate, deport, and, as it turned out in the 1940s, kill so many people?

And to be clear, collaboration doesn’t require slapping on an armband and goose-stepping behind a demagogue. Nice people made the best Nazis, as Naomi Shulman wrote eight years ago:

My mother was born in Munich in 1934, and spent her childhood in Nazi Germany surrounded by nice people who refused to make waves. When things got ugly, the people my mother lived alongside chose not to focus on “politics,” instead busying themselves with happier things. They were lovely, kind people who turned their heads as their neighbors were dragged away.

The question now is not a million miles away. Who will support? Who will collaborate? Who will decide that they are “not political” and look away as millions of people are harmed? Who will make excuses for it all? Who secretly welcomes the push for theocracy, for in-groups and out-groups, for “traditional” values that prioritize rigid gender roles, segregation, and oligarchy? Who, in other words, is safe?

Are you “optimistic” about the new regime? Will you be complicit?

When someone needs help — when ICE comes after them, or worse — will you look away, or worse, cheer them on? Or will you be a point of safety for someone who needs it?

And what about when it gets worse? Because, left unchecked, it will.

In the face of rising fascism, what kind of person are you? What kind of person do you want to be?

I’m writing about the intersection of the internet, media, and society. Sign up to my newsletter to receive every post and a weekly digest of the most important stories from around the web.

Peace & Justice History for 1/26

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistoryjanuary.htm#january26

Reblog of a reblog; a very strong read-go see!

Thank you Yenn

Arise, indeed!

Dharmageddon (Untouchable Sonnet) | Abhijit Naskar | Azad Earth Army: When The World Cries Blood

Peace & Justice History for 1/25

Peace & Justice History for 1/24

Also, in the early 2000’s as my Dem. county party chair, I had the great honor of representing Kansas St. Senator David Haley-a very gracious man!-at a local candidate’s forum as he was running for Secretary of State (he came close but did not prevail. I tried to take the blame, but he would not let me.) KS is a red state, but he ran against the Republicans anyway. At that time, Republicans loved the computerized voting machines with no chits, but Sen. Haley wanted verification. He is author Alex Haley’s nephew.

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistoryjanuary.htm#january24

Interesting. She Gives Follow-through Commentary, Even.

The ‘MAGA Granny’ Plans to Reject Trump’s Jan. 6 Pardon, and Her Reasons Behind it Might Shock You

Pamela Hemphill was sentenced to jail after posting videos of her inside the Capitol during the insurrection.

By Phenix S Halley

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump made good on his promise to pardon all of the roughly 1,500 Jan. 6 insurrectionists. But while many MAGA supporters like Jacob Chansley, the self proclaimed “QAnon Shaman” and the face of the deadly Capitol riot, celebrated their pardons, one MAGA celebrity is singing a different tune.

Pamela Hemphill is a 71-year-old Boise, Idaho resident. She was known as “the MAGA granny” to Trump’s supporters, but in May 2022, she was sentenced to two months in jail on a misdemeanor charge in the Capitol attack, according to the Department of Justice.

Hemphill pled guilty to the charge after she was caught live streaming the insurrection and posting videos on YouTube from inside the Capitol during the attack. More than two years later, Hemphill said she got exactly what was coming to her. “We were wrong that day, we broke the law,” she told BBC. “There should be no pardons.”

It’s been confirmed that five U.S. citizens were killed during the Jan. 6 riot. This includes Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick, who died on Jan. 7 as a result of injuries sustained during the attack, according to U. S. Capitol Police.

Rachel Scott, a senior congressional correspondent for ABC News, said she spoke to Sicknick’s brother. “We now have no rule of law,” he reportedly told Scott. The brother even went as far as to call Trump “a poor excuse of a man.”

Hemphill said accepting the president’s pardon “would only insult the Capitol police officers, rule of law and, of course, our nation.” She continued to the Idaho Statesman saying, “The J6 criminals are trying to rewrite history by saying that it was not a riot; it wasn’t an insurrection. I don’t want to be a part of their trying to rewrite what happened that day.”

So with that, she’s turning down the pardon offer, going against the president and his MAGA movement’s wishes, and she’s well within her rights to do so. The MAGA granny wouldn’t be the first person to reject a presidential pardon. In 1833, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a pardon recipient can indeed turn down the offer. The ruling was later upheld in 1915, according to the Library of Congress.

Hemphill says her attorney plans to file an official letter of rejection of the president’s pardon.

Bits of a Couple of Pieces I Found Late, Right Before Bedtime

Fast radio burst found in an old, dead galaxy for the first time

A new discovery adds to the mystery of the source of fast radio bursts.

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are extremely energetic pulses of radio-frequency light which travels across the universe that last just a few seconds or even milliseconds.

Radio telescope array under night sky — Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME). Credit: CHIME, Andre Renard, Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics, University of Toronto.

More than 1,000 FRBs have been reported since the first was discovered in 2007. (snip-More; click the title see it all.)

=======================================================

Godless Libs Of Tulsa, OK, City Council To No Longer Force Jesus On People Just Trying To Attend Their Meetings by Rebecca Schoenkopf

Good for you Tulsa, Oklahoma! Read on Substack

The City Council of Tulsa, Oklahoma — faced with the choice of upsetting Christian Republican legislators or making non-Christian community members feel like they didn’t belong — voted 8-0 (with one abstaining) this week to eliminate the practice of starting each meeting with a prayer invocation.

Now, instead of invocations, there will be a moment of silence, so that everyone will have to sit there and feel uncomfortable instead of just those whose religion is not represented by the opening prayer.

As Hemant Mehta of Friendly Atheist reports, this all started last year after the invocation was delivered by Amy Hardy-McAdams, co-owner and creator of the Strawberry Moon Herbal Apothecary & Ritual Center in Broken Arrow. Hardy-McAdams, who described herself as “a Third-Degree High Priestess of the Artemisian Faerie Faith Tradition of Witchcraft” (which I’m sure is a real thing), was invited by retiring City Councilmember Crista Patrick, who also happened to be a Pagan and wished to see her faith represented at the meeting just as Christianity had been. (snip-More; the statements from the Gov and Schools Supt. are worth the click by themselves, but the entire thing is gold!)