Powers and Principalities

This WordPress.com site is the cat’s pajamas

Extrasolar planets

Extrasolar planets

Most of the discovered extrasolar planets lie within a distance of 300 light years of the Solar System.

There are 126 known extrasolar planets for which the true mass is estimable. There are currently 100 known planets in single planetary systems and 26 known planets in 9 multiple planetary systems (3 with two planets, 3 with three, 1 with four, 1 with five[2], and 1 with six).
The majority of these transit their stars, enabling determination of the inclination of their orbits and hence the true ratio of the masses of the planets to their parent stars. Given a firm determination of the parent star’s parallax and some independent means of measuring the star’s mass, an absolute value can be derived for the planet’s mass. Note also that eclipsing binaries can only have their masses securely determined if spectra for both objects exist, whereas a planet will not have spectra. See, for example, the introduction in ISBS. Transiting planets allows some confidence in expressing the lower limit of the spectroscopically determined mass being near to the real value, as inclination is perforce nearly edge-on to the line of sight. However, as a transiting system is still essentially a single line spectroscopic binary, it is the mass function, and not the mass, that is being determined (see section on single line spectroscopic binaries here). The mass is dependent on a solid determination of the parent star’s mass, a value that is generally not well known for singleton stars.
Some extrasolar planets have been detected via astrometry, an example being Epsilon Eridani b. The planets around OGLE-2003-BLG-235L/MOA-2003-BLG-53L, OGLE-2005-BLG-071L and OGLE-2006-BLG-109L were all detected by gravitational microlensing, a method giving the ratio of the mass of the planet to that of the parent star. In these three cases, the parent star has been directly detected, enabling a determination of the actual mass of the system and confirming the companions’ planetary nature. The upper limit on the detected flux from MOA-2007-BLG-400L constrains its mass to be less than 0.75 solar masses if it is a main sequence star. Planets “B” and “C” orbiting the pulsar PSR B1257+12 have their masses determined by detection of their gravitational effects on each other. 2M1207b‘s mass is derived from evolutionary models of substellar objects. The masses of all single stars are derived from evolutionary models.

[edit] Planet data table

Planets in multiple-planet systems are highlighted in yellow, in circumbinary orbits are green, orbiting subdwarf B stars are pink, and orbiting brown dwarfs are orange.
Star↓ Planet↓ Mass
(Compared to Jupiter) ↓
Mass Error
Margin↓
Radius
(Compared to Jupiter) ↓
Orbital
period

(days) ↓
Semimajor
axis

(AU) ↓
Orbital
eccentricity
↓
Inclination
(°) ↓
Discovery
year↓
WASP-26 b 1.02 ±0.03 1.32 2.7566 0.040 0 82.5 2010
WASP-1 b 0.89 ±0.2 1.358 2.51997 0.0382 0 83.9 2006
HAT-P-16 b 4.193 ±0.094 1.289 2.77596 0.0413 0.036 86.6 2010
Upsilon Andromedae 0.69 ±0.03 4.617136 0.059 0.013 ≥30 1996
Upsilon Andromedae 11.59 237.7 0.822 0.224 9.3 1999
Upsilon Andromedae 10.29 1302.61 2.55 0.32 23.14 1999
WASP-18 10.43 ±0.4 1.165 0.9414518 0.02047 0.0088 86 2009
HD 15082 b <4.1 1.497 1.2198669 0.02555 87.67 2010
HD 17156 b 3.212 −0.082 / +0.069 1.023 21.21688 0.1623 0.6753 86.2 2007
WASP-11/HAT-P-10 b 0.460 ±0.028 1.045 3.7224690 0.0439 0 88.5 2008
Epsilon Eridani b 1.55 ±0.24 2502 3.39 0.702 30.1 2000
WASP-22 b 0.56 ±0.02 1.12 3.53269 0.0468 0.023 89.2 2010
XO-3 b 11.79 ±0.59 1.217 3.1915239 0.0454 0.26 84.2 2007
HAT-P-15 b 1.946 ±0.066 1.072 10.863502 0.0964 0.190 89.1 2010
2M J044144 b 7.5 ±2.5 15 2010
Beta Pictoris b 8 −2 / +5 ~6000 12 2008
WASP-12 b 1.41 ±0.1 1.83 1.091435 0.0229 0.049 83.1 2008
COROT-12 b 0.917 −0.065 / +0.070 1.44 2.828042 0.04016 0.070 85.48 2010
COROT-7 b 0.0151 ±0.0025 0.150 0.853585 0.0172 0 80.1 2009
COROT-7 c 0.0264 ±0.0028 3.698 0.046 0 2009
COROT-5 b 0.467 −0.024 / +0.067 1.388 4.0378962 0.04947 0.09 85.83 2008
COROT-1 b 1.03 ±0.12 1.49 1.5089557 0.0254 0 85.1 2007
COROT-4 b 0.72 ±0.08 1.19 9.20205 0.090 0 90 2008
COROT-13 b 1.308 ±0.066 0.885 4.03519 0.051 0 88.02 2010
COROT-14 b 7.6 ±0.6 1.09 1.51214 0.027 0 79.6 2010
HAT-P-9 b 0.78 ±0.09 1.4 3.92289 0.053 0 86.5 2008
XO-4 b 1.72 ±0.2 1.34 4.12502 0.0555 0 88.7 2008
XO-5 b 1.077 ±0.037 1.089 4.1877539 0.0487 0 86.8 2008
XO-2 b 0.57 ±0.06 0.973 2.615838 0.0369 0 ≥88.58 2007
HAT-P-13 b 0.851 −0.046 / +0.029 1.28 2.91626 0.0426 0.021 83.4 2009
55 Cancri 4.8 5169 5.74 0.014 53 2002
WASP-13 b 0.46 −0.0019 / +0.0017 1.21 4.35298 0.0527 0 86.9 2008
HD 80606 b 3.94 ±0.11 1.029 111.43637 0.449 0.93366 89.285 2001
WASP-19 b 1.15 ±0.08 1.31 0.7888399 0.0164 0.02 80.8 2009
OGLE-TR-211 b 1.03 ±0.2 1.36 3.67724 0.051 0 ≥87.2 2007
OGLE-TR-132 b 1.14 ±0.12 1.18 1.689868 0.0306 0 85 2003
OGLE-TR-113 b 1.32 ±0.19 1.09 1.4324757 0.0229 0 89.4 2004
OGLE-TR-111 b 0.53 ±0.11 1.067 4.0144479 0.047 0 88.1 2002
OGLE2-TR-L9 b 4.5 ±1.5 1.67 2.48553417 0.0418 82.47 2008
OGLE-TR-182 b 1.01 ±0.15 1.13 3.9791 0.051 0 85.7 2007
Gliese 436 b 0.072 ±0.0025 0.438 2.643904 0.02872 0.150 85.8 2004
2M1207 b 4 −1 / +6 1.5 620000 41 2004
PSR B1257+12 A 0.000063 25.262 0.19 0 ~50 1994
PSR B1257+12 B 0.013 66.5419 0.36 0.0186 53 1992
PSR B1257+12 C 0.012 98.2114 0.46 0.0252 47 1992
WASP-25 b 0.58 ±0.04 1.26 3.76483 0.0474 0 87.7 2010
HAT-P-3 b 0.599 ±0.028 0.890 2.899703 0.03894 0 87.24 2007
WASP-15 b 0.542 ±0.05 1.428 3.7520656 0.0499 0 85.5 2008
HAT-P-12 b 0.211 ±0.012 0.959 3.2130598 0.0384 0 2009
WASP-16 b 0.855 ±0.059 1.008 3.1186009 0.0421 0 85.22 2009
WASP-14 b 7.725 −0.67 / +0.43 1.259 2.2437704 0.037 0.0903 84.79 2008
WASP-24 b 1.032 −0.037 / +0.038 1.104 2.3412083 0.0359 0 85.71 2010
Gliese 581 e 0.006104 3.14942 0.03 0 ≥30 2009
Gliese 581 b 0.0492 5.36874 0.041 0 ≥30 2005
Gliese 581 c 0.01686 12.9292 0.07 0.17 ≥30 2007
Gliese 581 g 0.009765 36.562 0.14601 2010
Gliese 581 d 0.02231 66.8 0.22 0.38 ≥30 2007
Gliese 581 f 0.02205 433 0.758 2010
HAT-P-4 b 0.68 ±0.04 1.27 3.056536 0.0446 0 89.9 2007
Lupus-TR-3 b 0.81 ±0.18 0.89 3.91405 0.0464 0 88.3 2007
WASP-17 b 0.49 −0.056 / +0.059 1.66 3.7354417 0.051 0.129 87.8 2009
XO-1 b 0.9 ±0.07 1.3 3.941534 0.0488 0 87.7 2006
1RXS J160929.1-210524 b 8 1.7 ~330 2008
HD 147506 HAT-P-2b 9.09 ±0.24 1.157 5.6334729 0.06878 0.5171 86.72 2007
PSR B1620-26 PSR B1620-26 b 2.5 ±1 ~0.8 ~36500 23 low 55 1993
HD 149026 b 0.359 −0.021 / +0.022 0.654 2.8758887 0.04313 0 85.3 2005
GJ 1214 b 0.0179 ±0.00027 0.2415 1.5803925 0.0143 <0.27 88.62 2009
HAT-P-14 b 2.232 ±0.059 1.15 4.6267669 0.0606 0.107 83.5 2010
OGLE-2005-BLG-071L b 3.5 ±0.3 3600 3.6 2005
OGLE-TR-10 b 0.63 ±0.14 1.26 3.10129 0.04162 0 84.5 2002
GSC 03089-00929 TrES-3 1.92 ±0.23 1.295 1.30619 0.0226 0 82.15 2007
OGLE-2006-BLG-109L b 0.727 ±0.06 1790 2.3 64 2008
OGLE-2006-BLG-109L c 0.271 ±0.022 4931 4.5 0.15 64 2008
GSC 02620-00648 TrES-4 0.919 ±0.073 1.799 3.553945 0.05091 0 82.86 2006
MOA-2008-BLG-310L b 0.23 ±0.05 1.25 2009
OGLE-2005-BLG-390L b 0.018 4800 2.6 2006
OGLE-2007-BLG-368L b 0.0694 3.3 2009
OGLE-TR-56 b 1.29 ±0.12 1.30 1.211909 0.0225 0 78.8 2003
SWEEPS J175853.92−291120.6 SWEEPS-04 3.8 0.81 4.2 0.055 ≥87 2006
SWEEPS J175902.67−291153.5 SWEEPS-11 9.7 ±5.6 1.13 1.796 0.03 ≥84 2006
OGLE-2003-BLG-235L
/MOA-2003-BLG-53L
b 2.6 ±0.8 4.3 2004
OGLE-2005-BLG-169L b 0.041 3100 2.7 2006
MOA-2007-BLG-192L b 0.01 −0.005 / +0.015 0.62 2008
MOA-2007-BLG-400L b 0.9 ±0.4 0.85 or 7.5 2008
HAT-P-5 b 1.06 ±0.11 1.26 2.788491 0.04075 0 86.75 2007
WASP-3 b 1.76 −0.14 / +0.06 1.31 1.846834 0.0317 0 85.06 2007
COROT-11 b 2.33 ±0.34 1.43 2.99433 0.0436 0 83.17 2010
COROT-9 b 0.84 ±0.07 1.05 95.2738 0.407 0.11 >89.9 2010
COROT-6 b 2.96 ±0.34 1.166 8.887 0.0855 <0.1 2009
Kepler-8 b 0.603 −0.19 / +0.13 1.419 3.52254 0.0483 0 84.07 2010
Kepler-9 b 0.252 ±0.013 19.24 0.140 0 2010
Kepler-9 c 0.171 ±0.013 38.91 0.225 0 2010
Kepler-4 b 0.077 ±0.012 0.357 3.21346 0.0456 0 89.76 2010
GSC 02652-01324 TrES-1 0.61 ±0.06 1.081 3.030065 0.0393 0.135 88.2 2004
GSC 03549-02811 TrES-2 1.199 ±0.052 1.272 2.47063 0.03556 0 83.62 2006
Kepler-7 b 0.433 −0.041 / +0.040 1.478 4.885525 0.06224 0 86.5 2010
COROT-10 b 2.75 ±0.14 0.97 13.2406 0.1055 0.53 88.55 2010
COROT-8 b 0.22 ±0.03 0.57 6.21229 0.063 0 88.4 2010
COROT-2 b 3.31 ±0.16 1.465 1.7429964 0.0281 0 87.84 2007
HAT-P-7 b 1.8 −0.059 / +0.063 1.421 2.2047298 0.0379 0 84.1 2008
Kepler-6 b 0.669 −0.030 / +0.025 1.323 3.23423 0.04567 0 86.8 2010
HAT-P-11 b 0.081 ±0.009 0.422 4.8878162 0.053 0.198 88.5 2009
Kepler-5 b 2.114 ±0.064 1.431 3.54846 0.05064 0 86.3 2010
HD 189733 b 1.13 ±0.03 1.138 2.2185733 0.03099 0.00 85.76 2005
WASP-2 b 0.914 ±0.092 1.117 2.152226 0.03138 0 84.8 2006
WASP-7 b 0.96 −0.18 / +0.12 0.915 4.954658 0.0618 0 89.6 2008
HD 209458 b 0.685 −0.014 / +0.015 1.32 3.52474859 0.04707 0.07 86.677 1999
HAT-P-8 b 1.52 −0.16 / +0.18 1.5 3.07632 0.0487 0 87.5 2008
Gliese 876 d 0.021 ±0.001 1.93778 0.02080665 0.207 50 2005
Gliese 876 c 0.7142 ±0.0039 30.0881 0.12959 0.25591 48.07 2001
Gliese 876 b 2.2756 ±0.0045 61.1166 0.208317 0.0324 48.93 1998
Gliese 876 e 0.046 ±0.005 124.26 0.3343 0.055 59.5 2010
Fomalhaut b 0.054–3.0 ~320000 ~115 ~0.11 ~66 2008
ADS 16402 B HAT-P-1b 0.524 ±0.031 1.225 4.4652934 0.0553 0.067- 86.28 2006
HR 8799 d 10 ±3 1.2 ~36500 24 ~0 ~0 2008
HR 8799 c 10 ±3 1.2 ~69000 38 ~0 ~0 2008
HR 8799 b 7 −2 / +4 1.1 ~170000 68 ~0 ~0 2008
WASP-21 b 0.30 ±0.01 1.07 4.322482 0.052 0 88.75 2010
WASP-6 b 0.503 −0.038 / +0.019 1.224 3.361006 0.0421 0.054 88.47 2008
WASP-10 b 3.06 −0.21 / +0.23 1.08 3.0927616 0.0371 0.057 86.8 2008
WASP-4 b 1.237 −0.079 / +0.087 1.365 1.3382282 0.0230 0 89.35 2007
WASP-28 b 0.91 ±0.06 1.12 3.408821 0.0455 0.046 89.1 2010
HAT-P-6 b 1.057 ±0.119 1.33 3.852985 0.05235 0 85.51 2007
WASP-29 b 0.248 ±0.02 0.74 3.923 0.0456 0 87.96 2010
WASP-5 b 1.637 ±0.082 1.171 1.6284246 0.02729 0 85.8 2007
WASP-8 b 2.23 1.17 8.16 0.0793 2008
Star Planet Mass
(Compared to Jupiter)
Mass Error
Margin
Radius
(Compared to Jupiter)
Orbital
period

(days)
Semimajor
axis

(AU)
Orbital
eccentricity
Inclination
(°)
Discovery
year

February 12, 2012 Posted by | Astronomy, E, info, ref, The war, Timeline, War in heaven | , , | Leave a comment

Enron scandal

January 13, 2012 Posted by | Business enterprises, E, ref, Uncategorized | , , | Leave a comment

Entrapment

Entrapment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In criminal law, entrapment is constituted by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation). So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may have sold drugs, as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three conditions are fulfilled:

  1. The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
  2. Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
  3. The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

Contents

[show]

[edit] United States

The entrapment defense in the United States has evolved mainly through case law. Two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the “subjective” and “objective” tests. The “subjective” test looks at the defendant’s state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no “predisposition” to commit the crime. The “objective” test looks instead at the government’s conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.[2]
Courts took a dim view of the defense at first. “[It] has never availed to shield crime or give indemnity to the culprit, and it is safe to say that under any code of civilized, not to say Christian, ethics, it never will” a New York Supreme Court said in 1864.[3] Forty years later, another judge in that state would affirm that rejection, arguing “[courts] should not hesitate to punish the crime actually committed by the defendant” when rejecting entrapment claimed in a grand larceny case.[4]
Other states, however, had already begun reversing convictions on entrapment grounds.[5] Federal courts recognized entrapment as a defense starting with Woo Wai v. United States, 223 F.1d 412 (9th Cir. 1915).[6] The U.S. Supreme Court first declined to consider the question of entrapment in Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413 (1928), since the facts in the case were too vague to definitively rule on the question. Four years later, it did and in Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932) unanimously reversed the conviction of a North Carolina factory worker who gave in to an undercover Prohibition officer’s repeated entreaties to get him some liquor. It identified the controlling question as “whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the product of the creative activity of its own officials”.[7]
In Sherman v. United States (356 U.S. 369 (1958)), the Court considered a similar case in which one recovering drug addict working with federal agents from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (a predecessor agency to today’s Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)) solicited another to sell him d

rugs on the premise that his own efforts were failing. Again unanimous, its opinion focused more clearly on the defendant’s predisposition to commit the offense, and on that basis overturned Sherman’s conviction as well, since although he had two prior drug convictions, the most recent dated back five years. He was also attempting to rehabilitate himself, had made no profit on the sales and no drugs were found in his apartment when it was searched, suggesting the absence of a predisposition to break drug laws. “To determine whether entrapment has been established,” it said, “a line must be drawn between the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal”.[8]
Prosecutors won the next two times entrapment came before the Court, in United States v. Russell (411 U.S. 423 (1973)) and Hampton v. United States (425 U.S. 484 (1976)), albeit by narrow margins. In the former, the Court upheld the conviction of a Washington man for manufacturing methamphetamine even though an undercover agent had supplied some of the ingredients, and also pondered an “outrageous government conduct” defense, though it did not enable it. Hampton let stand, by a similar margin, the conviction of a Missouri man who had, upon seeing track marks on a DEA informant’s arms, expressed interest in selling him heroin. After several sales to the informant and undercover agents, he was arrested. The defendant alleged he had been led to believe by the informant that he was not selling heroin but a counterfeit. The Court found he was adequately predisposed to sell heroin in any event.
This became known as the “subjective” test of entrapment, since it focused on the defendant’s state of mind. However, in all cases, concurring opinions had advocated an “objective” test, focusing instead on whether the conduct of the police or other investigators would catch only those “ready and willing to commit crime.”[9] Under the objective approach the defendant’s personality (i.e., his predisposition to commit the crime) would be immaterial, and the potential for the police conduct to induce a law-abiding person considered in the abstract would be the test. This, supporters argued, avoided the dubious issue of an unexpressed legislative intent on which the Sorrells court had relied and instead grounded the entrapment defense, like the exclusionary rule, in the court’s supervisory role over law enforcement. And like the exclusionary rule, they would have had judges, not juries, decide whether a defendant had been entrapped as a matter of law.[10]
Since the subjective test focusing on predisposition had, unlike the exclusionary rule, not been applied to the states, they were free to follow it as they saw fit. The state courts or legislatures of 37 states have chosen the subjective test, while the others use the objective test.[11] Some have allowed both the judge and the jury to rule on whether the defendant was entrapped.[10]
In the Supreme Court’s last major ruling on entrapment, Jacobson v. United States (503 U.S. 540 (1992)), which overturned the conviction of a Nebraska man for receiving child pornography via the mail, the subjective vs. objective debate was completely absent. Both the majority and dissenting opinions focused solely on whether the prosecution had established that the defendant had a predisposition for purchasing such material (which had only recently been outlawed at the time of his arrest). Since no other material was found in his home save what he had purchased from the undercover postal inspectors, Justice Byron White believed the operation had implanted the idea in his mind through mailings decrying politicians for assaulting civil liberties by passing laws such as the one the inspectors hoped he would break. Sandra Day O’Connor disagreed in her dissent, arguing that the record did indeed establish that Jacobson was interested in continuing the purchases. Analysts believed that was the Court’s indication it considered the subjective vs. objective debate settled.
University of Arizona law professor Gabriel J. Chin points out that the entire federal entrapment defense rests on statutory construction – an interpretation of the will of Congress in passing the criminal statutes. As this is not a Constitutional prohibition, Congress may change or override this interpretation by passing a law.[12]

[edit] Entrapment by estoppel

A subset of the entrapment defense was first recognized by the Supreme Court in Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959). There, four defendants were testifying before a committee of the Ohio State Legislature. The chairman of the committee told them that they could assert their right against self-incri

mination. They asserted this right, and refused to answer questions. However, Ohio law provided them immunity from prosecution, so the right against self-incrimination was inapplicable, and they were subsequently prosecuted for their failure to answer questions. The Supreme Court overturned three of the four convictions based on the doctrine of entrapment by estoppel.
As described in United States v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1197, 1204 (1994), the defense “applies when, acting with actual or apparent authority, a government official affirmatively assures the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably believes that official.”

[edit] Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada developed the Canadian version of the doctrine of entrapment in three major decisions: R. v. Amato, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 418, R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903, and R. v. Barnes, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 449. There are two different forms of entrapment in Canadian law.
The first type of entrapment, “random virtue testing”, occurs when the police offer an individual the opportunity to commit a crime without reasonable suspicion that either that individual, or the place where that individual is located, is associated with the criminal activity under investigation. If police do have such a reasonable suspicion, they are still limited to providing only an opportunity to commit the offence.
The second form of entrapment occurs when the police go beyond merely providing an opportunity to commit an offence, and instead actually induce the commission of the offence. Some factors a court may consider when deciding whether police have induced the offence include the type of crime being investigated, whether an average person would have been induced, the persistence and number of attempts made by the police, the type of inducement used (e.g. fraud, deceit, reward), and the existence of express or implied threats.
The question of entrapment is only considered after there has been a finding of guilt. If, after finding the accused guilty, the court determines that the accused was entrapped, the court will enter a judicial stay of proceedings. In effect, this is similar to an acquittal.

[edit] England and Wales

Entrapment arises when a person is encouraged by someone in some official capacity to commit a crime. If entrapment occurred, then some prosecution evidence may be excluded as being unfair, or the proceedings may be discontinued altogether.
Some examples of entrapment are as follows:-

  1. A police officer encourages a person to commit a crime so that the officer can have him prosecuted for that crime.
  2. The greater the degree of entrapment by the police officer, the more likely the court will see it as entrapment. See the case R v Bryne [2003]. That is, entrapment is not a substantive defence (R v Sang); i.e. it does not automatically negate the prosecution case.
  3. Customs Officers who aid and abet fraud in order to prosecute the fraud. A notorious example of this occurred in 2003. The ‘Stockade’ prosecution ended in failure when the Court of Appeal quashed convictions against seven people accused in connection with the alleged diversion of £105 million in excise duty (VAT). The conduct of such Excise diversion cases resulted in the loss of up to £2 billion in public revenue.[13]

If a person has committed an offence because of entrapment, the Court may stay the proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuses of process (which prevents the case going ahead) or exclude evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The grant of a stay is normally the most appropriate response.
The main authority on entrapment in the United Kingdom is the decision of the House of Lords in R. v. Loosely; Attorney-General’s Reference (n.3 of 2000). A grant of a stay is awarded if the conduct of the state was so seriously improper that the administration of justice was brought into disrepute. In deciding whether to grant a stay, the Court will consider, as a useful guide, whether the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime.
In Loosely, Lords Hoffman and Hutton indicated certain factors that should be considered in deciding whether proceedings against a defendant should be stayed. These include:

  • Whether the police acted in good faith;
  • Whether the police had good reason to suspect the accused of criminal activities;
  • Whether the police suspected that crime was particularly prevalent in the area in which the investigation took place (Williams v. DPP);
  • Whether pro-active investigatory techniques were necessary because of the secrecy and difficulty of detection of the criminal activity in question;
  • The defendant’s circumstances and vulnerability; and
  • The nature of the offence.

It has been held that it is generally acceptable for the police to conduct test purchases (DPP v. Marshall) or pose as passengers to catch unlicensed taxi drivers (Nottingham City Council v. Amin).

[edit] Scotland

In Scotland the main authority is the case of Browns v. HMA which stated that entrapment will occur when law enforcement officials cause an offence to be committed which would not have occurred had it not been for their involvement. The remedies available correspond with those in England and are considered to be either a plea in bar of trial or a challenge to the admissibility of evidence obtained through entrapment.

[edit] Germany

In German law, it is normally forbidden (§ 26 StGB) to induce or persuade someone to commit a crime, or to attempt to do so (§ 30 StGB, in German). However, the German Federal Court of Justice has held that entrapment by undercover police agents is not a reason to stay the case per se (e.g. GA 1975, 333, 334). If undercover agents have been used without proper justification, punishment for the committed offence may be reduced (1st Senate’s decision in 1 StR 148/84 – 23 May, 1984).
In the case of persons who are not initially under suspicion and unlikely to commit a certain crime, a decision from 1999 (18th of November, BGH 1 StR 221/99, in German) stated that entrapment of such persons violates the right to a fair trial (and therefore the punishment for the committed offence may be reduced).

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Sloane (1990) 49 A Crim R 270. See also agent provocateur
  2. ^ http://law.jrank.org/pages/1091/Entrapment-two-approaches-entrapment.html
  3. ^ Board of Commissioners v. Backus, 29 How. Pr. 33, 42 (1864) cited in Lord, Kenneth (1998). “Entrapment and Due Process: Moving Toward A Dual System of Defenses”. Fl St. U. Law Rev. 25: 468. http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/downloads/253/lord.pdf. 
  4. ^ People v. Mills, 70 N.E. 786, 791 (N.Y. 1904), cited at Lord, supra.
  5. ^ See John D. Lombardo, Causation and “Objective” Entrapment: Toward a Culpability-Centered Approach, 43 UCLA L. REV. 209, 219-20 (1995). See, e.g., People v. McCord, 42 N.W. 1106 (Mich. 1889)
  6. ^ Chin, Gabriel J.; The Story of Jacobson v United States: Catching Criminals or Creating Crime?, Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper N. 06-12, February 2006, retrieved August 10, 2006, 39. This draft is described as a chapter in the author’s forthcoming Criminal Law Stories.
  7. ^ Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451.
  8. ^ Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 375.
  9. ^ Sorrells, Id., 287 U.S. at 384 (Frankfurter, J., concurring.
  10. ^ a b Chin, p. 6, citing Marcus, Paul, The Entrapment Defense.
  11. ^ Paton, Scott C. (1994). “”The Government Made Me Do It”: A Proposed Approach to Entrapment Under Jacobson v. United States”. Cornell L. R. 79 (45): 995, 1002. 
  12. ^ Chin, p. 33
  13. ^ “Judge heads Probe into Customs alcohol bungle, December 2002.

[edit] Further reading

  • Gerald Dworkin, “Entrapment and the Creation of Crime,” in Controversies in Criminal Law: Philosophical Essays on Responsibility and Procedure (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992), pp. 220–231.
  • Michael J. Gorr and Sterling Harwood, eds., Controversies in Criminal Law: Philosophical Essays on Responsibility and Procedure (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992), 273pp.

[edit] External links

January 13, 2012 Posted by | Crimes, E, info, ref, Uncategorized | , , | Leave a comment

Edmund Gosse [historical figure]

Edmund Gosse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edmund Gosse in 1857, with father Philip Henry Gosse.

Sir Edmund William Gosse CB[1] (21 September 1849 – 16 May 1928) was an English poet, author and critic; the son of Philip Henry Gosse and Emily Bowes.[2]

Contents

[show]

[edit] Early life

Edmund Gosse’s father was a naturalist and his mother an illustrator and published a number of books of poetry. Both were deeply committed to a small Protestant sect, the Plymouth Brethren. His childhood was initially happy as they spent their summers in Devon where his father was developing the ideas which gave rise to the craze for the marine aquarium. After his mother died of breast cancer when he was eight and they moved to Devon, his life with his father became increasingly strained by his father’s expectations that he should follow in his religious tradition. Gosse was sent to a boarding school where he began to develop his own interests in literature. His father married in 1860 the deeply religious Quaker spinster Eliza Brightwen (1813–1900), whose brother Thomas tried to encourage Edmund to become a banker. He later gave an account of his childhood in the book Father and Son which has been described as the first psychological biography. At the age of 18 and working in the British museum in London, he broke away from his father’s influence in a dramatic coming of age.
Eliza Gosse’s brother George was the husband of Eliza Elder Brightwen (1830–1906), a naturalist and author, whose first book was published in 1871. After Eliza Elder Brightwen’s death, Edmund Gosse arranged for the publication of her two posthumous works Last Hours with Nature (1908) and Eliza Brightwen, the Life and Thoughts of a Naturalist (1909), both edited by W. H. Chesson, and the latter book with an introduction and epilogue by Gosse.

[edit] Career

Gosse started his career as assistant librarian at the British Museum from 1867 alongside the songwriter Theo Marzials[3], a post which Charles Kingsley helped his father obtain for him. An early book of poetry published with a friend John Arthur Blaikie gave him an introduction to the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. Trips to Denmark and Norway in 1872-4, where he visited Hans Christian Anderson and Frederik Paludan-Müller, led to publishing success with reviews of Ibsen and Bjørnson in the Cornhill

Magazine.[4] He was soon reviewing Scandinavian literature in a variety of publications. He became acquainted with Alfred Lord Tennyson and friends with Robert Browning, Algernon Charles Swinburne, Thomas Hardy and Henry James.
In the meantime, he published his first solo volume of poetry, On Viol and Flute (1873) and a work of criticism, Studies in the Literature of Northern Europe (1879). Gosse and Robert Louis Stevenson first met while teenagers, and after 1879, when Stevenson came to London on occasion, he would stay with Gosse and his family. In 1875 Gosse became a translator at the Board of Trade, a post which he held until 1904 and gave him time for his writing[5] and enabled him to marry and start a family.
From 1884 to 1890 Gosse lectured in English literature at Trinity College, Cambridge, despite his own lack of academic qualifications. Cambridge University gave him an honorary MA in 1886, and Trinity College formally admitted him as a member, ‘by order of the Council’, in 1889.[6] He made a successful American lecture tour in 1884 and was in much demand as a speaker and on committees as well as publishing a string of critical works as well as poetry and histories.
He became, in the 1880s, one of the most important art critics dealing with sculpture (writing mainly for the Saturday Review) with an interest spurred on by his intimate friendship with the sculptor Hamo Thornycroft. Gosse would eventually write the first history of the renaissance of late-Victorian sculpture in 1894 in a four-part series for the Art Journal, dubbing the movement the New Sculpture.

Sir Edmund Gosse, by John Singer Sargent, 1886

In 1904, he became the librarian of the House of Lords Library, where he exercised considerable influence till he retired in 1914. He wrote for the Sunday Times, and was an expert on Thomas Gray, William Congreve, John Donne, Jeremy Taylor, and Coventry Patmore. He can also take credit for introducing Ibsen‘s work to the British public. Gosse and William Archer collaborated in translating Hedda Gabler and The Master Builder; those two translations were performed throughout the 20th century. Gosse and Archer, along with Shaw, were perhaps the literary critics most responsible for popularising Ibsen’s plays among English-speaking audiences.
His most famous book is the autobiographical Father and Son, about his troubled relationship with his Plymouth Brethren father, Philip, which was dramatised for television by Dennis Potter. Published anonymously in 1907, this followed a biography he had written of his father as naturalist, when he was urged by George Moore among others to write more about his own part. Historians caution, though, that notwithstanding its pyschological insight and literary excellence, Gosse’s narrative is often at odds with the verifiable facts of his own and his parents’ lives.[7] In later life, he became a formative influence on Siegfried Sassoon, the nephew of his lifelong friend, Hamo Thornycroft. Sassoon’s mother was a friend of Gosse’s wife, Ellen. Gosse was also closely tied to figures such as Algernon Charles Swinburne, John Addington Symonds, and André Gide.

[edit] Personal life

Gosse married Ellen Epps (23 Mar 1850-29 Aug 1929), a young painter in the Pre-Raphaelite circle, who was the daughter of George Napoleon Epps, one of the Epps family of homeopaths. Though she was initially determined to pursue her art, she succu

mbed to his determined courting and they married in August 1875, with a reception at the house of Lawrence Alma-Tadema whose pupil she had been, visiting his parents, who did not attend the registry office wedding, at the end of their honeymoon in Devon and Cornwall. She continued to paint and wrote stories and reviews for various publications. In 1907, she inherited a sizeable fortune from her uncle, James Epps, the cocoa manufacturer.[4]
Theirs was a happy marriage lasting more than 50 years and they had three children, Emily Teresa (b. 1877), Phillip Henry George (1879-1959) and Laura Sylvia, who became a well-known painter. Philip Gosse became a doctor but is best known as the author of The Pirates’ Who’s Who (1924).[8][9]

[edit] Works

[edit] Published verse

  • Madrigals, Songs, and Sonnets (1870), co-author John Arthur Blaikie
  • On Viol and Flute (1873)
  • King Erik (1876)
  • New Poems (1879)
  • Firdausi in Exile (1885)
  • In Russet and Silver (1894)
  • Collected Poems (1896)
  • Hypolympia, or the Gods on the Island (1901), an “ironic phantasy,” the scene of which is laid in the 20th century, though the personages are Greek gods, is written in prose, with some blank verse.

[edit] Critical works

  • English Odes (1881)
  • Seventeenth Century Studies (1883)
  • Life of William Congreve (1888)
  • The Jacobean Poets (1894)
  • Life and Letters of Dr John Donne, Dean of St Paul’s (1899)
  • Jeremy Taylor (1904, “English Men of Letters“)
  • Life of Sir Thomas Browne (1905)
  • Life of Thomas Gray, whose works he edited (4 vols., 1884)
  • A History of Eighteenth Century Literature (1889)
  • Gossip in a Library (essays about books, 1892)
  • History of Modern English Literature (1897)
  • Vols. iii. and iv. of an Illustrated Record of English Literature (1903–1904) undertaken in connection with Dr Richard Garnett.
  • French Profiles (1905)
  • More Books on the Table (1923)

[edit] Biography

[edit] Popular culture

[edit] External links

[edit] References

  1. ^ “The New Year Honours. Three Peerages., Rewards For Public Service., Two O.M.’S.”. London: The Times. Thursday, 1 January 1925; Issue 43848. p. 13; col G. 
  2. ^ Sir Edmund Gosse
  3. ^ John Betjeman, Trains and Buttered Toast, John Murray 2007, ISBN 0719561272, page 170
  4. ^ a b Ann Thwaite (1984), Edmund Gosse, London, Secker & Warburg 
  5. ^ GOSSE, Edmund. Who’s Who, vol. 59: p. 706. 1907. http://books.google.com/books?id=yEcuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA706. 
  6. ^ Gosse, Edmund William in Venn, J. & J. A., Alumni Cantabrigienses, Cambridge University Press, 10 vols, 1922–1958.
  7. ^ Ann Thwaite, Glimpses of the Wonderful: The Life of Philip Henry Gosse, 1810-1888 (London: Faber & Faber, 2002), xvi-xvii.
  8. ^ “Obituary: Philip Gosse”. Br Med J 2: 761-762, 763-754. 1959. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.5154.761-c. 
  9. ^ Capt. Philip Henry George Gosse, M.D., Doctor, Naturalist, Author
Persondata
Name Gosse, Edmund
Alternative names
Short description
Date of birth 21 September 1849
Place of birth
Date of death 16 May 1928
Place of death

January 13, 2012 Posted by | E, info, ref, Uncategorized | , | Leave a comment

Eastern Orthodox Church (symbolic Grecia)

January 13, 2012 Posted by | E, ref, Uncategorized | , | Leave a comment

Emancipation Proclamation

 
 

 

Emancipation Proclamation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Jump to: navigation, search

 

Henry Louis Stephens, untitled watercolor (c. 1863) of a man reading a newspaper with headline “Presidential Proclamation / Slavery”.

The Emancipation Proclamation is an executive order issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War using his war powers. It was not a law passed by Congress. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states then in rebellion, thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at that time. The Proclamation immediately freed 50,000 slaves, with nearly all the rest (of the 3.1 million) freed as Union armies advanced. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens.[1]

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln issued a preliminary proclamation that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. None returned, and the order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect except in locations where the Union had already mostly regained control. The Proclamation made abolition a central goal of the war (in addition to reunion), outraged white Southerners who envisioned a race war, angered some Northern Democrats, energized anti-slavery forces, and weakened forces in Europe that wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy.[2]

Slavery was made illegal everywhere in the U.S. by the Thirteenth Amendment, which took effect in December 1865.

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Authority

Lincoln issued the Proclamation under his authority as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy” under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.[3] As such, he considered himself to have the martial power to suspend civil law in those states which were in rebellion. He did not have Commander-in-Chief authority over the four slave-holding states that had not declared a secession: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. The Emancipation Proclamation was never challenged in court. To ensure the abolition of slavery everywhere in the U.S., Lincoln pushed for passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. Congress passed it by the necessary 2/3 vote in February 1865 and it was ratified by the states by December 1865.[4]

[edit] Coverage

The moment portrayed by Lee Lawrie in Lincoln, Nebraska

The Proclamation applied only in ten states that were still in rebellion in 1863, thus it did not cover the nearly 500,000 slaves in the slave-holding border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware) which were Union states — those slaves were freed by separate state and federal actions. The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, so it was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties then in the process of forming the new state of West Virginia, and seven additional counties and two cities in the Union-controlled Tidewater region.[5] Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and 13 named parishes of Louisiana, all of which were also already mostly under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation. These exemptions left unemancipated an additional 300,000 slaves.[6]

The Emancipation Proclamation has been arguably ridiculed, notably in an influential passage by Richard Hofstadter for “freeing” only the slaves over which the Union had no power.[7] In fact 20,000 to 50,000 were freed the day it went into effect[8] in parts of nine of the ten states to which it applied (Texas being the exception).[9] In every Confederate state (except Tennessee and Texas), the Proclamation went into immediate effect in Union-occupied areas and at least 20,000 slaves[8][9] were freed at once on January 1, 1863.

Additionally, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for the emancipation of nearly all four million slaves as the Union armies advanced, and committed the Union to ending slavery, which was a controversial decision even in the North. Hearing of the Proclamation, more slaves quickly escaped to Union lines as the Army units moved South. As the Union armies advanced through the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (approximately 4 million, according to the 1860 census)[10] were freed by July 1865.

While the Proclamation had freed most slaves as a war measure, it had not made slavery illegal. Of the states that were exempted from the Proclamation, Maryland,[11] Missouri,[12] Tennessee,[13] and West Virginia[14] prohibited slavery before the war ended. In 1863, President Lincoln proposed a moderate plan for the Reconstruction of the captured Confederate State of Louisiana. [15] Only 10% of the state’s electorate had to take the loyalty oath. The state was also required to abolish slavery in its new constitution. Identical Reconstruction plans would be adopted in Arkansas and Tennessee. By December 1864, the Lincoln plan abolishing slavery had been enacted in Louisiana.[16][17] However, in Delaware[18] and Kentucky,[19] slavery continued to be legal until December 18, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment went into effect.

[edit] Background

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 required individuals to return runaway slaves to their owners. During the war, Union generals such as Benjamin Butler, declared that slaves in occupied areas were contraband of war and accordingly refused to return them.[21] This decision was controversial because it implied recognition of the Confederacy as a separate nation under international law, a notion that Lincoln steadfastly denied. As a result, he did not promote the contraband designation. Some generals also declared the slaves under their jurisdiction to be free and were replaced when they refused to rescind such declarations.

In December 1861, Lincoln sent his annual message to Congress (The State of the Union Address, but then typically given in writing and not referred to as such.). In it he praised the free labor system, as respecting human rights over property rights; he endorsed legislation to address the status of contraband slaves and slaves in loyal states, possibly through buying their freedom with federal taxes, and also the funding of strictly voluntary colonization efforts.[22] In January 1862, Thaddeus Stevens, the Republican leader in the House, called for total war against the rebellion to include emancipation of slaves, arguing that emancipation, by forcing the loss of enslaved labor, would ruin the rebel economy. On March 13, 1862, Congress approved a “Law Enacting an Additional Article of War” which stated that from that point onward it was forbidden for Union Army officers to return fugitive slaves to their owners.[23] On April 10, 1862, Congress declared that the federal government would compensate slave owners who freed their slaves. Slaves in the District of Columbia were freed on April 16, 1862, and their owners were compensated.

On June 19, 1862, Congress prohibited slavery in United States territories, and President Lincoln quickly signed the legislation. By this act, they opposed the 1857 opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott Case that Congress was powerless to regulate slavery in U.S. territories.[24][25] This joint action by Congress and President Lincoln also rejected the notion of popular sovereignty that had been advanced by Stephen A. Douglas as a solution to the slavery controversy, while completing the effort begun by Thomas Jefferson in 1784 to confine slavery within the borders of the states.[26][27]

In July 1862, Congress passed and Lincoln signed the “Second Confiscation Act”, containing provisions intended to liberate slaves held by “rebels”,[28] but Lincoln took the position that Congress lacked power to free slaves within the borders of the states unless Lincoln as commander in chief deemed it a proper military measure.[29] And that Lincoln would soon do.

Abolitionists had long been urging Lincoln to free all slaves. In the summer of 1862, Republican editor Horace Greeley of the highly influential New York Tribune wrote a famous editorial entitled “The Prayer of Twenty Millions” demanding a more aggressive attack on the Confederacy and faster emancipation of the slaves: “On the face of this wide earth, Mr. President, there is not one… intelligent champion of the Union cause who does not feel… that the rebellion, if crushed tomorrow, would be renewed if slavery were left in full vigor… and that every hour of deference to slavery is an hour of added and deepened peril to the Union.”[30] Lincoln responded in his Letter To Horace Greeley from August 22, 1862 in terms of the limits imposed by his duty as president to save the Union:

If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. . . . I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.[31]

Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer wrote in this context about Lincoln’s letter: “Unknown to Greeley, Lincoln composed this after he had already drafted a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which he had determined to issue after the next Union military victory. Therefore, this letter, was in truth, an attempt to position the impending announcement in terms of saving the Union, not freeing slaves as a humanitarian gesture. It was one of Lincoln’s most skillful public relations efforts, even if it has cast longstanding doubt on his sincerity as a liberator.”[32] Historian Richard Striner argues that “for years” Lincoln’s letter has been misread as “Lincoln only wanted to save the Union.” [33] However, within the context of Lincoln’s entire career and pronouncements on slavery this interpretation is wrong, according to Striner. Rather, Lincoln was softening the strong Northern white supremacist opposition to his imminent emancipation by tying it to the cause of the Union. This opposition would fight for the Union but not to end slavery, however Lincoln gave them the means and motivation to do both, at the same time. The urging to free all slaves was present to Lincoln in public and private. A mass rally in Chicago on September 7, 1862, demanded an immediate and universal emancipation of slaves. A delegation headed by William W. Patton met the President at the White House on September 13. Lincoln had declared in peacetime that he had no constitutional authority to free the slaves. Even used as a war power, emancipation was a risky political act. Public opinion as a whole was against it.[34] There would be strong opposition among Copperhead Democrats and an uncertain reaction from loyal border states. Delaware and Maryland already had a high percentage of free blacks: 91.2% and 49.7%, respectively, in 1860.[35]

[edit] Drafting and issuance of the proclamation

Lincoln first discussed the proclamation with his cabinet in July 1862. He believed he needed a Union victory on the battlefield so his decision would appear positive and strong. The Battle of Antietam, in which Union troops turned back a Confederate invasion of Maryland, gave him such an opportunity. On September 22, 1862, five days after Antietam, Lincoln called his cabinet into session and issued the Preliminary Proclamation. According to Civil War historian James M. McPherson, Lincoln told Cabinet members that he had made a covenant with God, that if the Union drove the Confederacy out of Maryland, he would issue the Emancipation Proclamation.[36][37] Lincoln had first shown an early draft of the proclamation to Vice President Hannibal Hamlin,[38] an ardent abolitionist, who was more often kept in the dark on presidential decisions. The final proclamation was issued January 1, 1863. Although implicitly granted authority by Congress, Lincoln used his powers as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, “as a necessary war measure” as the basis of the proclamation, rather than the equivalent of a statute enacted by Congress or a constitutional amendment. Some days after issuing the final Proclamation, Lincoln wrote to Major General John McClernand: “After the commencement of hostilities I struggled nearly a year and a half to get along without touching the “institution”; and when finally I conditionally determined to touch it, I gave a hundred days fair notice of my purpose, to all the States and people, within which time they could have turned it wholly aside, by simply again becoming good citizens of the United States. They chose to disregard it, and I made the peremptory proclamation on what appeared to me to be a military necessity. And being made, it must stand.”[39]

Reproduction of the Emancipation Proclamation at the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. (Zoom)

Initially, the Emancipation Proclamation effectively freed only a small percentage of the slaves, those who were behind Union lines in areas not exempted. Most slaves were still behind Confederate lines or in exempted Union-occupied areas. Secretary of State William H. Seward commented, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.” Had any slave state ended its secession attempt before January 1, 1863, it could have kept slavery, at least temporarily. The Proclamation only gave Lincoln the legal basis to free the slaves in the areas of the South that were still in rebellion. However, it also took effect as the Union armies advanced into the Confederacy.

The Emancipation Proclamation also allowed for the enrollment of freed slaves into the United States military. During the war nearly 200,000 blacks, most of them ex-slaves, joined the Union Army.[40] Their contributions gave the North additional manpower that was significant in winning the war. The Confederacy did not allow slaves in their army as soldiers until the last month before its defeat.[41]

Though the counties of Virginia that were soon to form West Virginia were specifically exempted from the Proclamation (Jefferson County being the only exception), a condition of the state’s admittance to the Union was that its constitution provide for the gradual abolition of slavery. Slaves in the border states of Maryland and Missouri were also emancipated by separate state action before the Civil War ended. In Maryland, a new state constitution abolishing slavery in the state went into effect on November 1, 1864. In early 1865, Tennessee adopted an amendment to its constitution prohibiting slavery.[42][43] Slaves in Kentucky and Delaware were not emancipated until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified.

[edit] Implementation

Areas covered by the Emancipation Proclamation are in red. Slave holding areas not covered are in blue.

The Proclamation was issued in two parts. The first part, issued on September 22, 1862, was a preliminary announcement outlining the intent of the second part, which officially went into effect 100 days later on January 1, 1863, during the second year of the Civil War. It was Abraham Lincoln’s declaration that all slaves would be permanently freed in all areas of the Confederacy that had not already returned to federal control by January 1863. The ten affected states were individually named in the second part (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina). Not included were the Union slave states of Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky. Also not named was the state of Tennessee, in which a Union-controlled military government had already been set up, based in the capital, Nashville. Specific exemptions were stated for areas also under Union control on January 1, 1863, namely 48 counties that would soon become West Virginia, seven other named counties of Virginia including Berkeley and Hampshire counties which were soon added to West Virginia, New Orleans and 13 named parishes nearby.

Union-occupied areas of the Confederate states where the proclamation was put into immediate effect by local commanders included Winchester, Virginia,[44] Corinth, Mississippi,[45] the Sea Islands along the coasts of the Carolinas and Georgia,[46] Key West, Florida,[47] and Port Royal, South Carolina.[48]

[edit] Immediate impact

A circa 1870 photograph of two children who were likely recently emancipated.

It is common to encounter a claim that the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave. As a result of the Proclamation, many slaves were freed during the course of the war, beginning with the day it took effect. Eyewitness accounts at places such as Hilton Head, South Carolina,[49] and Port Royal, South Carolina,[48] record celebrations on January 1 as thousands of blacks were informed of their new legal status of freedom.

Estimates of the number of slaves freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation are uncertain. One contemporary estimate put the ‘contraband’ population of Union-occupied North Carolina at 10,000, and the Sea Islands of South Carolina also had a substantial population. Those 20,000 slaves were freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation.”[8] This Union-occupied zone where freedom began at once included parts of eastern North Carolina, the Mississippi Valley, northern Alabama, the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, a large part of Arkansas, and the Sea Islands of Georgia and South Carolina.[50] Although some counties of Union-occupied Virginia were exempted from the Proclamation, the lower Shenandoah Valley, and the area around Alexandria were covered.[8]

Booker T. Washington, as a boy of 9 in Virginia, remembered the day in early 1865:[51]

As the great day drew nearer, there was more singing in the slave quarters than usual. It was bolder, had more ring, and lasted later into the night. Most of the verses of the plantation songs had some reference to freedom…. Some man who seemed to be a stranger (a United States officer, I presume) made a little speech and then read a rather long paper—the Emancipation Proclamation, I think. After the reading we were told that we were all free, and could go when and where we pleased. My mother, who was standing by my side, leaned over and kissed her children, while tears of joy ran down her cheeks. She explained to us what it all meant, that this was the day for which she had been so long praying, but fearing that she would never live to see.

The Emancipation took place without violence by masters or ex-slaves. The proclamation represented a shift in the war objectives of the North—reuniting the nation was no longer the only goal. It represented a major step toward the ultimate abolition of slavery in the United States and a “new birth of freedom”.

Runaway slaves who had escaped to Union lines had previously been held by the Union Army as “contraband of war” under the Confiscation Acts; when the proclamation took effect, they were told at midnight that they were free to leave. The Sea Islands off the coast of Georgia had been occupied by the Union Navy earlier in the war. The whites had fled to the mainland while the blacks stayed. An early program of Reconstruction was set up for the former slaves, including schools and training. Naval officers read the proclamation and told them they were free.

In the military, reaction to the proclamation varied widely, with some units nearly ready to mutiny in protest. Some desertions were attributed to it. Other units were inspired by the adoption of a cause that ennobled their efforts, such that at least one unit took up the motto “For Union and Liberty”.

Slaves had been part of the “engine of war” for the Confederacy. They produced and prepared food; sewed uniforms; repaired railways; worked on farms and in factories, shipping yards, and mines; built fortifications; and served as hospital workers and common laborers. News of the Proclamation spread rapidly by word of mouth, arousing hopes of freedom, creating general confusion, and encouraging thousands to escape to Union lines.

Robert E. Lee saw the Emancipation Proclamation as a way for the Union to bolster the number of soldiers it could place on the field, making it imperative for the Confederacy to increase their own numbers.

Writing on the matter after the sack of Fredericksburg, Lee wrote “In view of the vast increase of the forces of the enemy, of the savage and brutal policy he has proclaimed, which leaves us no alternative but success or degradation worse than death, if we would save the honor of our families from pollution, our social system from destruction, let every effort be made, every means be employed, to fill and maintain the ranks of our armies, until God, in his mercy, shall bless us with the establishment of our independence.”[52] Lee’s request for a drastic increase of troops would go unfulfilled.

[edit] Political impact

“Abe Lincoln’s Last Card; Or, Rouge-et-Noir (Red and Black)”; Punch, Volume 43, October 18, 1862, p. 161.— a cartoon by the Englishman John Tenniel, after the Times insinuated that freeing the slaves was Lincoln’s “desperate last-trump card”; Lincoln has the horns of a devil. The cartoon was often reprinted in the Copperhead press.[53][54]

The Proclamation was immediately denounced by Copperhead Democrats who opposed the war and advocated restoring the union by allowing slavery. Horatio Seymour, while running for the governorship of New York, cast the Emancipation Proclamation as a call for slaves to commit extreme acts of violence on all white southerners, saying it was “a proposal for the butchery of women and children, for scenes of lust and rapine, and of arson and murder, which would invoke the interference of civilized Europe.”[55] The Copperheads also saw the Proclamation as an unconstitutional abuse of Presidential power. Editor Henry A. Reeves wrote in Greenport’s Republican Watchman that “In the name of freedom of Negroes, [the proclamation] imperils the liberty of white men; to test a utopian theory of equality of races which Nature, History and Experience alike condemn as monstrous, it overturns the Constitution and Civil Laws and sets up Military Usurpation in their Stead.”[55]

Racism remained pervasive on both sides of the conflict and many in the North supported the war only as an effort to force the south back into the Union. The promises of many Republican politicians that the war was to restore the Union and not about black rights or ending slavery, were now declared lies by their opponents citing the Proclamation. Copperhead David Allen spoke to a rally in Columbiana, Ohio, stating “I have told you that this war is carried on for the Negro. There is the proclamation of the President of the United States. Now fellow Democrats I ask you if you are going to be forced into a war against your Brithren of the Southern States for the Negro. I answer No!”[56] The Copperheads saw the Proclamation as irrefutable proof of their position and the beginning of a political rise for their members; in Connecticut H.B. Whiting wrote that the truth was now plain even to “those stupid thick-headed persons who persisted in thinking that the President was a conservative man and that the war was for the restoration of the Union under the Constitution.”[55]

War Democrats who rejected the Copperhead position within their party, found themselves in a quandary. While throughout the war they had continued to espouse the racist positions of their party and their disdain of the concerns of slaves, they did see the Proclamation as a viable military tool against the South, and worried that opposing it might demoralize troops in the Union army. The question would continue to trouble them and eventually lead to a split within their party as the war progressed.[55]

Lincoln further alienated many in the Union two days after issuing the preliminary copy of the Emancipation Proclamation by suspending habeas corpus. His opponents linked these two actions in their claims that he was becoming a despot. In light of this and a lack of military success for the Union armies, many War Democrat voters who had previously supported Lincoln turned against him and joined the Copperheads in the off-year elections held in October and November.[55]

In the 1862 elections, the Democrats gained 28 seats in the House as well as the governorship of New York. Lincoln’s friend Orville Hickman Browning told the President that the Proclamation and the suspension of habeas corpus had been “disastrous” for his party by handing the Democrats so many weapons. Lincoln made no response. Copperhead William Javis of Connecticut pronounced the election the “beginning of the end of the utter downfall of Abolitionism.”[55]

Historians James M. McPherson and Allan Nevins state that though the results look very troubling, they could be seen favorably by Lincoln; his opponents did well only in their historic strongholds and “at the national level their gains in the House were the smallest of any minority party’s in an off-year election in nearly a generation. Michigan, California, and Iowa all went Republican…Moreover, the Republicans picked up five seats in the Senate.”[55] McPherson states “If the election was in any sense a referendum on emancipation and on Lincoln’s conduct of the war, a majority of Northern voters endorsed these policies.”[55]

The initial Confederate response was one of expected outrage. The Proclamation was seen as vindication for the rebellion, and proof that Lincoln would have abolished slavery even if the states had remained in the Union.[57]

[edit] International impact

As Lincoln had hoped, the Proclamation turned foreign popular opinion in favor of the Union by adding the ending of slavery as a goal of the war. That shift ended the Confederacy’s hopes of gaining official recognition, particularly from the United Kingdom, which had abolished slavery.[58] Prior to Lincoln’s decree, Britain’s actions had favored the Confederacy, especially in its provision of British-built warships such as the CSS Alabama and CSS Florida.[59] Furthermore, the North’s determination to win at all costs was creating problems diplomatically; the Trent Affair of late 1861 had caused severe tensions between the United States and Great Britain. For the Confederacy to receive official recognition by foreign powers would have been a further blow to the Union cause.

With the war now cast in terms of freedom against slavery, British or French support for the Confederacy would look like support for slavery, which both of these nations had abolished. As Henry Adams noted, “The Emancipation Proclamation has done more for us than all our former victories and all our diplomacy.” In Italy, Giuseppe Garibaldi hailed Lincoln as “the heir of the aspirations of John Brown“. On August 6, 1863 Garibaldi wrote to Lincoln: Posterity will call you the great emancipator, a more enviable title than any crown could be, and greater than any merely mundane treasure.[60]

Alan Van Dyke, a representative for workers from Manchester, England, wrote to Lincoln saying, “We joyfully honor you for many decisive steps toward practically exemplifying your belief in the words of your great founders: ‘All men are created free and equal.'” The Emancipation Proclamation served to ease tensions with Europe over the North’s conduct of the war, and combined with the recent failed Southern offensive at Antietam to cut off any practical chance for the Confederacy to receive international support in the war.

[edit] Gettysburg Address

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in November 1863 made indirect reference to the Proclamation and the ending of slavery as a war goal with the phrase “new birth of freedom”. The Proclamation solidified Lincoln’s support among the rapidly growing abolitionist element of the Republican Party and ensured they would not block his re-nomination in 1864.[61]

[edit] Postbellum

Emancipation from Freedmen’s viewpoint; illustration from Harper’s Weekly 1865

Near the end of the war, abolitionists were concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation would be construed solely as a war act, Lincoln’s original intent, and no longer apply once fighting ended. They were also increasingly anxious to secure the freedom of all slaves, not just those freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. Thus pressed, Lincoln staked a large part of his 1864 presidential campaign on a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery uniformly throughout the United States. Lincoln’s campaign was bolstered by separate votes in both Maryland and Missouri to abolish slavery in those states. Maryland’s new constitution abolishing slavery took effect in November 1864. Slavery in Missouri was ended by executive proclamation of its governor, Thomas C. Fletcher, on January 11, 1865.

Winning re-election, Lincoln pressed the lame duck 38th Congress to pass the proposed amendment immediately rather than wait for the incoming 39th Congress to convene. In January 1865, Congress sent to the state legislatures for ratification what became the Thirteenth Amendment, banning slavery in all U.S. states and territories. The amendment was ratified by the legislatures of enough states by December 6, 1865, and proclaimed 12 days later. There were about 40,000 slaves in Kentucky and 1,000 in Delaware who were liberated then.[10]

[edit] Legacy

President Barack Obama views the Emancipation Proclamation in the Oval Office

[edit] Lyndon Johnson

During the American Civil Rights movement of the 1960s Lyndon B. Johnson invoked the Emancipation Proclamation holding it up as a promise yet to be fully implemented.

As Vice President while speaking from Gettysburg on May 30, 1963 (Memorial Day), at the centennial of the Emancipation Proclamation, Johnson connected it directly with the ongoing Civil Rights struggles of the time saying “One hundred years ago, the slave was freed. One hundred years later, the Negro remains in bondage to the color of his skin. …In this hour, it is not our respective races which are at stake–it is our nation. Let those who care for their country come forward, North and South, white and Negro, to lead the way through this moment of challenge and decision….Until justice is blind to color, until education is unaware of race, until opportunity is unconcerned with color of men’s skins, emancipation will be a proclamation but not a fact. To the extent that the proclamation of emancipation is not fulfilled in fact, to that extent we shall have fallen short of assuring freedom to the free.”[62]

As President, Johnson again invoked the proclamation in a speech presenting the Voting Rights Act at a joint session of Congress on Monday, March 15, 1965. This was one week after violence had been inflicted on peaceful civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama. Johnson said “…it’s not just Negroes, but really it’s all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome. As a man whose roots go deeply into Southern soil, I know how agonizing racial feelings are. I know how difficult it is to reshape the attitudes and the structure of our society. But a century has passed–more than 100 years–since the Negro was freed. And he is not fully free tonight. It was more than 100 years ago that Abraham Lincoln–a great President of another party–signed the Emancipation Proclamation. But emancipation is a proclamation and not a fact. A century has passed–more than 100 years–since equality was promised, and yet the Negro is not equal. A century has passed since the day of promise, and the promise is unkept. The time of justice has now come, and I tell you that I believe sincerely that no force can hold it back. It is right in the eyes of man and God that it should come, and when it does, I think that day will brighten the lives of every American.”[63]

[edit] Critiques

As the years went on and American life continued to be deeply unfair towards blacks, cynicism towards Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation increased. Some 20th-century black intellectuals, including W. E. B. Du Bois, James Baldwin and Julius Lester, described the proclamation as essentially worthless. Perhaps the strongest attack was Lerone Bennett’s Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream (2000), which claimed that Lincoln was a white supremacist who issued the Emancipation Proclamation in lieu of the real racial reforms for which radical abolitionists pushed. In his Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Allen C. Guelzo noted the professional historians’ lack of substantial respect for the document, since it has been the subject of few major scholarly studies. He argued that Lincoln was America’s “last Enlightenment politician[64] and as such was dedicated to removing slavery strictly within the bounds of law.

Other historians have given more credit to Lincoln for what he accomplished within the tensions of his cabinet and a society at war, for his own growth in political and moral stature, and for the promise he held out to the slaves.[65] More might have been accomplished if he had not been assassinated. As Eric Foner wrote:

Lincoln was not an abolitionist or Radical Republican, a point Bennett reiterates innumerable times. He did not favor immediate abolition before the war, and held racist views typical of his time. But he was also a man of deep convictions when it came to slavery, and during the Civil War displayed a remarkable capacity for moral and political growth.[66]

[edit] See also

Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation – printed in the September 23, 1862 National Republican, Washington D.C.

 

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Eric Foner, The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery (2010) pp 239-42
  2. ^ Allan Nevins, Ordeal of the Union: vol 6. War Becomes Revolution, 1862–1863 (1960) pp 231-41, 273
  3. ^ Crowther p. 651
  4. ^ Allen C. Guelzo. “”The Great Event of the Nineteenth Century”: Lincoln Issues the Emancipation Proclamation”. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Archived from the original on 2011-04-03. http://web.archive.org/web/20110430202610/http://www.hsp.org/node/2974. Retrieved May 7, 2011]. 
  5. ^ Freedmen and Southern Society Project (1982). Freedom: a documentary history of emancipation 1861-1867 : selected from the holdings of the National Archives of the United States. The destruction of slavery. CUP Archive. pp. 69. ISBN 978-0-521-22979-1. http://books.google.com/books?id=TPg8AAAAIAAJ
  6. ^ Foner (2010) pp.241-242
  7. ^ Striner, Richard (2006). Father Abraham: Lincoln’s Relentless Struggle to End Slavery. Oxford University Press. p. 192 (citing Hofstadter’s 1948 essay, in which he relates, in part, a sardonic remark by William Seward). ISBN 978-0-19-518306-1
  8. ^ a b c d Keith Poulter, “Slaves Immediately Freed by the Emancipation Proclamation”, North & South vol. 5 no. 1 (December 2001), p. 48
  9. ^ a b William C. Harris, “After the Emancipation Proclamation: Lincoln’s Role in the Ending of Slavery”, North & South vol. 5 no. 1 (December 2001), map on p. 49
  10. ^ a b “Census, Son of the South”. sonofthesouth.net. 1860. http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-maps/slave-census.htm
  11. ^ “Archives of Maryland Historical List: Constitutional Convention, 1864”. November 1, 1864. http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/speccol/sc2600/sc2685/html/conv1864.html
  12. ^ “Missouri abolishes slavery”. January 11, 1865. http://www.civilwaronthewesternborder.org/event/missouri-abolishes-slavery
  13. ^ “TENNESSEE STATE CONVENTION: Slavery Declared Forever Abolished”. NY Times. January 14, 1865. http://www.nytimes.com/1865/01/15/news/tennessee-state-convention-slavery-declared-forever-abolished-parson-brownlow.html
  14. ^ “On this day: 1865-FEB-03”. http://www.wvculture.org/history/thisdayinwvhistory/february.html
  15. ^ Stauffer (2008), Giants, p. 279
  16. ^ Peterson (1995) Lincoln in American Memory, pp. 38–41
  17. ^ McCarthy (1901), Lincoln’s plan of Reconstruction, p. 76
  18. ^ “Slavery in Delaware”. http://www.slavenorth.com/delaware.htm
  19. ^ Lowell Hayes Harrison and James C. Klotter (1997). A new history of Kentucky. p. 180. http://books.google.ca/books?id=FdTIIEZ1k2QC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=kentucky+abolishes+slavery&source=bl&ots=5Q-axreUe6&sig=lxp2rNl-I1ky0On2wNdwajwiSa8&hl=en&ei=isbOTq21BYWliQKz1vH8Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=kentucky%20abolishes%20slavery&f=false.  In 1866, Kentucky refused to ratify the 13th Amendment. It did ratify it in 1976.
  20. ^ Reference. Lincoln met with his cabinet on July 22, 1862 for the first reading of a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation. Sight measurement. Height: 108 inches (274.32 cm) Width: 180 inches (457.2 cm)
  21. ^ Adam Goodheart (April 1, 2011). “How Slavery Really Ended in America”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/magazine/mag-03CivilWar-t.html. Retrieved April 3, 2011. 
  22. ^ Striner, Richard (2006). Father Abraham: Lincoln’s Relentless Struggle to End Slavery. Oxford University Press. p. 147-148. ISBN 978-0-19-518306-1
  23. ^ U.S., Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamations of the United States of America. 12. Boston. 1863. p. 354.. 
  24. ^ Guminski, Arnold. The Constitutional Rights, Privileges, and Immunities of the American People, page 241 (2009).
  25. ^ Richardson, Theresa and Johanningmeir, Erwin. Race, ethnicity, and education, page 129 (IAP 2003).
  26. ^ Montgomery, David. The student’s American history, page 428 (Ginn & Co. 1897).
  27. ^ Keifer, Joseph. Slavery and Four Years of War, p. 109 (Echo Library 2009).
  28. ^ “The Second Confiscation Act, July 17, 1862”. History.umd.edu. http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/conact2.htm. Retrieved 2011-05-29. 
  29. ^ Donald, David. Lincoln, page 365 (Simon and Schuster 1996).
  30. ^ Harold Holzer, “Dear Mr. Lincoln: Letters to the President“, Southern Illinois University Press, 2006, p. 160-161
  31. ^ “The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln” edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, p. 388-389
  32. ^ Harold Holzer, “Dear Mr. Lincoln: Letters to the President“, Southern Illinois University Press, 2006, p. 162
  33. ^ Striner, Richard (2006). Father Abraham: Lincoln’s Relentless Struggle to End Slavery. Oxford University Press. p. 176. ISBN 978-0-19-518306-1
  34. ^ Guelzo, Allen C. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, 2004, pg. 18
  35. ^ Peter Kolchin, American Slavery: 1619–1877, New York: Hill and Wang, 1994, p.82
  36. ^ McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom, (1988), p557
  37. ^ Carpenter, Frank B (1866). Six Months at the White House. p. 90. ISBN 978-1-4290-1527-1. http://books.google.com/?id=FTsl3N7hDpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=six+months+at+the+white+house+carpenter#v=onepage&q=&f=false. Retrieved 2010-02-20.  as reported by Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon Portland Chase, September 22, 1862. Others present used the word resolution instead of vow to God.
    Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1911), 1:143, reported that Lincoln made a covenant with God that if God would change the tide of the war, Lincoln would change his policy toward slavery. See also Nicolas Parrillo, “Lincoln’s Calvinist Transformation: Emancipation and War”, Civil War History (September 1, 2000).
  38. ^ “Bangor In Focus: Hannibal Hamlin”. Bangorinfo.com. http://bangorinfo.com/Focus/focus_hannibal_hamlin.html. Retrieved 2011-05-29. 
  39. ^ “The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln” edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume 6, p. 48-49
  40. ^ “Teaching With Documents: The Fight for Equal Rights: Black Soldiers in the Civil War”. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war/
  41. ^ “Confederate Law Authorizing the Enlistment of Black Soldiers, as Promulgated in a Military Order”. CSA GENERAL ORDERS, No. 14. Department of History, University of Maryland. March 23, 1865. http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/csenlist.htm
  42. ^ “Freedmen and Southern Society Project: Chronology of Emancipation”. History.umd.edu. 2009-12-08. http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/chronol.htm. Retrieved 2011-05-29. 
  43. ^ “TSLA: This Honorable Body: African American Legislators in 19th Century Tennessee”. State.tn.us. http://www.state.tn.us/tsla/exhibits/blackhistory/timelines/timeline_1861-1865.htm. Retrieved 2011-05-29. 
  44. ^ Richard Duncan, Beleaguered Winchester: A Virginia Community at War (Baton Rouge, LA: LSU Press, 2007), pp. 139–40
  45. ^ Ira Berlin et al., eds, Freedom: A Documentary History of Emancipation 1861–1867, Vol. 1: The Destruction of Slavery (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 260
  46. ^ William Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, 1861–1865 (NY: Viking Press, 2001), p. 234
  47. ^ “Important From Key West”, New York Times February 4, 1863, p. 1
  48. ^ a b Own, Our (January 9, 1863). “Interesting from Port Royal”. The New York Times. p. 2. http://www.nytimes.com/1863/01/09/news/interesting-port-royal-jubliee-among-negroes-first-president-s-emancipation.html?scp=35&sq=&st=p?pagewanted=1
  49. ^ “News from South Carolina: Negro Jubilee at Hilton Head”, New York Herald, January 7, 1863, p.5
  50. ^ Harris, “After the Emancipation Proclamation”, p. 45
  51. ^ Up from Slavery (1901) pp 19-21
  52. ^ Shelby Foote (1963). The Civil War, a Narrative: Fredericksburg to Meridian. Volume 2. Random House. 
  53. ^ “Abe Lincoln’s Last Card”. http://www.arthist.umn.edu/aict/Tennielweb/punch/621018.html
  54. ^ Mitgang, Herbert (2000). Abraham Lincoln, a press portrait: his life and times from the original newspaper documents of the Union, the Confederacy, and Europe. Fordham Univ Press. ISBN 978-0-8232-2062-5. http://books.google.com/?id=aQQXbIE–ggC&pg=PA236-IA10&lpg=PA236-IA10&dq=London+Times+freeing+the+slaves+Lincoln’s+%22desperate+last-trump+card%22&q=London%20Times%20freeing%20the%20slaves%20Lincoln’s%20%22desperate%20last-trump%20card%22
  55. ^ a b c d e f g h Weber, Jennifer L. (2006). Copperheads: the rise and fall of Lincoln’s opponents in the North. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. 
  56. ^ Weber 2006, p. 65.
  57. ^ “The Rebel Message: What Jefferson Davis Has to Say”. New York Herald. America’s Historical Newspapers. http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX-K12&p_theme=ahnp_k12&p_nbid=E59Q56PUMTMyNTY5MTAwNy4yOTAyNjM6MToxMzozOC4xMDUuOTYuMjM4&p_action=timelinedoc&p_docref=v2:11A050B7B120D3F8@EANX-11AE489CABB99E68@2401523-11AE489CB81982E0@0-11AE489D1F55ED48@The+Rebel+Message.+The+Document+in+Full.+What+Jeff.+Davis+Says+of+President+Lincoln%27s+Emancipation+Proclamation&d_doclabel=The+Rebel+Message%3A+What+Jefferson+Davis+Has+to+Say. Retrieved January 4, 2012. 
  58. ^ Robert E. May (1995). “History and Mythology : The Crisis over British Intervention in the Civil War”. The Union, the Confederacy, and the Atlantic rim. Purdue University Press. pp. 29–68. ISBN 978-1-55753-061-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=uIspT4gpgUAC
  59. ^ W. Craig Gaines (2008). Encyclopedia of Civil War shipwrecks. LSU Press. pp. 36. ISBN 978-0-8071-3274-6. http://books.google.com/books?id=90d2LcmfpCcC
  60. ^ Mack Smith, p. 72
  61. ^ Allan Nevins, Ordeal of the Union: vol 6. War Becomes Revolution, 1862–1863 (1960)
  62. ^ “Remarks of Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson”. May 30, 1963. http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/630530.asp
  63. ^ Lyndon B. Johnson (March 15, 1965). “”We Shall Overcome””. http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/johnson.htm
  64. ^ Guelzo, p. 3.
  65. ^ Doris Kearns Goodwin, A Team of Rivals, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005
  66. ^ Foner, Eric (April 9, 2000). “review of Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream by Lerone Bennett, Jr.”. Los Angeles Times Book Review. http://www.ericfoner.com/reviews/040900latimes.html. Retrieved Jun 30, 2008. 

[edit] References

[edit] External links

Wikisourcehas original text related to this article:

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Emancipation Proclamation
[show]

 
Events
Abraham Lincoln
 
Speeches
 
Family
 
Legacy
 
Life and views
 
Places
 
[hide]

 
 
[show

Origins
 
 
 
 
 
 
[show

  • Combatants
  • Theaters
  • Campaigns
  • Battles
  • States
 
 
Combatants
 
 
 
Theaters
 
 
Major battles
 
Involvement
by state or territory
 
 
[show

Leaders
 
 
Confederate
 
Military
 
Civilian
 
Union
 
Military
 
Civilian
 
 
[show

Aftermath
 
 
 
 
Cemeteries
 
Veterans
 
Other topics
 
 
[show

  • Related topics
  • Categories
 
 
Related topics
 
Military
 
Political
 
Other topics
 
Categories
 
 
[show

American Civil War at sister projects
 
 
 

View page ratings
Rate this page
Rate this page
Page ratings
Current average ratings.
 
Trustworthy
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objective
 
 
 
 
 
 
Complete
 
 
 
 
 
 
Well-written
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)

I have a relevant college/university degree
It is part of my profession
It is a deep personal passion
The source of my knowledge is not listed here
I would like to help improve Wikipedia, send me an e-mail (optional)

We will send you a confirmation e-mail. We will not share your e-mail address with outside parties as per our feedback privacy statement.
 

Submit ratings

Saved successfully
Your ratings have not been submitted yet
 
Your ratings have expired
Please reevaluate this page and submit new ratings.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Please take a moment to complete a short survey.
 

Start surveyMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Do you want to create an account?
An account will help you track your edits, get involved in discussions, and be a part of the community.

Create an accountorLog inMaybe later

Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.
Did you know that you can edit this page?
 

Edit this pageMaybe later

 
 

 

Personal tools

Namespaces

 

Variants
 

Actions
 

 

January 13, 2012 Posted by | E, Legislative acts, ref, Uncategorized | , , , , | Leave a comment

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (legislation undermining legislation)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

President Ronald Reagan signs the bill at Rancho del Cielo in 1981.

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (Pub.L. 97-34), also known as the ERTA or “Kemp-Roth Tax Cut,” was a federal law enacted in the United States in 1981. It was an Act “to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to encourage economic growth through reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses, and incentives for savings, and for other purposes”[1].
Included in the act was an across the board decrease in the marginal income tax rates in the U.S. by 23% over three years, with the top rate falling from 70% to 50% and the bottom rate dropping from 14% to 11%. Additionally the tax rates were indexed for inflation, though the indexing was delayed until 1985.
The Act’s sponsors, Representative Jack Kemp of New York and Senator William V. Roth, Jr. of Delaware, had hoped for more significant tax cuts, but settled on this bill after a great debate in Congress. It passed Congress on August 4, 1981 and was signed into law on August 13, 1981 by President Ronald Reagan at Rancho del Cielo, his California ranch.

[edit] Summary of provisions

The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows[2]:

  • phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates over 3 years; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
  • accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
  • indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
  • created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
  • phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
  • reduced Windfall Profit taxes
  • allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
  • expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
  • replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985)
The accelerated depreciation changes were repealed by Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 and the 15% interest exclusion repealed before it took effect by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984.

[edit] Effect and controversies

The most lasting impact and significant change of the Act was the indexing of the tax code parameters for inflation. Of nine federal tax laws between 1968 and this Act, six were tax cuts compensating for inflation driven bracket creep.[2] Following enactment in August 1981, the first 5% of the 25% total cuts took place beginning in October of the same year. An additional 10% began in July 1982, followed by a third decrease of 10% beginning in July 1983.[3]
As a result of ERTA and other tax acts in the 80s, the top 10% were paying 57.2% of total income taxes by 1988 – up from 48% in 1981[3] – while the bottom 50% of earners share dropped from 7.5% to 5.7% in the same period. The total share borne by middle income earners of the 50th to 95th percentile decreased from 57.5% to 48.7% between 1981 and 1988.[4] Much of the increase can be attributed to the decrease in capital gains taxes, while the ongoing recession and subsequently high unemployment contributed to stagnation among other income groups until the mid-80s.[5]
In addition to changes in marginal tax rates, the capital gains tax was reduced from 28% to 20% under ERTA. Afterwards revenue from the capital gains tax increased 50% by 1983 from $12.5 billion in 1980 to over $18 billion in 1983.[3] In 1986, revenue from the capital gains tax rose to over $80 billion; following restoration of the rate to 28% from 20% effective 1987, capital gains revenues declined through 1991.[3]
Critics claim the tax cuts worsened the deficits in the budget of the United States government. Reagan supporters credit them with helping the 1980s economic expansion[6] that eventually lowered the deficits. After peaking in 1986 at $221 billion the deficit fell to $152 billion by 1989.[7] Supporters of the tax cuts also argue, using the Laffer curve, that the tax cuts increased government revenue. This is hotly disputed—critics contend that, although government income tax receipts did rise, it was due to – arguably Keynesian – economic growth, and not caused by the tax cuts, and would have risen more if the tax cuts had not occurred.[citation needed] Supporters see the growth as caused by the tax cuts. Controversy still remains as to whether the tax cuts of 1981 increased revenues.[citation needed]

[edit] References

  1. ^ Pub.L. 97-34, 95 Stat. 172, enacted August 13, 1981)
  2. ^ a b Office of Tax Analysis (2003, rev. September 2006) (PDF). Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. United States Department of the Treasury. Working Paper 81, page 12. http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf. Retrieved 2009-07-18. 
  3. ^ a b c d Arthur Laffer (1 June 2004). The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future. Retrieved 5 November 2010. 
  4. ^ Joint Economic Committee (1996). Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform. http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm. Retrieved 5 November 2010. 
  5. ^ Congressional Budget Office (1986). Effects of the 1981 Tax Act. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6173&type=0. Retrieved 5 November 2010. 
  6. ^ “The Reagan Expansion >The Reagan Expansion”. Ronald Reagan Information Page. http://www.presidentreagan.info/expansion.cfm. Retrieved 2009-05-03. 
  7. ^ FY 2011 Budget of the United States Government: Historic Tables. 2010. pp. 21-22. ISBN 9780160847974. 

January 13, 2012 Posted by | E, info, Legislative acts, ref, Uncategorized | , | Leave a comment

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Elizabeth Cady Stanton (November 12, 1815 – October 26, 1902) was an American social activist, abolitionist, and leading figure of the early woman’s movement. Her Declaration of Sentiments, presented at the first women’s rights convention held in 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York, is often credited with initiating the first organized woman’s rights and woman’s suffrage movements in the United States.[1]
Before Stanton narrowed her political focus almost exclusively to women’s rights, she had been an active abolitionist together with her husband, Henry Brewster Stanton and cousin, Gerrit Smith. Unlike many of those involved in the woman’s rights movement, Stanton addressed a number of issues pertaining to women beyond voting rights. Her concerns included women’s parental and custody rights, property rights, employment and income rights, divorce laws, the economic health of the family, and birth control.[2] She was also an outspoken supporter of the 19th-century temperance movement.
After the American Civil War, Stanton’s commitment to female suffrage caused a schism in the woman’s rights movement when she, together with Susan B. Anthony, declined to support passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. She opposed giving added legal protection and voting rights to African American men while continuing to deny women, black and white, the same rights. Her position on this issue, together with her thoughts on organized Christianity and women’s issues beyond voting rights, led to the formation of two separate women’s rights organizations that were finally rejoined, with Stanton as president of the joint organization, approximately 20 years later.

Contents

[show]

[edit] Childhood and family background

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the eighth of 11 children, was born in Johnstown, New York, to Daniel Cady and Margaret Livingston Cady. Five of her siblings died in early childhood or infancy. A sixth sibling, her elder brother Eleazar, died at age 20 just prior to his graduation from Union College in Schenectady, New York. Only Elizabeth Cady and four sisters lived well into adulthood and old age. Later in life, Elizabeth named her two daughters after two of her sisters, Margaret and Harriot.[3]
Daniel Cady, Stanton’s father, was a prominent Federalist attorney who served one term in the United States Congress (1814–1817) and later became both a circuit court judge and, in 1847, a New York Supreme Court justice.[4] Judge Cady introduced his daughter to the law and, together with her brother-in-law, Edward Bayard, planted the early seeds that grew into her legal and social activism. Even as a young girl, she enjoyed perusing her father’s law library and debating legal issues with his law clerks. It was this early exposure to law that, in part, caused Stanton to realize how disproportionately the law favored men over women, particularly over married women. Her realization that married women had virtually no property, income, employment, or even custody rights over their own children, helped set her course toward changing these inequities.[5]
Stanton’s mother, Margaret Livingston Cady, a descendant of early Dutch settlers, was the daughter of Colonel James Livingston, an officer in the Continental Army during the American Revolution. Having fought at Saratoga and Quebec, Livingston assisted in the capture of Major John Andre at West Point, New York where Andre and Benedict Arnold, who escaped aboard the HMS Vulture, were scheming to turn West Point over to the English.[6] Margaret Cady, an unusually tall woman for her time, had a commanding presence, and Stanton routinely described her as “queenly.”[7] While Stanton’s daughter, Harriot Stanton Blatch, remembers her grandmother as being fun, affectionate, and lively,[8] Stanton herself did not apparently share such memories. Emotionally devastated by the loss of so many children, Margaret Cady fell into a depression, which kept her from being fully involved in the lives of her surviving children and left a maternal void in Stanton’s childhood.[7]
Since Stanton’s father contended with this loss by immersing himself in his work, many of the child rearing responsibilities fell to Stanton’s elder sister, Tryphena, eleven years her senior, and Tryphena’s husband, Edward Bayard, a Union College classmate of Eleazar Cady’s and son of James A. Bayard, Sr., a U.S. Senator from Wilmington, Delaware. At the time of his engagement and marriage to Tryphena, Edward Bayard worked as an apprentice in Daniel Cady’s law office and was instrumental in nurturing Stanton’s growing understanding of the explicit and implicit gender hierarchies within the legal system.[9]
Slavery did not end in New York State until July 4, 1827,[10] and, like many men of his day, Stanton’s father was a slaveowner. Peter Teabout, a slave in the Cady household who was later freed in Johnstown,[11] took care of Stanton and her sister Margaret. While she makes no mention of Teabout’s position as a slave in her family’s household, he is remembered with particular fondness by Stanton in her memoir, Eighty Years & More. Among other things, she reminisces about the pleasure she took in attending the Episcopal church with Teabout, where, as Judge Cady’s daughters, she and her sister enjoyed sitting with him in the back of the church rather than alone in front with the white families of the congregation.[12] It seems it was, however, not immediately the fact that her family owned at least one slave, but her exposure to the abolition movement as a young woman visiting her cousin, Gerrit Smith, in Peterboro, New York, that led to her staunch abolitionist sentiments.[13]

[edit] Education and intellectual development

Unlike many women of her era, Stanton was formally educated. She attended Johnstown Academy, where she studied Latin, Greek and mathematics until the age of 16. At the Academy, she enjoyed being in co-educational classes where she could compete intellectually and academically with boys her age and older.[14] She did this very successfully, winning several academic awards and honors, including the award for Greek language.[15]
In her memoir, Stanton credits the Cadys’ neighbor, Rev. Simon Hosack, with strongly encouraging her intellectual development and academic abilities at a time when she felt these were undervalued by her father. Writing of her brother, Eleazar’s, death in 1826, Stanton remembers trying to comfort her father, saying that she would try to be all her brother had been. At the time, her father’s response devastated Stanton: “Oh, my daughter, I wish you were a boy!”[16] Understanding from this that her father valued boys above girls, Stanton tearfully took her disappointment to Hosack, whose firm belief in her abilities counteracted her father’s perceived disparagement. Hosack went on to teach Stanton Greek, encouraged her to read widely, and ultimately bequeathed to her his own Greek lexicon along with other books. His confirmation of her intellectual abilities strengthened Stanton’s confidence and self-esteem.[17]
Upon graduation from Johnstown Academy, Stanton received one of her first tastes of sexual discrimination. Stanton watched with dismay as the young men graduating with her, many of whom she had surpassed academically, went on to Union College, as her older brother, Eleazar, had done previously.[18] In 1830, with Union College taking only men, Stanton enrolled in the Troy Female Seminary in Troy, New York, which was founded and run by Emma Willard. (In 1895, the school was renamed the Emma Willard School in honor of its founder, and Stanton, spurred by her respect for Willard and despite her growing infirmities, was a keynote speaker at this event.)
Early during her student days in Troy, Stanton remembers being strongly influenced by Charles Grandison Finney, an evangelical preacher and central figure in the revivalist movement. His influence, combined with the Calvinistic Presbyterianism of her childhood, caused her great unease. After hearing Finney speak, Stanton became terrified at the possibility of her own damnation: “Fear of judgment seized my soul. Visions of the lost haunted my dreams. Mental anguish prostrated my health. Dethronement of my reason was apprehended by my friends.”[19] Stanton credits her father and brother-in-law, Edward Bayard, with convincing her to ignore Finney’s warnings and, after taking her on a rejuvenating trip to Niagara Falls, restoring her reason and sense of balance.[20] She never returned to organized Christianity and, after this experience, always maintained that logic and a humane sense of ethics were the best guides to both thought and behavior.[21]

[edit] Marriage and family

As a young woman, Elizabeth Cady met Henry Brewster Stanton through her early involvement in the temperance and the abolition movements. Henry Stanton was an acquaintance of Elizabeth Cady’s cousin, Gerrit Smith, an abolitionist and member of the “Secret Six” that supported J

ohn Brown’s raid at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia.[22] Stanton was a journalist, an antislavery orator, and, after his marriage to Elizabeth Cady, an attorney. Despite Daniel Cady’s reservations, the couple was married in 1840, with Elizabeth Cady requesting of the minister that the phrase “promise to obey” be removed from the wedding vows.[23] She later wrote, “I obstinately refused to obey one with whom I supposed I was entering into an equal relation.”[24] The couple had six children between 1842 and 1856. Their seventh and last child, Robert, was an unplanned baby born in 1859 when Elizabeth Cady Stanton was forty-four.[25]
Soon after returning to the United States from their European honeymoon, the Stantons moved into the Cady household in Johnstown. Henry Stanton studied law under his father-in-law until 1843, when the Stantons moved to Boston, Massachusetts, where Henry joined a law firm. While living in Boston, Elizabeth thoroughly enjoyed the social, political, and intellectual stimulation that came with a constant round of abolitionist gatherings and meetings. Here, she enjoyed the company of and was influenced by such people as Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, Louisa May Alcott, and Ralph Waldo Emerson, among others.[26] Throughout her marriage and eventual widowhood, Stanton took her husband’s surname as part of her own, signing herself Elizabeth Cady Stanton or E. Cady Stanton, but she refused to be addressed as Mrs. Henry B. Stanton. Asserting that women were individual persons, she stated that, “[t]he custom of calling women Mrs. John This and Mrs. Tom That and colored men Sambo and Zip Coon, is founded on the principle that white men are lords of all.”[27]
The Stanton marriage was not entirely without tension and disagreement. Henry Stanton, like Daniel Cady, disagreed with the notion of female suffrage.[28] Because of employment, travel, and financial considerations, husband and wife lived more often apart than together. Friends of the couple found them very similar in temperament and ambition, but quite dissimilar in their views on certain issues including women’s rights. In 1842, abolitionist reformer Sarah Grimke counseled Elizabeth in a letter: “Henry greatly needs a humble, holy companion and thou needest the same.”[29] However, both Stantons considered their marriage an overall success, and the marriage lasted for 47 years, ending with Henry Stanton’s death in 1887.[30]
In 1847, concerned about the effect of New England winters on Henry Stanton’s fragile health, the Stantons moved from Boston to Seneca Falls, New York, situated at the northern end of Cayuga Lake, one of the Finger Lakes found in upstate New York. Their house, purchased for them by Daniel Cady, was located some distance from town.[31] The couple’s last four children—two sons and two daughters—were born there, with Stanton asserting that her children were conceived under a program she called “voluntary motherhood.” In an era when it was commonly held that a wife must submit to her husband’s sexual demands, Stanton firmly believed that women should have command over their sexual relationships and childbearing.[25] As a mother who advocated homeopathy, freedom of expression, lots of outdoor activity, and a solid, highly academic education for all of her children, Stanton nurtured a breadth of interests, activities, and learning in both her sons and daughters.[32] She was remembered by her daughter Margaret as being “cheerful, sunny and indulgent”.[33]
Although she enjoyed motherhood and assumed primary responsibility for rearing the children, Stanton found herself unsatisfied and even depressed by the lack of intellectual companionship and stimulation in Seneca Falls.[34] As an antidote to the boredom and loneliness, Stanton became increasingly involved in the community and, by 1848, had established ties to similarly-minded women in the area. By this time, she was firmly committed to the nascent women’s rights movement and was ready to engage in organized activism.[35]

[edit] Early activism in the Women’s Rights Movement

Prior to living in Seneca Falls, Stanton had become an admirer and friend of Lucretia Mott, the Quaker minister, feminist, and abolitionist whom she had met at the International Anti-Slavery Convention in London, England in the spring of 1840 while on her honeymoon. The two women became allies when the male delegates attending the convention voted that women should be denied participation in the proceedings, even if they, like Mott, had been nominated to serve as official delegates of their respective abolitionist societies. After considerable debate, the women were required to sit in a roped-off section hidden from the view of the men in attendance. They were soon joined by the prominent abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison, who arrived after the vote had been taken and, in protest of the outcome, refused his seat, electing instead to sit with the women.[36]
Mott’s example and the decision to prohibit women from participating in the convention strengthened Stanton’s commitment to women’s rights. By 1848, her early life experiences, together with the experience in London and her initially debilitating experience as a housewife in Seneca Falls, galvanized Stanton. She later wrote:

“The general discontent I felt with woman’s portion as wife, housekeeper, physician, and spiritual guide, the chaotic conditions into which everything fell without her constant supervision, and the wearied, anxious look of the majority of women, impressed me with a strong feeling that some active measures should be taken to remedy the wrongs of society in general, and of women in particular. My experience at the World Anti-slavery Convention, all I had read of the legal status of women, and the oppression I saw everywhere, together swept across my soul, intensified now by many personal experiences. It seemed as if all the elements had conspired to impel me to some onward step. I could not see what to do or where to begin — my only thought was a public meeting for protest and discussion.”[37]

In 1848, acting on these feelings and perceptions, Stanton joined Mott, Mott’s sister Martha Coffin Wright, and a handful of other women in Seneca Falls. Together they organized the first women’s rights convention held in Seneca Falls on July 19 and 20. Over 300 people attended. Stanton drafted a Declaration of Sentiments, which she read at the convention. Modeled on the United States Declaration of Independence, Stanton’s declaration proclaimed that men and women are created equal. She proposed, among other things, a then-controversial resolution demanding voting rights for women. The final resolutions, including female suffrage, were passed, in no small measure, because of the support of Frederick Douglass, who attended and informally spoke at the convention.[38]

Stanton (seated) with Susan B. Anthony

Soon after the convention, Stanton was invited to speak at a second women’s rights convention in Rochester, New York, solidifying her role as an activist and reformer. Paulina Kellogg Wright Davis invited her to speak at the first National Women’s Rights Convention in 1850, but because of pregnancy, Stanton chose instead to lend her name to the list of sponsors and send a speech to be read in her stead.[39] In 1851, Stanton was introduced to Susan B. Anthony on a street in Seneca Falls by Amelia Bloomer, a feminist and mutual acquaintance who had not signed the Declaration of Sentiments and subsequent resolutions despite her attendance at the Seneca Falls convention.[40]
Although best known for their joint work on behalf of women’s suffrage, Stanton and Anthony first joined the temperance movement. Together, they were instrumental in founding the short-lived Woman’s State Temperance Society (1852–1853). During her presidency of the organization, Stanton scandalized many supporters by suggesting that drunkenness be made sufficient cause for divorce.[41] Stanton and Anthony’s focus, however, soon shifted to female suffrage and women’s rights.
Single and having no children, Anthony had the time and energy to do the speaking and traveling that Stanton was unable to do. Their skills complemented each other; Stanton, the better orator and writer, scripted many of Anthony’s speeches, while Anthony was the movement’s organizer and tactician. Writing a tribute that appeared in the New York Times when Stanton died, Anthony described Stanton as having “forged the thunderbolts” that she (Anthony) “fired.”[1] Unlike Anthony’s relatively narrow focus on suffrage, Stanton wanted to push for a broader platform of women’s rights in general. While their opposing viewpoints led to some discussion and conflict, no disagreement threatened their friendship or working relationship; the two women remained close friends and colleagues until Stanton’s death some 50 years after their initial meeting.
While always recognized as movement leaders whose support was sought, Stanton and Anthony’s voices were soon joined by others who began assuming leadership positions within the movement. These women included, among others, Matilda Joslyn Gage.[42]

[edit] Ideological divergence with abolitionists and the women’s rights movement

“The prejudice against color, of which we hear so much, is no stronger than that against sex. It is produced by the same cause, and manifested very much in the same way.”
Elizabeth Cady Stanton

After the American Civil War, both Stanton and Anthony broke with their abolitionist backgrounds and lobbied strongly against ratification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, which granted African American men the right to vote.[43] Believing that African American men, by virtue of the Thirteenth Amendment, already had the legal protections, except for suffrage, offered to white male citizens and that so largely expanding the male franchise in the country would only increase the number of voters prepared to deny women the right to vote,[44] both Stanton and Anthony were angry that the abolitionists, their former partners in working for both African American and women’s rights, refused to demand that the language of the amendments be changed to include women.[45]
Eventually, Stanton’s oppositional rhetoric took on racial overtones.[46] Arguing on behalf of female suffrage, Stanton posited that women voters of “wealth, education, and refinement” were needed to offset the effect of former slaves and immigrants whose “pauperism, ignorance, and degradation” might negatively affect the American political system.[47] She declared it to be “a serious question whether we had better stand aside and see ‘Sambo‘ walk into the kingdom [of civil rights] first.”[48] Some scholars have argued that Stanton’s emphasis on property ownership and education, opposition to black male suffrage, and desire to hold out for universal suffrage fragmented the civil rights movement by pitting African-American men against women and, together with Stanton’s emphasis on “educated suffrage,”[49] in part established a basis for the literacy requirements that followed in the wake of the passage of the fifteenth amendment.[50]
Stanton’s position caused a significant rift between herself and many civil rights leaders, particularly Frederick Douglass, who believed that white women, already empowered by their connection to fathers, husbands, and brothers, at least vicariously had the vote. According to Douglass, their treatment as slaves entitled the now liberated African-American men, who lacked women’s indirect empowerment, to voting rights before women were granted the franchise. African-American women, he believed, would have the same degree of empowerment as white women once African-American men had the vote; hence, general female suffrage was, according to Douglass, of less concern than black male suffrage.[51]
Disagreeing with Douglass, and despite the racist language she sometimes resorted to, Stanton firmly believed in a universal franchise that empowered blacks and whites, men and women. Speaking on behalf of black women, she stated that not allowing them to vote condemned African American freedwomen “to a triple bondage that man never knows,” that of slavery, gender, and race.[52] She was joined in this belief by Anthony, Olympia Brown, and most especially Frances Gage, who was the first suffragist to champion voting rights for freedwomen.[53]
Thaddeus Stevens, a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania and ardent abolitionist, agreed that voting rights should be universal. In 1866, Stanton, Anthony, and several other suffragists drafted a universal suffrage petition demanding that the right to vote be given without consideration of sex or race. The petition was introduced in the United States Congress by Stevens.[54] Despite these efforts, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, without adjustment, in 1868.
By the time the Fifteenth Amendment was making its way through Congress, Stanton’s position had led to a major schism in the women’s rights movement itself. Many leaders in the women’s rights movement, including Lucy Stone, Elizabeth Blackwell, and Julia Ward Howe, strongly argued against Stanton’s “all or nothing” position. By 1869, disagreement over ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment had given birth to two separate women’s suffrage organizations. The National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) was founded in May 1869 by Anthony and Stanton, who served as its president for 21 years.[55] The NWSA opposed passage of the Fifteenth Amendment without changes to include female suffrage and, under Stanton’s influence in particular, championed a number of women’s issues that were deemed too radical by more conservative members of the suffrage movement. The better-funded, larger,[56] and more representative woman suffragist vehicle[57]American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA), founded the following November and led by Stone,[58] Blackwell, and Howe,[59] supported the Fifteenth Amendment as written. Following passage of that Amendment the AWSA preferred to focus only on female suffrage rather than advocate for the broader women’s rights espoused by Stanton: gender-neutral divorce laws,[60] a woman’s right to refuse her husband sexually, increased economic opportunities for women, and the right of women to serve on juries.[61]
Believing that men should not be given the right to vote without women also being granted the franchise, Sojourner Truth, a former slave and feminist, affiliated herself with Stanton and Anthony’s organization.[62] Stanton, Anthony, and Truth were joined by Matilda Joslyn Gage, who later worked on The Woman’s Bible with Stanton. Despite Stanton’s position and the efforts of her and others to expand the Fifteenth Amendment to include voting rights for all women, this amendment also passed, as it was originally written, in 1870.

[edit] Later years

In the decade following ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, both Stanton and Anthony increasingly took the position, first advocated by Victoria Woodhull, that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments actually did give women the right to vote.[63] They argued that the Fourteenth Amendment, which defined citizens as “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” included women and that the Fifteenth Amendment provided all citizens with the right to vote.[64] Using this logic, they asserted that women now had the constitutional right to vote and that it was simply a matter of claiming that right. This constitutionally-based argument, which came to be called “the new departure” in women’s rights circles because of its divergence from earlier attempts to change voting laws on a state-by-state basis,[65] led to first Anthony (in 1872), and later Stanton (in 1880), going to the polls and demanding to vote.[66] Despite this, and similar attempts made by hundreds of other women, it would be nearly 50 years before women obtained the right to vote throughout the United States.
During this time, Stanton maintained a broad focus on women’s rights in general rather than narrowing her focus only to female suffrage in particular. After passage of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870 and its support by the Equal Rights Association and prominent suffragists such as Stone, Blackwell, and Howe, the gap between Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other leaders of the women’s movement widened as Stanton took issue with the fundamental religious leanings of several movement leaders. Unlike many of her colleagues, Stanton believed organized Christianity relegated women to an unacceptable position in society. She explored this view in the 1890s in The Woman’s Bible, which elucidated a feminist understanding of biblical scripture and sought to correct the fundamental sexism Stanton believed was inherent to organized Christianity.[67] Likewise, Stanton supported divorce rights,
empl

oyment rights, and property rights for women, issues in which the American Women’s Suffrage Association (AWSA) preferred not to become involved.[68]
Her more radical positions included acceptance of interracial marriage. Despite her opposition to giving African-American men the right to vote without enfranchising all women and the derogatory language she had resorted to in expressing this opposition, Stanton had no objection to interracial marriage and wrote a congratulatory letter to Frederick Douglass upon his marriage to Helen Pitts, a white woman, in 1884.[69] Anthony, fearing public condemnation of the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) and wanting to keep the demand for female suffrage foremost, pleaded with Stanton not to make her letter to Douglass or support for his marriage publicly known.[70]
Stanton went on to write some of the most influential books, documents, and speeches of the women’s rights movement. Starting in 1876, Stanton, Anthony, and Gage collaborated to write the first volume of History of Woman Suffrage, a seminal, six-volume work containing the full history, documents, and letters of the woman’s suffrage movement.[71] The first two volumes were published in 1881 and the third in 1886; the work was eventually completed in 1922 by Ida Harper.[72] Stanton’s other major writings included the two-part The Woman’s Bible, published in 1895 and 1898; Eighty Years & More: Reminiscences 1815–1897, her autobiography, published in 1898; and The Solitude of Self, or “Self-Sovereignty,” which she first delivered as a speech at the 1892 convention of the National American Women’s Suffrage Association in Washington, D.C..[73]
In 1868 Stanton, together with Susan B. Anthony and Parker Pillsbury, a leading male feminist of his day, began publishing a weekly periodical, Revolution, with editorials by Stanton that focused on a wide array of women’s issues.[74] In a view different from many modern feminists, Stanton, who supported birth control and likely used it herself,[75] believed that abortion was infanticide, a position she discussed in Revolution.[76] At this time, Stanton also joined the New York Lyceum Bureau, embarking on a 12-year career on the Lyceum Circuit. Traveling and lecturing for eight months every year provided her both with the funds to put her two youngest sons through college and, given her popularity as a lecturer, with a way to spread her ideas among the general population, gain broad public recognition, and further establish her reputation as a pre-eminent leader in the women’s rights movement. Among her most popular speeches were “Our Girls”, “Our Boys”, “Co-education”, “Marriage and Divorce”, “Prison Life”, and “The Bible and Woman’s Rights”.[77] Her lecture travels so occupied her that Stanton, although president, presided at only four of 15 conventions of the National Women’s Suffrage Association during this period.[78]
In addition to her writing and speaking, Stanton was also instrumental in promoting women’s suffrage in various states, particularly New York, Missouri, Kansas, where it was included on the ballot in 1867, and Michigan, where it was put to a vote in 1874. She made an unsuccessful bid for a U.S. Congressional seat from New York in 1868, and she was the primary force behind the passage of the “Woman’s Property Bill” that was eventually passed by the New York State Legislature.[1] She worked toward female suffrage in Wyoming, Utah, and California, and in 1878, she convinced California Senator Aaron A. Sargent to introduce a female suffrage amendment using wording similar to that of the Fifteenth Amendment passed some eight years previously.[74]

Elizabeth Cady Stanton in her later years

Stanton was also active internationally, spending a great deal of time in Europe, where her daughter and fellow feminist Harriot Stanton Blatch lived. In 1888, she helped prepare for the founding of the International Council of Women.[79] In 1890, Stanton opposed the merger of the National Woman’s Suffrage Association with the more conservative and religiously based American Woman Suffrage Association.[80] Over her objections, the organizations merged, creating the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). Despite her opposition to the merger, Stanton became its first president, largely because of Susan B. Anthony’s intervention. In good measure because of The Woman’s Bible and her position on issues such as divorce, she was, however, never popular among the more religiously conservative members of the “National American”.[81]
On January 18, 1892, approximately ten years before she died, Stanton joined Anthony, Stone, and Isabella Beecher Hooker to address the issue of suffrage before the United States House Committee on the Judiciary.[82] After nearly five decades of fighting for female suffrage and women’s rights, it was Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s final appearance before members of the United States Congress.[83] Using the text of what became The Solitude of Self, she spoke of the central value of the individual, noting that value was not based on gender. As with the Declaration of Sentiments she had penned some 45 years earlier, Stanton’s statement expressed not only the need for women’s voting rights in particular, but the need for a revamped understanding of women’s position in society and even of women in general:

“The isolation of every human soul and the necessity of self-dependence must give each individual the right to choose his own surroundings. The strongest reason for giving woman all the opportunities for higher education, for the full development of her faculties, her forces of mind and body; for giving her the most enlarged freedom of thought and action; a complete emancipation from all forms of bondage, of custom, dependence, superstition; from all the crippling influences of fear — is the solitude and personal responsibility of her own individual life. The strongest reason why we ask for woman a voice in the government under which she lives; in the religion she is asked to believe; equality in social life, where she is the chief factor; a place in the trades and professions, where she may earn her bread, is because of her birthright to self-sovereignty; because, as an individual, she must rely on herself […].”[84]

Lucy Stone was so impressed with the brilliance of Stanton’s speech that she published The Solitude of Self in its entirety in the Woman’s Journal, leaving out her own speech to the committee.[85]

[edit] Death, burial, and remembrance

U.S. postage stamp commemorating the Seneca Falls Convention titled 100 Years of Progress of Women: 1848–1948 (Elizabeth Cady Stanton on left)

Stanton died of heart failure at her home in New York City on October 26, 1902, nearly 20 years before women were granted the right to vote in the United States. Survived by six of her seven children and by seven grandchildren, she was interred in Woodlawn Cemetery in the Bronx, New York. Although Elizabeth Cady Stanton had been unable to attend a formal college or university, her daughters did. Margaret Livingston Stanton Lawrence attended Vassar College (1876) and Columbia University (1891), and Harriot Stanton Blatch received both her undergraduate and graduate degrees from Vassar College in 1878 and 1891 respectively.[86]
After Stanton’s death, her unorthodox ideas about religion and emphasis on female employment and other women’s issues led many suffragists to focus on Anthony, rather than Stanton, as the founder of the women’s suffrage movement. Stanton’s controversial publishing of The Woman’s Bible in 1895 had alienated more religiously traditional suffragists, and had cemented Anthony’s place as the more readily recognized leader of the female suffrage movement.[87] Anthony continued to work with NAWSA and became more familiar to many of the younger members of the movement.[78] By 1923, in celebrat

ing the 75th anniversary of the Seneca Falls Convention, only Harriot Stanton Blatch paid tribute to the role her mother had played in instigating the women’s rights movement.[88] Even as late as 1977, Anthony received most attention as the founder of the movement, while Stanton was not mentioned.[88]

The monument for Henry Brewster Stanton and Elizabeth Cady Stanton in Woodlawn Cemetery

Over time, however, Stanton received more attention. Stanton was commemorated along with Lucretia Mott and Susan B. Anthony in a sculpture by Adelaide Johnson at the United States Capitol, unveiled in 1921. Originally kept on display in the crypt of the US Capitol, the sculpture was moved to its current location and more prominently displayed in the rotunda in 1997.[89] The Elizabeth Cady Stanton House in Seneca Falls was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1965. Her house in Tenafly, New Jersey was declared a landmark in 1975, and by the 1990s, interest in Stanton was substantially rekindled when Ken Burns, among others, presented the life and contributions of Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Once again, attention was drawn to her central, founding role in shaping not only the woman’s suffrage movement, but a broad women’s rights movement in the United States that included women’s suffrage, women’s legal reform, and women’s roles in society as a whole.[90]
Stanton is commemorated in the calendar of saints of the Episcopal Church on July 20, together with Amelia Bloomer, Sojourner Truth and Harriet Ross Tubman.

[edit] Writings of Elizabeth Cady Stanton (author, co-author)

[edit] Books

  • History of Woman Suffrage; Volumes 1–3 (written with Susan B. Anthony and Matilda Joslyn Gage; vol 4–6 completed by other authors, including Anthony, Gage, and Ida Harper) (1881–1922)
  • Solitude of Self (originally delivered as a speech in 1892; later published in a hard bound edition by Paris Press)
  • The Woman’s Bible (1895, 1898)
  • Eighty Years & More: Reminiscences 1815–1897 (1898)

[edit] Selected periodicals and journals

  • Revolution (Stanton, co-editor) (1868–1870)
  • Lily (published by Amelia Bloomer; Stanton as contributor)
  • Una (published by Paulina Wright Davis; Stanton as contributor)
  • New York Tribune (published by Horace Greeley; Stanton as contributor)

[edit] Selected papers, essays, and speeches

  • Declaration of Rights & Sentiments (1848)
  • A Petition for Universal Suffrage (1866)
  • Self-government the Best Means of Self-development (1884)
  • Solitude of Self (1892)
  • The Degradation of Disenfranchisement (1892)
  • Lyceum speeches: “Our Girls,” “Our Boys,” “Co-education,” “Marriage and Divorce,” “Prison Life,” and “The Bible and Woman’s Rights,” “Temperence and Women’s Rights” and many others

Stanton’s papers are archived at Rutgers University: The Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony Papers Project, Rutgers University (See particularly entries for Ann D. Gordon, Editor, in the bibliography below.)

[edit] See also

January 13, 2012 Posted by | E, info, ref, Uncategorized | , , | Leave a comment

Edgar Bergen (puppet allusion to Mr Joseph Mccarthy)

Edgar Bergen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Edgar Bergen

Edgar Bergen with his ventriloquist dummy “Charlie McCarthy” in Stage Door Canteen (1943)
Born Edgar John Bergen
February 16, 1903(1903-02-16)
Chicago, Illinois, United States
Died September 30, 1978(1978-09-30) (aged 75)
Paradise, Nevada, United States
Years active 1930 – 1978
Spouse Frances Westerman (1945-1978)

Edgar John Bergen (February 16, 1903 – September 30, 1978) was an American actor and radio performer, best known as a ventriloquist.
Bergen was born Edgar John Berggren in Chicago, Illinois, the son of Swedish immigrants named Nilla Svensdotter (née Osberg) and Johan Henriksson Berggren.[1] He grew up in Decatur, Michigan. He taught himself ventriloquism from a pamphlet when he was 11. A few years later, he commissioned Chicago woodcarver Theodore Mack to sculpt a likeness of a rascally Irish newspaperboy he knew. The head went on a dummy named Charlie McCarthy, who became Bergen’s lifelong sidekick. At age 16, he went to Chicago, where he attended Lake View High School and worked at a silent movie house.

Contents

[show]

[edit] Radio

Sam Berman‘s caricature of Charlie McCarthy and Edgar Bergen for NBC’s 1947 promotion book

His first performances were in vaudeville, at which point he legally changed his last name to the easier-to-pronounce “Bergen”. He worked in one-reel movie shorts, but his real success was on the radio. He and Charlie were seen at a New York party by Elsa Maxwell for Noël Coward, who recommended them for an engagement at the famous Rainbow Room. It was there that two producers saw Bergen and Charlie perform. They then recommended them for a guest appearance on Rudy Vallée‘s program. Their initial appearance (December 17, 1936) was so successful that the following year they were given their own show, as part of The Chase and Sanborn Hour. Under various sponsors (and two different networks), they were on the air from May 9, 1937 to July 1, 1956. The popularity of a ventriloquist on radio, when one could see neither the dummies nor his skill, surprised and puzzled many critics, then and now. Even knowing that Bergen provided the voice, listeners perceived Charlie as a genuine person, but only through artwork rather than photos could the character be seen as truly lifelike. Thus, in 1947, Sam Berman caricatured Bergen and McCarthy for the network’s glossy promotional book, NBC Parade of Stars: As Heard Over Your Favorite NBC Station.

Time magazine cover, November 20, 1944

Bergen’s skill as an entertainer, especially his characterization of Charlie, carried the show (many of which have survived).[citation needed] Bergen’s success on radio was paralleled in the United Kingdom by Peter Brough and his dummy Archie Andrews (Educating Archie).
For the radio program, Bergen developed other characters, notably the slow-witted Mortimer Snerd and the man-hungry Effie Klinker. The star remained Charlie, who was always presented as a highly precocious child (albeit in top hat, cape, and monocle) – a debonair, girl-crazy, child-about-town. As a child and a wooden one at that, Charlie could get away with double entendre which were otherwise impossible under broadcast standards of the time.

Charlie: “May I have a kiss good-bye?”
Dale Evans: “Well, I can’t see any harm in that!”
Charlie: “Oh. I wish you could. A harmless kiss doesn’t sound very thrilling.”

Charlie’s feud with W. C. Fields was a regular feature of the show.

W.C. Fields: “Well, Charlie McCarthy, the woodpecker’s pinup boy!”
Charlie: “Well, if it isn’t W.C. Fields, the man who keeps Seagram’s in business!”
W.C. Fields: “I love children. I can remember when, with my own little unsteady legs, I toddled from room to room.”
Charlie: “When was that? Last night?”
W.C. Fields: “Quiet, Wormwood, or I’ll whittle you into a venetian blind.”
Charlie: “Ooh, that makes me shutter!”
W.C. Fields: “Tell me, Charles, is it true that your father was a gate-leg table?”
Charlie: “If it is, your father was under it.”
W.C. Fields: “Why, you stunted spruce, I’ll throw a japanese beetle on you.”
Charlie: “Why, you bar-fly you, I’ll stick a wick in your mouth, and use you for an alcohol lamp!”
Charlie: “Pink elephants take aspirin to get rid of W. C. Fields.”
W.C. Fields: “Step out of the sun Charles. You may come unglued.”
Charlie: “Mind if I stand in the shade of your Nose?”

Bergen was not the most technically skilled ventriloquist – Charlie McCarthy frequently twitted him for moving his lips, but Bergen’s sense of comedic timing was superb, and he handled Charlie’s snappy dialogue with aplomb. Bergen’s wit in creating McCarthy’s striking personality and that of his other characters was the making of the show. Bergen’s popularity as a ventriloquist on radio (where the trick of “throwing his voice” was not visible) suggests his appeal was primarily the personality he applied to his characters.
Bergen and McCarthy are sometimes credited with “saving the world” because, on the night of October 30, 1938, when Orson Welles performed his War of the Worlds radio play hoax that panicked many listeners, most of the American public had instead tuned in to Bergen and McCarthy on another station and never heard Welles’ play. Conversely, it has also been theorized that Bergen inadvertently contributed to the hysteria. When the musical portion of Bergen’s show, The Chase and Sanborn Hour, aired approximately 12 minutes into the show, many listeners switched stations and found the War of the Worlds presentation already underway with a realistic sounding reporter detailing terrible events.
Ray Noble was the musical director and composer and teenage singer Anita Gordon provided the songs on his show. Gordon was said to have been discovered by Charlie, who had a crush on her.

[edit] Comic strip

In addition to his work as a ventriloquist, Bergen was also an actor and comic strip creator. He established the syndicated comic strip Mortimer & Charlie, which had a four-month run from July 10 to October 22, 1939, illustrated first by Ben Batsford and then by Carl Buettner.[2]

[edit] Films

As as actor, Bergen portrayed the shy Norwegian suitor in I Remember Mama (1948). He also appeared in Captain China (1949) and Don’t Make Waves (1965). Bergen and his alter-ego McCarthy appeared together with top billing in several films, including the Technicolor extravaganza The Goldwyn Follies (1938), opposite the Ritz Brothers. That year they also appeared in You Can’t Cheat an Honest Man with W. C. Fields. At the height of their popularity in 1938, Bergen was presented an Honorary Oscar (in the form of a wooden Oscar stauette) for his creation of Charlie McCarthy.

in the film Stage Door Canteen (1943) with Mortimer Snerd

Other film roles for the team include Look Who’s Laughing (1941) and Here We Go Again (1942), both with Fibber McGee and Molly. Later, Bergen and McCarthy were featured in Fun and Fancy Free (1947) and much later in The Muppet Movie (1979). Bergen died shortly after completing his scenes in the latter film, marking it as his final public appearance. The film was subsequently dedicated to him.
Although his regular series never made the transition to television, Bergen made numerous appearances on the medium during his career. In a filmed Thanksgiving special, billed as his TV debut, sponsored by Coca-Cola on CBS in 1950, the new character Podine Puffington was introduced. This saucy Southern belle was as tall as a real woman, in contrast to Bergen’s other sit-on-the-knee sized characters. Bergen also hosted the television game show Do You Trust Your Wife? in 1956-’57, later succeeded, in a daytime edition, by Johnny Carson. Bergen appeared in the Christmas 1957 episode of NBC‘s The Gisele MacKenzie Show. In 1959, he appeared in the second episode entitled “Dossier” of the NBC espionage series Five Fingers starring David Hedison. On May 21, 1959, he guest starred with Charlie McCarthy on NBC’s The Ford Show, Starring Tennessee Ernie Ford.
Bergen continued to appear regularly on television during the 1960s. He guest starred as Charlie in the 1960 episode “Moment of Fear” of CBS‘s The DuPont Show with June Allyson. He did a stint as one of the What’s My Line? mystery guests on the popular Sunday night CBS series. His colleague Paul Winchell happened to be a panel member during that episode.[1] He also appeared on the NBC interview program Here’s Hollywood.
Bergen appeared as Grandpa Walton in the original Waltons movie, The Homecoming: A Christmas Story (1971). The part was played by Will Geer in the subsequent series. Throughout the run of The Waltons—which took place in the late 1930s through the 1940s—the voices of Bergen and Charlie McCarthy were sporadically heard from the Walton family’s radio, as family members regularly tuned in for that program.

[edit] Family

In 1941, Bergen met Frances Westerman after a radio program when he was 39 and she was 19. Westerman, who had graduated from Los Angeles High School the year before, was in the audience of Bergen’s radio program as the guest of a member of his staff. Sitting in the front row, the young fashion model’s legs caught Bergen’s attention and he asked to meet her. The two were married in Mexico after years of long distance courtship, on June 28, 1945. On May 9, 1946 Francis gave birth to the future actress Candice Bergen, whose first p

erformances were on Bergen’s radio show. They were also the parents of film and television editor Kris Bergen, born October 12, 1961.[3] Edgar and Frances were together until his death in 1978 at age 75
On September 30, 1978, Bergen died in his sleep of kidney disease in Las Vegas, Nevada, at age 75. Bergen died at Caesar’s Palace Hotel, just three days after opening, Wednesday September 27, at Caesar’s for a two-week engagement that was to be part of his farewell to show business. It was in mid-September that he had announced that he was retiring after 56 years in show business and sending his monocled, top-hatted partner to the Smithsonian Institution.
Today, the iconic wooden Charlie McCarthy rests in Washington D.C.’s Smithsonian Institution. Bergen was interred with his parents (who are buried under their true surname of ‘Berggren’), in Inglewood Park Cemetery, Inglewood, California. Edgar Bergen’s wife of 33 years, Frances Westerman Bergen, died at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, on October 2, 2006, aged 84, from undisclosed causes.[4] She is also buried in Inglewood Cemetery. In 1990, Bergen was elected to the Radio Hall of Fame, the same year that The Charlie McCarthy Show was selected as an honored program. A message in the closing credits dedicates The Muppet Movie (which featured Edgar and Charlie in their last screen appearance) to the memory and magic of Edgar. In 1991, the United States Postal Service honored him with a 29-cent commemorative stamp.

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

[edit] Listen to

[edit] External links

Persondata
Name Bergen, Edgar
Alternative names Bergren, Edgar John
Short description Comedian, ventriloquist
Date of birth February 16, 1903
Place of birth Chicago, Illinois
Date of death September 30, 1978
Place of death Paradise, Nevada

January 13, 2012 Posted by | E, Entertaiment, info, ref | , | Leave a comment

Executive order (United States)

Executive order (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Leland-Boker Authorized Edition of the Emancipation Proclamation, printed in June 1864 with a presidential signature

An executive order in the United States is an order issued by the President, the head of the executive branch of the federal government. Executive Orders are generally orders to staff of the executive branch and not to the citizens of the country. Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution specifically reserves all federal legislative authority to Congress, not the president. In other countries, executive edicts can serve a legislative function. Such edicts may be known as decrees, or orders-in-council.
Executive orders may also be issued at the state level by a state’s Governor or at the local level by the city’s Mayor. The term “Executive Orders” and the numbered list of them were created in 1907, but U.S. Presidents have issued instructions that are retroactively labeled Executive Orders since 1789, usually to guide officers and agencies of the Executive branch in managing the operations within the Federal Government itself. Executive orders can have the full force of law if they are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation). Other Executive Orders not authorized by Congress are claimed to have their authority for issuances based in a power inherently granted to the Executive by the Constitution. It is these cited or perceived justifications made by a President when authoring Executive Orders that have come under criticism for exceeding Executive authority and have been subject to legal proceedings even at various times throughout U.S. history concerning the legal validity or justification behind an order’s issuance.

Contents

[show]

[edit] Basis in U.S. Constitution

Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits Executive Orders, there is a vague grant of “executive power” given in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4, that has been construed as justification for the legal weight of Executive orders. Presidents have used this Constitutional reasoning as a basis for an authorization that allows for the issuance of Executive orders as part of carrying out the President’s sworn duties,[1] the intent typically being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as for compliance with current statute in the regulating of normal operations of the Federal Government — in spite of the fact, Article I, Clause 1 specifically grants all federal legislative authority to the United States Congress:
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
For this reason, many Executive Orders cite authorization from specific acts of Congress rather than vague or perceived powers somehow granted to the Executive without explicitly saying so in the Constitution. Those Executive Orders that are not authorized through Congressional acts frequently contain some other purported justification such as the reference above to “executive power” in Article II, Section 1. These justifications have largely gone untested by the Courts for their validity however.
The President does, of course, have the authority to issue orders to officers and employees of the executive branch and to penalize non-compliance by removing such officers and employees from office. This is much the same power that the president of a private company has over his employees to dismiss them if they do not follow his instructions. Such authority may be proper and Constitutional provided that the President does not order executive branch employees to carry out unlawful or unconstitutional acts.[2]
Other types of orders issued by ‘the Executive’ are generally classified simply as administrative orders rather than Executive Orders.[3] These are typically:

Presidential directives are considered a form of executive order issued by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of a major agency or department found within the Executive branch of government.[4] Some types of Directives are:

[edit] History and use

Until the early 1900s, the term “Executive Orders” had not even been invented. Presidential instructions to executive branch staff that would later be characterized as “Executive Orders” went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. However, the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme for Executive Orders in 1907, starting retroactively with an order issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. The documents that later came to be known as “Executive Orders” probably gained their name from this document, captioned “Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana.”[3]
Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an Executive Order other than, of course, the US Constitution which reserved all federal legislative authority to Congress. This issue was paramount in the Supreme Court ruling in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws under which they are acting when issuing new Executive Orders.
Despite the provisions of Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution that reserves all federal legislative authority to congress, Presidents have increasingly used Executive Orders as if they were equivalent to an act of Congress. Presidents have even issued Executive Orders to start entire wars despite the fact that Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically reserves to Congress the sole authority to declare war.
Wars begun by Executive Order include the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton‘s second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues, although all Presidents since its passage have complied with the terms of the Resolution while maintaining that they are not constitutionally requ

ired to do so. In fact, the US Constitution grants no war-making powers whatsoever to the President, only to Congress. Without the War Powers Resolution or other authorizing resolutions from Congress, Presidents lack any Constitutional war-making powers despite their far-reaching claims to the contrary. Congress has been notably unwilling to press this issue for political reasons, especially when a President has already ordered troops into battle and they have obeyed that order.

[edit] Criticisms

Critics have accused presidents of abusing executive orders, of using them to make laws without Congressional approval, and of moving existing laws away from their original mandates.[5] Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been effected through executive order, including the integration of the armed forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower.
One extreme example of an executive order is Executive Order 9066, where Franklin D. Roosevelt delegated military authority to remove any or all people (used to target specifically Japanese Americans and German Americans) in a military zone. The authority delegated to General John L. DeWitt subsequently paved the way for all Japanese-Americans to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II.
Presidents, however, often cite executive order as the only way to clarify laws passed through Congress that required vague wording to please all parties involved in their creation. In this regard, when the political process of adopting congressional legislation would prevent US ratification of/accession to treaties of importance, Presidents have issued executive orders calling upon federal agencies, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Department of Energy (DOE), to instead issue administrative regulations. Presidents, furthermore, may use an executive order or a presidential memorandum to ensure that federal courts abide by international tribunal rulings interpreting the provisions of an international treaty.

[edit] Legal conflicts

To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1996 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the U.S. government from contracting with organizations that had strikebreakers on the payroll.[6] Congress may overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.[7]

[edit] Governors’ executive orders

Executive orders as issued by the governors of the states are not laws, but do have the same binding nature. Executive orders are usually based on existing constitutional or statutory powers of the Governor and do not require any action by the state legislature to take effect.
Executive orders may, for example, demand budget cuts from state government when the state legislature is not in session, and economic conditions take a downturn, thereby decreasing tax revenue below what was forecast when the budget was approved. Depending on the state constitution, a governor may specify by what percentage each government agency must reduce by, and may exempt those that are already particularly underfunded, or cannot put long-term expenses (such as capital expenditures) off until a later fiscal year. The governor may also call the legislature into special session.
There are also other uses for gubernatorial executive orders. In 2007 for example, the governor of Georgia made an executive order for all of its state agencies to reduce water use during a major drought. This was also demanded of its counties‘ water systems, however it is unclear whether this would have the force of law.

[edit] Presidential proclamation

A proclamation issued by a president. Proclamations generally are defined as, “The act of causing some state matters to be published or made generally known. A written or printed document in which are contained such matters, issued by proper authority; as the president’s proclamation, the governor’s, the mayor’s proclamation.” [8]
In the United States, the president’s proclamation has not the force of law, unless when authorized by congress; such as if congress were to pass an act, which would take effect upon the happening of a contingent event, which was to be declared by the president by proclamation to have happened; in this case the proclamation would give the act the force of law, which, till then, it wanted. Presidential proclamations are also frequently employed in the US to pardon persons who have been accused of crimes or misdemeanors.
Presidential proclamations are often dismissed as a practical presidential tool for policy making because of the perception of proclamations as largely ceremonial or symbolic in nature. However, they can be important.
Abraham Lincoln‘s emancipation proclamation (actually consisting of two executive orders) is one of America’s most famous presidential proclamations.

[edit] See also

January 13, 2012 Posted by | E, Executive Office of the President, Executive Orders, info, ref, Uncategorized | , | Leave a comment