Center for Teaching the Rule of Law

September 8, 1264 – The Statute of Kalisz, guaranteeing Jews safety and personal liberties and giving battei din jurisdiction over Jewish matters, is promulgated by Bolesław the Pious, Duke of Greater Poland.

9/8/2021

0 Comments

 
PictureBolesław the Pious
The General Charter of Jewish Liberties known as the Statute of Kalisz, and as the Kalisz Privilege, was issued by the Duke of Greater Poland Bolesław the Pious on September 8, 1264 in Kalisz.  The statute granted Jews unprecedented legal rights in Europe, including exclusive jurisdiction over Jewish matters to Jewish courts, and established a separate tribunal for other criminal matters involving Christians and Jews. The statute also defined rules under which Jews were allowed to engage in lending and trade, as well as norms related to their relations with Christians. It even provided for penalties for desecration of a Jewish cemetery or a synagogue. It also contained provisions concerning blood libel directed against Jews. The statute was ratified by subsequent Polish Kings: Casimir III in 1334, Casimir IV in 1453, and Sigismund I in 1539.

In the 20th century, some scholars supported the view that both the original Statute of Kalisz and its authenticated copies could not be found and that the text was a 15th-century forgery done for political purposes.  Nonetheless, the statute served as a basis for Jewish privileges in Poland until 1795.

The text of the statute:

In the Name of the Lord. Amen. The deeds of humankind are fleeting, unless revived through the testimonies of witnesses, or by the testimony of documents. Therefore We,  Bolesław, by the grace of God the Duke of Wielkopolska [Greater Poland], hereby make it known to both those of the present and of the future, to whose notice this present writ shall come, that to our Jews living all across the lands of our Dominion, We have resolved to declare word-for-word the statutes and privileges that they have obtained from Us, as contained in the following series of articles.
 
1. Firstly, we hereby ordain that with respect to any case involving money, or any property whether mobile or immobile, or in a criminal case that affects the person or property of a Jew, no Christian be admitted as a witness against a Jew, unless a Jew be together with such Christian.
 
2. Likewise, if a Christian implicates a Jew by stating that the Jew mortgaged what he had pawned, and the Jew disavows this, whereupon the Christian is nonetheless unwilling to believe in the honesty of the Jew’s words, then the Jew shall under oath prove his intention to return the equivalent received by him and shall then go forth, absolved.
 
3. If a Christian has pawned something with a Jew, and then states that he pawned it for a lesser amount of money than the Jew acknowledges, the Jew shall swear an oath with respect to what was pawned to him, and what has been evidenced under oath, the Christian shall not to decline to pay out to him.
 
4. Likewise, if a Jew tells a Christian, without calling on witnesses, that he [=the Christian] has borrowed [from the former] on the basis of something pawned, and he [=the Christian] denies it, the Christian may exonerate himself by his own oath alone.
 
5. A Jew shall be permitted to receive, by way of goods pawned, everything that may be given over to him, whatever its name be, without making investigation into the same, except for vestments stained or soaked with blood, and except sacral ones, which he shall by no means accept, whatsoever.

6. Similarly, if a Christian implicates a Jew by stating that something pawned to the Jew had been robbed from him by secret plotting or by violence, the Jew shall pledge an oath with respect to the pawned good that with the receipt of the same, he was ignorant of it having been stolen or seized; and in this oath of his he shall indicate what price was charged for the good thus pawned, and when he has thereby cleansed himself, the Christian shall reimburse to him the principal and the interest that has meanwhile accrued.
 
7. If, furthermore, by fire or theft or by force a Jew has lost his property together with goods he had accepted in pawn, and this has become certain, and notwithstanding this the Christian who has pawned the same implicates him, the Jew shall absolve himself by means of his own oath.
 
8. Similarly, if Jews have indeed excited discord amidst themselves, or a struggle, the judge of our city may claim no right for himself with respect to them, as We exclusively shall exercise judgement, or our Palatine [Voivode], or else his judge. If, however, the accusation is leveled at a person [for having harmed someone], then such a case shall be reserved exclusively for Us to be adjudged.
 
9. Also, if a Christian has harmed a Jew in whatever manner, the guilty party shall have to pay the fine to Us and to our Palatine. Having delivered it to our treasury, he may come upon our grace. Moreover, he shall recompense the injured party in view of healing his wounds, and of the expenses, as required and demanded by the laws of the realm.
 
10. Similarly, if a Christian has killed a Jew, he shall be punished with the appropriate adjudication, and all his possessions whether mobile or immobile shall be transferred to our authority.
 
11. Also, if a Christian has beaten a Jew in the way, nonetheless, that no blood is shed, he ought to be pursued by the Palatine, according to the custom of our land; and, having stricken or afflicted a Jew, he shall offer reparation therefor, in the manner as is customary in our land; should he indeed be not able to provide the money, then he shall be punished in fashion fitting for what he has done.

12. Wherever a Jew should transverse our Dominion, no-one shall offer any impediment to him whatsoever, nor cause or inspire any annoyance, burden, or trouble; but if he [=such a Jew] transports any merchandise or such things with him, customs shall arise therefrom at all the customs-posts, and this same Jew shall likewise pay only such duty or toll as is payable by any citizen of the city wherein the Jew abides at that time.
 
13. In the event that Jews, according to their custom, transport anyone of their dead either from one city to another city, or from one province to another, or from one land to another, it is our will that our customs-officers extort nothing from them. Should, however, a customs-officer extort something, it is our will that he be punished as a grave-robber.
 
14. Likewise, if a Christian has in any manner devastated, or invaded, a cemetery of theirs, it is our will that, in accordance with the custom and laws of our land, he be gravely punished, and all the properties of his, by whatever name these be called, be passed to our treasury.
 
15. If anyone imprudently throws [something/stones] at schools [i.e., synagogues] of the Jews, it is our will that he pay two  talents  of pepper to our Palatine.
 
16. Likewise, if a Jew be condemned by his Judge to a pecuniary penalty, which is called vandil, the perpetrator, if he be found guilty, shall pay to the same the penalty of a talent of pepper, as since times ancient.
 
17. If a Jew is summoned to court by command of his judge, and does not appear for the first nor for the second time, he must pay the judge for both of the times, in place thereof, the penalty that is customary since times ancient. If he comes neither at the third command, he shall pay to the aforementioned Judge the penalty that follows thereafter.

18. Likewise, if a Jew has wounded a Jew, he may not refuse to pay to his Judge the penalty according to the custom of our land.
 
19. We hereby ordain that no Jew shall swear an oath upon a  Rodal Torah of theirs, unless it be for a substantial cause that extends up to fifty marcas (grzywna) of silver, or unless called to our presence; for minor matters, he indeed ought to pledge before the schools [i.e., synagogues], at the entrance-door to the said schools.
 
20. In the event that a Jew has secretly been killed, and the murderer’s guilt may not be proved, and if after an investigation the Jews have captured a suspect, We shall administer to the Jews the protection of justice against the suspected killer of the Jew, by means of the law regarding such a matter.
 
21. Also, if Christians lay a violent hand against a Jew, they shall be punished according to what the law of our land requires.
 
22. Likewise, the judge of the Jews shall bring no case that has emerged amongst Jews to court, unless he be invited because of a complaint. Also the Jews ought to be judged near their schools or wherever they may elect.
 
23. Similarly, if a Christian has redeemed from a Jew what he pawned, but has not paid the interest, the interest shall become compounded if not provided within a month.
 
24. Likewise, we hereby ordain that no-one seek quarters in a Jewish house.
 
25. If a Jew has lent money upon pawned possessions or a [hypothecation] letter for goods immobile, and he to whom the things belong offers proof of whose things those are, We ordain that the Jew be deprived of the money and the pledge of the letter.

26. Likewise, if anybody, a male or a female, has abducted a Jewish boy, we order that he be prosecuted as a thief.
 
27. Also, if a Jew has received pawned goods from a Christian and held the same in his possession for a year, and if the value of the goods is not in excess of the money that has been lent, the Jew shall show the goods to his Judge; and if the pawned goods are insignificant, he shall show the same to our Palatine or his own Judge, or shall have the liberty to vend it, if the same demonstrates the pawned goods to his Judge prior to the passing of a year. If indeed such goods have remained with a Jew for a year and a day, he shall thenceforth be responsible therefor before no-one.

28. It is our will that no-one dare to coerce a Jew with respect to recouping pawned goods during his celebration of a holiday, whatsoever.

29. Similarly, if any Christian would forcefully remove his pawned good(s) from a Jew, or would exercise violence in the Jew’s house, he shall be gravely punished as a plunderer of our treasury.

30. Likewise, a Jew shall not be proceeded against in judgment, except in the schools or where all the Jews are adjudicated; saving Us and our Palatine, who may summon them to our presence.

31. According to the ordinances of the Pope, in the name of our Holy Father, we strictly prohibit that, henceforth, no Jew in our Dominion should be accused that they would make use of human blood, because according to the precept of their law, Jews in their entirety absolutely refrain from blood. Yet, if any Jew be blamed for having killed a Christian boy, he ought to be convicted by three Christians and as many Jews, and afterwards proved guilty. Accordingly, this same Jew ought to be punished with the penalty appropriate for the crime committed. If however the aforesaid witnesses and his innocence exculpate him, the Christian [accuser] shall suffer because of his calumny the penalty which the Jew would have had to suffer.
 
32. We furthermore ordain that whatever a Jew has lent, be it gold or  denarii, or silver, the same thing ought to be repaid or returned to him, together with the required interest that has accrued.

33. It is our will that Jews receive in pawn whatever horses, in general, openly and in the light of the day. If however any stolen horse has been discovered by a Christian at a Jew’s, the Jew shall exonerate himself by means of his own oath, stating that he took that same horse openly and in the day so that he could have it as a pledge pawned for a certain amount of money and did not suspect it to be stolen.

34. Similarly, we forbid lest minters established in our Dominion dare detain or seize, in whatever way, Jews with false denarii or other things, except exclusively upon our writ or that of our Palatine, or else that of respectable citizens.

35. We hereby ordain that if any Jew compelled by a dire necessity shouts aloud in the time of night and if the neighbouring Christians undertake not to offer him succour, and arrive not at the clamour, every of his neighbouring Christians shall be obligated to pay thirty  soldos.

36. We moreover order that Jews may liberally vend and purchase everything, and touch bread, similarly as Christians do. Those who would prohibit them to do so shall indeed be liable to pay a penalty to our Palatine.

And so that all of the foregoing may obtain the strength of perpetual validity, we have given them this present instrument, with the signatures of the witnesses, for security, also fortifying it by the protection of the seal of ours; the witnesses of this matter verily are: Comes Arbeldus [resp. Archambold], Palatine of Kalisz; Comes Szymon, Castellan of Gniezno; Comes Jan of Kalisz; Comes Maciej, Castellan of Ląd; Comes Cz[ec]hosław, Butler of Kalisz; Comes Dersław, Courser of Ląd; with the other numerous Barons of our Land. Done at the city of Kalisz, on the day following the day of the Assumption of the B[lessed] V[irgin] M[ary], in the Year of our Lord one-thousand two-hundred and sixty-four, on this sixteenth day of August.


0 Comments

September 7, 1652 - The Guo Huaiyi rebellion begins on Dutch Formosa (modern Taiwan)

9/7/2021

0 Comments

 
PictureFlag of the Dutch East India Company
The Guo Huaiyi rebellion (also spelled Kuo Huai-i Rebellion) was a peasant revolt by Chinese farmers against Dutch rule in Taiwan in 1652. Sparked by dissatisfaction with heavy Dutch taxation on them but not the aborigines and extortion by low-ranking Dutch officials and servicemen, the rebellion initially gained ground before being crushed by a coalition of Dutch soldiers and their aboriginal allies. It is considered the most important uprising against the Dutch during the 37-year period of their colonization of Taiwan.

The burden of Dutch taxes on the Chinese inhabitants of Taiwan was a source of much resentment. The falling price of venison, a chief export of the island at the time, hit licensed hunters hard, as the cost of the licenses was based on meat prices before the depreciation. The head tax (which only applied to Chinese, not aborigines) was also deeply unpopular, and thirdly, petty corruption amongst Dutch soldiers further angered the Chinese residents.

​The revolt was led by Guo Huaiyi (Chinese: 郭懷一; 1603–1652), a sugarcane farmer and militia leader originally from Quanzhou known to the Dutch by the name Gouqua Faijit, or Gouqua Faet. After his planning for an insurrection on 17 September 1652 was leaked to the Dutch authorities, he decided to waste no time in attacking Fort Provintia, which at the time was only surrounded by a bamboo wall. On the night of 7 September the rebels, mostly peasants-farmers armed with bamboo spears, stormed the fort.

The following morning a company of 120 Dutch musketeers came to the rescue of their trapped countrymen, firing steadily into the besieging rebel forces and breaking them. Governor Nicolas Verburg On 11 September the Dutch learned that the rebels had massed just north of the principal Dutch settlement of Tayouan. Sending a large force of Dutch soldiers and aboriginal warriors, they met the rebels that day in battle and emerged victorious, mainly due to the superior weaponry of the Europeans.

Over the following days, the remnants of Guo's army were either slaughtered by aboriginal warriors or melted back into the villages they came from, with Guo Huaiyi himself being shot, then decapitated, with his head displayed on a spike as a warning.  In total some 4,000 Chinese were killed during the five-day uprising, approximately 1 in 10 Chinese living in Taiwan at that time. The Dutch responded by reinforcing Fort Provintia (building brick walls instead of the previous bamboo fence) and by monitoring Chinese settlers more closely. However, they did not address the roots of the concerns which had caused the Chinese to rebel in the first place.

However, the Taiwanese Aboriginal tribes who were previously allied with the Dutch against the Chinese during the Guo Huaiyi Rebellion in 1652 turned against the Dutch during the later Siege of Fort Zeelandia and defected to Koxinga's Chinese forces. The Aboriginals (Formosans) of Sincan defected to Koxinga after he offered them amnesty; they proceeded to work for the Chinese and behead Dutch people in executions. The frontier aborigines in the mountains and plains also surrendered and defected to the Chinese on 17 May 1661, celebrating their freedom from compulsory education under Dutch rule by hunting down and beheading Dutch people and destroying their Christian school textbooks.

0 Comments

September 6, 1870 – Louisa Ann Swain of Laramie, Wyoming becomes the first woman in the United States to cast a vote legally after 1807

9/6/2021

2 Comments

 
PictureLouisa Ann Swain
Louisa Ann Swain (née Gardner; 1800 or 1801 – January 25, 1880) was the first woman in the United States to vote in a general election. She cast her ballot on September 6, 1870, in Laramie, Wyoming.  Or, more precisely she was the first woman to do so legally since 1807.

Born Louisa Ann Gardner, her father was lost at sea when she was young. Her mother then returned to her hometown of Charleston, South Carolina, but also died soon after. Orphaned at the age of 10, Swain was placed in the care of the Charleston Orphan House. In 1814, she and another girl were placed with a family as domestic servants for a period of four years, after which Swain was transferred to another family who requested specifically for her. She stayed with them until 1820, then moved to Baltimore where a year later she married Stephen Swain, who operated a chair factory. They had four children and in the 1830s, Stephen sold his business and the family moved, first to Zanesville, Ohio, and later to Richmond, Indiana. In 1869, the Swains moved to Laramie, Wyoming, to join their son Alfred.

On September 6, 1870, she arose early, put on her apron, shawl and bonnet, and walked downtown with a tin pail in order to purchase yeast from a merchant. She walked by the polling place and concluded she would vote while she was there. The polling place had not yet officially opened, but election officials asked her to come in and cast her ballot. She was described by a Laramie newspaper as "a gentle white-haired housewife, Quakerish in appearance". She was 69 years old when she cast the first ballot by any woman in the United States in a general election. Soon after the election, Stephen and Louisa Swain left Laramie and returned to Maryland to live near a daughter. Stephen died October 6, 1872, in Maryland. Louisa died January 25, 1880, in Lutherville, Maryland. She was buried in the Friends Burial Ground on Harford Road in Baltimore.

But how is it that Swain was able to cast this ballot -- and what's all this about women voting before 1807?  Well. therein lie two tales.  First, let's discuss Swain's historic vote.  The true history of the American West has little to do with the image portray in popular films and TV shows, especially with respect to the role women played in the development of the west.  What is more surprising to many is that the prominent role of women was not the result of the American ideal, but of Spanish Colonialism.

Under colonial Spain and newly independent Mexico, married women living in the borderlands of what is now the American Southwest had certain legal advantages not afforded their European-American peers. Under English common law, women, when they married, became feme covert (effectively dead in the eyes of the legal system) and thus unable to own property separately from their husbands. Conversely, Spanish-Mexican women retained control of their land after marriage and held one-half interest in the community property they shared with their spouses.

​There were numerous landed women of note in the West. For example, María Rita Valdez operated Rancho Rodeo de las Aguas, now better known as a center of affluence and glamour: Beverly Hills. (Rodeo Drive takes its name from Rancho Rodeo.) After the U.S.-Mexican War, the del Valle family of Southern California held on to Rancho Camulos, and when Ygnacio, the patriarch, died, his widow Isabel and daughter Josefa successfully took over the ranch’s operations. Other successful entrepreneurs and property holders, who defended their interests in court when necessary, included San Francisco’s Juana Briones, Santa Fe’s Gertrudis Barceló, San Antonio-born María del Carmen Calvillo, and Phoenix’s Trinidad Escalante Swilling. In a frontier environment, they utilized the legal system to their advantage as women unafraid to exert their own authority.

Because women were able to obtain wealth, they also gained political influence, thus it was that when Wyoming became an organized territory in 1869, among the innovations in its political system was suffrage for women -- or at least certain women.  Wyoming’s law allowed certain women over the age of 21 to vote, own property, and serve in office. Women who wanted to cast a vote needed to prove they were seeking citizenship, a requirement that barred Native American and Chinese women from casting votes since at the time they legally could not become U.S. citizens. Black women were able to vote under this law, but it is unknown if any did and Wyoming had very few Black residents at the time. Wyoming’s territorial government had different reasons for granting women the right to vote: some thought it would attract more women to the sparsely populated territory while others thought that women played an important role on the frontier and had a right to decide how the territory should be run.  

According to Laramie and Cheyenne newspapers, Swain became the first woman to legally cast a ballot since 1807 by 30 minutes. Swain’s vote beat that of Augusta C. Howe, the 27-year-old wife of the U.S. Marshall Church Howe of Cheyenne, Wyoming.  At the time, however, the "since 1807" was not part of the story.  Which brings us to the second tale -- the right of women to vote in New Jersey from 1776 to 1807.

No one knows whether New Jersey meant to do it. Later though, the state constitution’s signers made it clear they meant to keep it. In the summer of 1776, the colonies were about to collectively declare independence, and the Provincial Congress in Trenton was in a rush to write a state constitution. The state’s framers wrote and passed it in only five days. In the document, where it explains rules for elected officials, the governor is referred to as “he”; each assembly member, “he”; each county’s sheriff and its coroners, a “he.” But for some reason, when it describes the rules for the electorate, it says “they.” All inhabitants who are worth at least 50 pounds and have lived in New Jersey for a year, “they” shall have the right to vote.

And that is how, for the first three decades of American independence, it was legal for some New Jersey women to vote, more than a century before the passage of the 19th Amendment. Even if it started out as an accidental loophole, a 1790 statute clarified that “they” meant “he or she” in seven New Jersey counties with large Quaker populations. In 1797, another statute expanded female suffrage from those counties to the entire state. For decades, there has been mostly anecdotal evidence that any women actually used this right — newspaper accounts complaining about women voting, and a copy of a poll list with two names that could have been women’s names, or men’s names incorrectly transcribed.

“This is the kind of detective work that historians love, because it’s an untold story,” said Philip Mead, chief historian at the Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia.  Starting in 2018, museum staff led by curatorial fellow Marcela Micucci dug into the New Jersey State Archives, local historical societies and other cultural institutions looking for harder evidence.  After months of searching, they hit pay dirt.  "We found a poll list … from an election in Montgomery Township, Somerset County, in October of 1801. There were 343 voters on that list and 46 of them were women,” Micucci told The Washington Post. “I barged into [Mead’s] office, the list printed out in my hands, jumping up and down. It was very exciting.”

Since then, museum researchers have found 18 more poll lists, ranging from 1797 to 1807, nine of which contain women’s names. In total, they have identified 163 women who voted.  “This was not just some women, but quite a substantial number of women,” Micucci said.

So how did New Jersey women lose the vote?

In a most American way — on the altar of partisan politics.  By the time Washington left office in 1797, fights between the nascent political parties — the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans — were becoming so bitter that the first president spent much of his farewell address warning against them.

The situation worsened over the next decade, and with that came a rise in accusations of voter fraud. In 1802, political leaders in Hunterdon County urged the New Jersey legislature to overturn a local election, claiming some people on the poll lists were Philadelphia residents, immigrants, enslaved and, in particular, married women, Micucci said.

In 1806 in Essex County, women and people of color were blamed again when more votes were mysteriously cast than there were eligible voters.  “This was a moment, in 1807, where Americans were having serious doubts about their democracy,” Mead said. “I think [legislators] were looking for a big action they could take to restore confidence in the voting system, and they crudely scapegoated women, people of color, immigrants.” The law was changed to remove the property requirement and limit the franchise to White men only.


2 Comments

September 5, 1774 – First Continental Congress assembles in Philadelphia.

9/5/2021

0 Comments

 
PictureCarpenter's Hall -- Meeting Place of the First Continental Congress
The First Continental Congress met briefly in Carpenter's Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from September 5 to October 26, 1774. Delegates from twelve of the thirteen colonies that would ultimately join in the Revolutionary War participated. Only Georgia, where Loyalist feelings still outweighed Patriotic emotion, and which relied upon Great Britain for military supplies to defend settlers against possible Indian attacks, did not. Altogether, 56 delegates attended, including George Washington, Patrick Henry, and John Adams. Other notable delegates included Samuel Adams from Massachusetts Bay, along with Joseph Galloway and John Dickinson from the Pennsylvania. Peyton Randolph of Virginia was its president.

Benjamin Franklin had put forth the idea of such a meeting the year before, but he was unable to convince the colonies of its necessity until the British Navy instituted a blockade of Boston Harbor and Parliament passed the punitive Intolerable Acts in 1774 in response to the Boston Tea Party. During the congress, delegates organized an economic boycott of Great Britain in protest and petitioned the King for a redress of grievances. The colonies were united in their effort to demonstrate to the mother country their authority by virtue of their common causes and their unity; but their ultimate objectives were not consistent. Most delegates were not yet ready to break away from Great Britain, but they most definitely wanted the king and parliament to act in what they considered a fairer manner. Delegates from the provinces of Pennsylvania and New York were given firm instructions to pursue a resolution with Great Britain. While the other colonies all held the idea of colonial rights as paramount, they were split between those who sought legislative equality with Britain and those who instead favored independence and a break from the Crown and its excesses.

The primary accomplishment of the First Continental Congress was a compact among the colonies to boycott British goods beginning on December 1, 1774, unless parliament should rescind the Intolerable Acts. While delegates convened in the First Continental Congress, fifty-one women in Edenton, North Carolina formed their own association in response to the Intolerable Acts that focused on producing goods for the colonies. Additionally, Great Britain's colonies in the West Indies were threatened with a boycott unless they agreed to non-importation of British goods. Imports from Britain dropped by 97 percent in 1775, compared with the previous year. Committees of observation and inspection were to be formed in each Colony to ensure compliance with the boycott. It was further agreed that if the Intolerable Acts were not repealed, the colonies would also cease exports to Britain after September 10, 1775.

The Houses of Assembly of each participating colony approved the proceedings of the Congress, with the exception of New York. The boycott was successfully implemented, but its potential for altering British colonial policy was cut off by the outbreak of hostilities in April 1775. Congress also voted to meet again the following year if their grievances were not addressed satisfactorily. Anticipating that there would be cause to convene a second congress, delegates resolved to send letters of invitation to those colonies that had not joined them in Philadelphia, including: Quebec, Saint John's Island, Nova Scotia, Georgia, East Florida, and West Florida.[ Of these, only Georgia would ultimately send delegates to the next Congress.

0 Comments

September 4, 1957 – The Little Rock Crisis: begins as  Gov. Orval Fabus  calls out the National Guard to prevent African American students from enrolling in Little Rock Central High School.

9/4/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483, on May 17, 1954. Tied to the 14th Amendment, the decision declared all laws establishing segregated schools to be unconstitutional, and it called for the desegregation of all schools throughout the nation.[ After the decision, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) attempted to register black students in previously all-white schools in cities throughout the South. In Little Rock, Arkansas, the school board agreed to comply with the high court's ruling. Virgil Blossom, the Superintendent of Schools, submitted a plan of gradual integration to the school board on May 24, 1955, which the board unanimously approved. The plan would be implemented during the fall of the 1957 school year, which would begin in September 1957.

By 1957, the NAACP had registered nine black students to attend the previously all-white Little Rock Central High, selected on the criteria of excellent grades and attendance.[2] Called the "Little Rock Nine", they were Ernest Green (b. 1941), Elizabeth Eckford (b. 1941), Jefferson Thomas (1942–2010), Terrence Roberts (b. 1941), Carlotta Walls LaNier (b. 1942), Minnijean Brown (b. 1941), Gloria Ray Karlmark (b. 1942), Thelma Mothershed (b. 1940), and Melba Pattillo Beals (b. 1941). Ernest Green was the first African American to graduate from Central High School.

When integration began on September 4, 1957, the Arkansas National Guard was called in to "preserve the peace". Originally at orders of the governor, they were meant to prevent the black students from entering due to claims that there was "imminent danger of tumult, riot and breach of peace" at the integration. However, President Eisenhower issued Executive order 10730, which federalized the Arkansas National Guard and ordered them, as well as a detachment of the 101st Airborne Division stationed at Jacksonville, Arkansas, abut 10 miles from Little Rock. to support the integration on September 23 of that year, after which they protected the African American students, who became known in Civil Rights history as the Little Rock Nine.

0 Comments

September 3, 301 – San Marino, one of the smallest nations in the world and the world's oldest republic still in existence, is founded by Saint Marinus; or maybe its one of the newest nations at just 48 years old  . . . Wait . . . What?

9/3/2021

0 Comments

 
PictureThe Statutes, Decrees, and Ordinances of the Serene Republic and the Perpetual Freedom of the Land of San Marino -- the oldest national constitution still in effect was adopted in 1600 -- but its "Bill of Rights" did not come along for another 374 years.
There is a tendency among modern people, especially in the United States, to think of the concepts of democracy and republicanism as having developed only in the Age of Enlightenment.  While they will acknowledge that these ideas were present in Ancient Greece and Rome, they contend that "true" democracy is a relatively modern concept.  The people of the tiny nation officially know as the Most Serene Republic of San Marino would disagree, because their state, isolated in the mountains and valleys of Italy's Apennine region, has been a republic with a democratically elected for over 1,300 years, or perhaps is is about 700 years, or possibly just over 400. or maybe just over 40.  .

The country derives its name from Saint Marinus, a stonemason from the then-Roman island of Rab in present-day Croatia. Born in AD 275, Marinus participated in the rebuilding of city walls of Rimini on Italy's Adriatic coast after their destruction by Liburnian pirates. Marinus then went on to found an independently ruled monastic community on Mount Titan, about ten miles inland from Rimini, in AD 301; thus, San Marino lays claim to being the oldest extant sovereign state, as well as the oldest constitutional republic.

Uniquely, San Marino's constitution dictates that its democratically elected legislature, the Grand and General Council, must elect two heads of state every six months. Known as Captains Regent, the two heads of state serve concurrently and hold equal powers until their term expires after six months.

So if San Marino has been independent since 301 and self-governing, what's all thus about it being only 1,300 years old.  Therein lies the dabate about what constitutes a "national republic" that is, a nation that is independent, and a territory that is merely a self-governing polity within a nation.  From 301 to 1291, San Marino was self-governing in the sense that  was a monastic community possessed of land.  While it was recognized as not being subject to the laws of government of the Roman Empire or any of the subsequent states that rose and fell on the Italian peninsula  after Empire fell in the West, it was not a truly independent state and could rightly be regarded as the first "papal state" as the territory within Italy controlled by the Roman Catholic Church would subsequently come to be known in the 8th Century.  In 1291, however, the San Marino had from a single monastic community to include a number of nearby town whose populations were mostly free citizens who owned allegiance to  no prince or other noble.  While there was no formal separation from the governance by the Church, 1291 is generally recognized as the date of San Marino's de facto independence from the Church's overlordship.

Nonetheless, while never formally submitting to the Vatican's authority, the state continued to look to the Papal States for protection and was even at times an objective of interest to competing papal claimants.   In 1503, Cesare Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander VI occupied the Republic for six months until his father's successor, Pope Julius II, intervened and restored the country's independence.  On 4 June 1543 Fabiano di Monte San Savino, nephew of the later Pope Julius III, attempted to conquer the republic, but his infantry and cavalry failed as they got lost in a dense fog, which the Sammarinese attributed to Saint Quirinus, whose feast day it was.  

Although governed by some form of elected counsel, first of monks and later of citizens, the Serene Republic's existence was not formally declared in law until October 8, 1600.  It was on this date that San Marino adopted it constitution, officially called the Statuta Decreta ac Ordinamenta Illustric Reipublicae ac Perpetuae libertatis Terram Sancti Marin, or Statutes, Decrees, and Ordinances of the Serene Republic and the Perpetual Freedom of the Land of San Marino.  Curiously, while there may some doubt as to the claim to have been an independent republic from 301, this document is universally recognized as the earliest written constitution still in effect.

The country was occupied on 17 October 1739 by the legate (Papal governor) of Ravenna, Cardinal Giulio Alberoni, but independence was restored by Pope Clement XII on 5 February 1740, the feast day of Saint Agatha, after which she became a patron saint of the republic.

The advance of Napoleon's army in 1797 presented a brief threat to the independence of San Marino, but the country was saved from losing its liberty by one of its regents, Antonio Onofri, who managed to gain the respect and friendship of Napoleon. Due to Onofri's intervention, Napoleon, in a letter delivered to Gaspard Monge, scientist and commissary of the French Government for Science and Art, promised to guarantee and protect the independence of the Republic, even offering to extend its territory according to its needs. The offer was declined by the regents, fearing future retaliation from other states' revanchism.

During the later phase of the Italian unification process in the 19th century, San Marino served as a refuge for many people persecuted because of their support for unification, including Giuseppe Garibaldi and his wife Anita.

The government of San Marino made United States President Abraham Lincoln an honorary citizen. He wrote in reply, saying that the republic proved that "government founded on republican principles is capable of being so administered as to be secure and enduring."

San Marino remained officially neutral in both the First and Second World Wars.  In September 1944, it was briefly occupied by German forces, who were defeated by Allied forces in the Battle of San Marino.

San Marino had the world's first democratically elected communist government – a coalition between the Sammarinese Communist Party and the Sammarinese Socialist Party, which held office between 1945 and 1957.

At the 2020 Summer Olympics, San Marino became the smallest country to earn a medal, as Alessandra Perilli won bronze in the women’s trap shooting event. 

San Marino has the political framework of a parliamentary representative democratic republic: the captains regent are both heads of state and heads of government, and there is a pluriform multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the Grand and General Council. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature.

Every six months, the council elects two captains regents to be the heads of state. The regents are chosen from opposing parties so that there is a balance of power. They serve a six-month term. The investiture of the captains regent takes place on 1 April and 1 October in every year. Once this term is over, citizens have three days in which to file complaints about the captains' activities. If they warrant it, judicial proceedings against the ex-head(s) of state can be initiated.

The practice of having two heads of state, like Roman consuls, chosen in frequent elections, is derived directly from the customs of the Roman Republic. The council is equivalent to the Roman Senate; the captains regent, to the consuls of ancient Rome. It is thought the inhabitants of the area came together as Roman rule collapsed to form a rudimentary government for their own protection from foreign rule.  ​San Marino has had more female heads of state than any other country: 15 as of October 2014, including three who served twice.

So, given its age and the unquestioned position as being governed by the oldest written constitution  still in effect, what this about it being a relatively new state?  This refers to the fact that until July 12, 1974, San Marino had not made provision for the rights of its citizens -- if effect, the Sammarinese had no guarantee of civil liberty.  It was on July 12, 1978 that the Serene Republic finally formally recognized the its Declaration of Citizen Rights the individual liberties that are indispensable to a democratic republic.   Containing a declaration of citizen rights and the fundamental principles of the juridical order of San Marino, the Declaration begins with a repudiation of war. It states the people are sovereign and explains how the separation of powers doctrine is applicable to San Marino. Citizens are guaranteed certain rights including equality, inviolability, freedom, and universal suffrage.  ​The Declaration was amended in 2002, providing further constitutional detail on the organization of government and establishing the Guarantors’ Panel on the Constitutionality of Rules, which is a court responsible for assessing the compliance of laws with respect to the Declaration of Rights.

0 Comments

September 2, 1885 – Rock Springs massacre: In Rock Springs, Wyoming, 150 white miners, who are struggling to unionize so they could strike for better wages and work conditions, attack their Chinese fellow workers killing 28, wounding 15 and forcing se

9/2/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture1885 riot and massacre of Chinese-American coal miners, by white miners. From Harper's Weekly: Harper's Weekly, Vol. 29
​The Rock Springs massacre, also known as the Rock Springs Riot, occurred on September 2, 1885, in the present-day United States city of Rock Springs in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The riot, and resulting massacre of immigrant Chinese miners by white immigrant miners, was the result of racial prejudice toward the Chinese miners, who were perceived to be taking jobs from the white miners. The Union Pacific Coal Department found it economically beneficial to give preference in hiring to Chinese miners, who were willing to work for lower wages than their white counterparts, angering the white miners. When the rioting ended, at least 28 Chinese miners were dead and 15 were injured. Rioters burned 78 Chinese homes, resulting in approximately US$150,000 in property damage.
Tension between whites and Chinese immigrants in the late 19th century American West was particularly high, especially in the decade preceding the violence. The massacre in Rock Springs was one among several instances of violence culminating from years of anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States. The Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 suspended Chinese immigration for ten years, but not before thousands of immigrants came to the American West. Most Chinese immigrants to Wyoming Territory took jobs with the railroad at first, but many ended up employed in coal mines owned by the Union Pacific Railroad. As Chinese immigration increased, so did anti-Chinese sentiment on the part of whites. The Knights of Labor, one of the foremost voices against Chinese immigrant labor, formed a chapter in Rock Springs in 1883, and most rioters were members of that organization. However, no direct connection was ever established linking the riot to the national Knights of Labor organization.

In the immediate aftermath of the riot, United States Army troops were deployed in Rock Springs. They escorted the surviving Chinese miners, most of whom had fled to Evanston, Wyoming, back to Rock Springs a week after the riot. Reaction came swiftly from the era's publications. In Rock Springs, the local newspaper endorsed the outcome of the riot, while in other Wyoming newspapers, support for the riot was limited to sympathy for the causes of the white miners. The massacre in Rock Springs touched off a wave of anti-Chinese violence, especially in the Puget Sound area of Washington Territory.

After the riot in Rock Springs, sixteen men were arrested, including Isaiah Washington, a member-elect to the territorial legislature. The men were taken to jail in Green River, where they were held until after a Sweetwater County grand jury refused to bring indictments. In explaining its decision, the grand jury declared that there was no cause for legal action, stating, in part: "We have diligently inquired into the occurrence at Rock Springs. ... [T]hough we have examined a large number of witnesses, no one has been able to testify to a single criminal act committed by any known white person that day."

Those arrested as suspects in the riot were released a little more than a month later, on October 7, 1885. On their release, they were "...met ... by several hundred men, women and children, and treated to a regular ovation", according to The New York Times. The defendants in the Rock Springs case enjoyed the same broad community consent that lynch mobs often received No person or persons were ever convicted in the violence at Rock Springs.


0 Comments

September 1, 1752 - The "Liberty Bell" arrives in Philadelphia - sort of - maybe

9/1/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
Given its unique place in American culture, it is surprising how little is know of the early history of the "Liberty Bell."  In the date that it first arrived in the city of Philadelphia is not certain, although most sources agree it was sometime in late August or Early September of 1752.  Of course, the arrival of a bell by ship from England, even one the size of the Liberty Bell, was not an uncommon thing and at the time no one realized the significance the bell would play in American History, so it is perhaps not unusual that it's arrival was not recorded with specificity.

Philadelphia's city bell had been used to alert the public to proclamations or civic danger since the city's 1682 founding. The original bell hung from a tree behind the Pennsylvania State House (now known as Independence Hall) and was said to have been brought to the city by its founder, William Penn. In 1751, with a bell tower being built in the Pennsylvania State House, civic authorities sought a bell of better quality that could be heard at a greater distance in the rapidly expanding city. Isaac Norris, speaker of the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly, gave orders to the colony's London agent, Robert Charles, to obtain a "good Bell of about two thousands pound weight".

The bell was to contain an inscription quoting Leviticus ch. 24 v. 10, "Proclaim LIBERTY Throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants Thereof."  Thus began one of the first great myths of the bell, which was that it's inscription was an early statement of colonial desire for independence from England.  However, there is no evidence as to why this particular verse was chosen and at the time there was very little sentiment for independence.  Rather, the prevailing view was that the colonies should be afford equality with, rather than independence from, Great Britain.

Upon its arrival in Philadelphia, the bell was mounted on a stand to test the sound, and at the first strike of the clapper, the bell's rim cracked.  Philadelphia authorities tried to return it by ship, but the master of the vessel that had brought it was unable (or refused) to take it on board.  Thus it had to be recast by a local foundrymen, Pass and Stow.  Though they were inexperienced in bell casting, Pass had headed the Mount Holly Iron Foundry in neighboring New Jersey and came from Malta that had a tradition of bell casting. Stow, on the other hand, was only four years out of his apprenticeship as a brass founder. At Stow's foundry on Second Street, the bell was broken into small pieces, melted down, and cast into a new bell. The two founders decided that the metal was too brittle, and augmented the bell metal by about ten percent, using copper. The bell was ready in March 1753, and Norris reported that the lettering (that included the founders' names and the year) was even clearer on the new bell than on the old.

This we come to the second myth, or perhaps we should say controversy, over the bell.  Because the bell was broken into pieces and entirely recast with additional ore, was it in fact the same bell or a new bell?  The question is more important than a mere sophistry would suggest, because the "English" or "American" nature of the bell became a political tool for, among others, former President Benjamin Harrison, who, speaking as the bell passed through Indianapolis, stated, "This old bell was made in England, but it had to be re-cast in America before it was attuned to proclaim the right of self-government and the equal rights of men."  Accordingly the first (yes, first) recasting of the bell became symbolic well after the fact, with some even claiming that the bell had been deliberately made with poor quality ore to make the bell's proclamation of Liberty to "ring hollow" and it's  recasting was a message to the old country that Americans could take what was English and make it better.  The truth is more likely that the bell's original casters were cutting corners and used inferior ore to reduce expenses.

City officials scheduled a public celebration with free food and drink for the testing of the recast bell. When the bell was struck, it did not break, but the sound produced was described by one hearer as like two coal scuttles being banged together. Mocked by the crowd, Pass and Stow hastily took the bell away and again recast it. When the fruit of the two founders' renewed efforts was brought forth in June 1753, the sound was deemed satisfactory, though Norris indicated that he did not personally like it. The bell was hung in the steeple of the State House the same month.

Dissatisfied with the bell, Norris instructed Charles to order a second one, and see if Lester and Pack would take back the first bell and credit the value of the metal towards the bill. In 1754, the Assembly decided to keep both bells; the new one was attached to the tower clock while the old bell was, by vote of the Assembly, devoted "to such Uses as this House may hereafter appoint." The Pass and Stow bell was used to summon the Assembly.[19] One of the earliest documented mentions of the bell's use is in a letter from Benjamin Franklin to Catherine Ray dated October 16, 1755: "Adieu. The Bell rings, and I must go among the Grave ones, and talk Politiks." The bell was rung in 1760 to mark the accession of George III to the throne. In the early 1760s, the Assembly allowed a local church to use the State House for services and the bell to summon worshipers, while the church's building was being constructed.[20] The bell was also used to summon people to public meetings, and in 1772, a group of citizens complained to the Assembly that the bell was being rung too frequently.

Despite the legends that have grown up about the Liberty Bell, it did not ring on July 4, 1776 (at least not for any reason connected with independence), as no public announcement was made of the Declaration of Independence. When the Declaration was publicly read on July 8, 1776, there was a ringing of bells, and while there is no contemporary account of this particular bell ringing, most authorities agree that the Liberty Bell was among the bells that rang. However, there is some chance that the poor condition of the State House bell tower prevented the bell from ringing.

After Washington's defeat at the Battle of Brandywine on September 11, 1777, the revolutionary capital of Philadelphia was defenseless, and the city prepared for what was seen as an inevitable British attack. Bells could easily be recast into munitions, and locals feared the Liberty Bell and other bells would meet this fate. The bell was hastily taken down from the tower, and sent by heavily guarded wagon train to the town of Bethlehem. Local wagoneers transported the bell to the Zion German Reformed Church in Northampton Town, now Allentown, where it waited out the British occupation of Philadelphia under the church floor boards. It was returned to Philadelphia in June 1778, after the British departure. With the steeple of the State House in poor condition (the steeple was subsequently torn down and later restored), the bell was placed in storage, and it was not until 1785 that it was again mounted for ringing.

Placed on an upper floor of the State House, the bell was rung in the early years of independence on the Fourth of July and on Washington's Birthday, as well as on Election Day to remind voters to hand in their ballots. It also rang to call students at the University of Pennsylvania to their classes at nearby Philosophical Hall. Until 1799, when the state capital was moved to Lancaster, it again rang to summon legislators into session. When Pennsylvania, having no further use for its State House, proposed to tear it down and sell the land for building lots, the City of Philadelphia purchased the land, together with the building, including the bell, for $70,000, equal to $1,067,431 today. In 1828, the city sold the second Lester and Pack bell to St. Augustine's Roman Catholic Church that was burned down by an anti-Catholic mob in the Philadelphia Nativist Riots of 1844. The remains of the bell were recast; the new bell is now located at Villanova University.

It is uncertain how the bell came to be cracked; the damage occurred sometime between 1817 and 1846. The bell is mentioned in a number of newspaper articles during that time; no mention of a crack can be found until 1846. In fact, in 1837, the bell was depicted in an anti-slavery publication—uncracked. In February 1846 Public Ledger reported that the bell had been rung on February 23, 1846, in celebration of Washington's Birthday (as February 22 fell on a Sunday, the celebration occurred the next day), and also reported that the bell had long been cracked, but had been "put in order" by having the sides of the crack filed. The paper reported that around noon, it was discovered that the ringing had caused the crack to be greatly extended, and that "the old Independence Bell ... now hangs in the great city steeple irreparably cracked and forever dumb".

The most common story about the cracking of the bell is that it happened when the bell was rung upon the 1835 death of the Chief Justice of the United States, John Marshall. This story originated in 1876, when the volunteer curator of Independence Hall, Colonel Frank Etting, announced that he had ascertained the truth of the story. While there is little evidence to support this view, it has been widely accepted and taught. Other claims regarding the crack in the bell include stories that it was damaged while welcoming Lafayette on his return to the United States in 1824, that it cracked announcing the passing of the British Catholic Relief Act 1829, and that some boys had been invited to ring the bell, and inadvertently damaged it. David Kimball, in his book compiled for the National Park Service, suggests that it most likely cracked sometime between 1841 and 1845, either on the Fourth of July or on Washington's Birthday.

The Pass and Stow bell was first termed "the Liberty Bell" in the New York Anti-Slavery Society's journal, Anti-Slavery Record. In an 1835 piece, "The Liberty Bell", Philadelphians were castigated for not doing more for the abolitionist cause. Two years later, in another work of that society, the journal Liberty featured an image of the bell as its frontispiece, with the words "Proclaim Liberty". In 1839, Boston's Friends of Liberty, another abolitionist group, titled their journal The Liberty Bell. The same year, William Lloyd Garrison's anti-slavery publication The Liberator reprinted a Boston abolitionist pamphlet containing a poem entitled "The Liberty Bell" that noted that, at that time, despite its inscription, the bell did not proclaim liberty to all the inhabitants of the land.

A great part of the modern image of the bell as a relic of the proclamation of American independence was forged by writer George Lippard. On January 2, 1847, his story "Fourth of July, 1776" appeared in the Saturday Courier. The short story depicted an aged bellman on July 4, 1776, sitting morosely by the bell, fearing that Congress would not have the courage to declare independence. At the most dramatic moment, a young boy appears with instructions for the old man: to ring the bell. It was subsequently published in Lippard's collected stories. The story was widely reprinted and closely linked the Liberty Bell to the Declaration of Independence in the public mind. The elements of the story were reprinted in early historian Benson J. Lossing's The Pictorial Field Guide to the Revolution (published in 1850) as historical fact,[38] and the tale was widely repeated for generations after in school primers.

In 1848, with the rise of interest in the bell, the city decided to move it to the Assembly Room (also known as the Declaration Chamber) on the first floor, where the Declaration and United States Constitution had been debated and signed. The city constructed an ornate pedestal for the bell. The Liberty Bell was displayed on that pedestal for the next quarter-century, surmounted by an eagle (originally sculpted, later stuffed). In 1853, President Franklin Pierce visited Philadelphia and the bell, and spoke of the bell as symbolizing the American Revolution and American liberty. At the time, Independence Hall was also used as a courthouse, and African-American newspapers pointed out the incongruity of housing a symbol of liberty in the same building in which federal judges were holding hearings under the Fugitive Slave Act.

In February 1861, the President-elect, Abraham Lincoln, came to the Assembly Room and delivered an address en route to his inauguration in Washington DC. In 1865, Lincoln's body was returned to the Assembly Room after his assassination for a public viewing of his body, en route to his burial in Springfield, Illinois. Due to time constraints, only a small fraction of those wishing to pass by the coffin were able to; the lines to see the coffin were never less than 3 miles (4.8 km) long. Nevertheless, between 120,000 and 140,000 people were able to pass by the open casket and then the bell, carefully placed at Lincoln's head so mourners could read the inscription, "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."

In 1876, city officials discussed what role the bell should play in the nation's Centennial festivities. Some wanted to repair it so it could sound at the Centennial Exposition being held in Philadelphia, but the idea was not adopted; the bell's custodians concluded that it was unlikely that the metal could be made into a bell that would have a pleasant sound, and that the crack had become part of the bell's character. Instead, a replica weighing 13,000 pounds (5,900 kg) (1,000 pounds for each of the original states) was cast. The metal used for what was dubbed "the Centennial Bell" included four melted-down cannons: one used by each side in the American Revolutionary War, and one used by each side in the Civil War. That bell was sounded at the Exposition grounds on July 4, 1876, was later recast to improve the sound, and today is the bell attached to the clock in the steeple of Independence Hall. While the Liberty Bell did not go to the Exposition, a great many Exposition visitors came to visit it, and its image was ubiquitous at the Exposition grounds—myriad souvenirs were sold bearing its image or shape, and state pavilions contained replicas of the bell made of substances ranging from stone to tobacco. In 1877, the bell was hung from the ceiling of the Assembly Room by a chain with thirteen links.

Between 1885 and 1915, the Liberty Bell made seven trips to various expositions and celebrations. Each time, the bell traveled by rail, making a large number of stops along the way so that local people could view it. By 1885, the Liberty Bell was widely recognized as a symbol of freedom, and as a treasured relic of Independence, and was growing still more famous as versions of Lippard's legend were reprinted in history and school books. In early 1885, the city agreed to let it travel to New Orleans for the World Cotton Centennial exposition. Large crowds mobbed the bell at each stop. In Biloxi, Mississippi, the former President of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis came to the bell. Davis delivered a speech paying homage to it, and urging national unity.[51] In 1893, it was sent to Chicago's World Columbian Exposition to be the centerpiece of the state's exhibit in the Pennsylvania Building. On July 4, 1893, in Chicago, the bell was serenaded with the first performance of The Liberty Bell March, conducted by "America's Bandleader", John Philip Sousa. Philadelphians began to cool to the idea of sending it to other cities when it returned from Chicago bearing a new crack, and each new proposed journey met with increasing opposition. It was also found that the bell's private watchman had been cutting off small pieces for souvenirs. The city placed the bell in a glass-fronted oak case. In 1898, it was taken out of the glass case and hung from its yoke again in the tower hall of Independence Hall, a room that would remain its home until the end of 1975. A guard was posted to discourage souvenir hunters who might otherwise chip at it.

By 1909, the bell had made six trips, and not only had the cracking become worse, but souvenir hunters had deprived it of over one percent of its weight. (Its weight was reported as 2,080 lb (940 kg) in 1904. When, in 1912, the organizers of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition requested the bell for the 1915 fair in San Francisco, the city was reluctant to let it travel again. The city finally decided to let it go as the bell had never been west of St. Louis, and it was a chance to bring it to millions who might never see it otherwise. However, in 1914, fearing that the cracks might lengthen during the long train ride, the city installed a metal support structure inside the bell, generally called the "spider." In February 1915, the bell was tapped gently with wooden mallets to produce sounds that were transmitted to the fair as the signal to open it, a transmission that also inaugurated transcontinental telephone service. Some five million Americans saw the bell on its train journey west. It is estimated that nearly two million kissed it at the fair, with an uncounted number viewing it. The bell was taken on a different route on its way home; again, five million saw it on the return journey. Since the bell returned to Philadelphia, it has been moved out of doors only five times: three times for patriotic observances during and after World War I, and twice as the bell occupied new homes in 1976 and 2003. Chicago and San Francisco had obtained its presence after presenting petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of children. Chicago tried again, with a petition signed by 3.4 million schoolchildren, for the 1933 Century of Progress Exhibition and New York presented a petition to secure a visit from the bell for the 1939 New York World's Fair. Both efforts failed.

In 1924, one of Independence Hall's exterior doors was replaced by glass, allowing some view of the bell even when the building was closed. When Congress enacted the nation's first peacetime draft in 1940, the first Philadelphians required to serve took their oaths of enlistment before the Liberty Bell. Once the war started, the bell was again a symbol, used to sell war bonds. In the early days of World War II, it was feared that the bell might be in danger from saboteurs or enemy bombing, and city officials considered moving the bell to Fort Knox, to be stored with the nation's gold reserves. The idea provoked a storm of protest from around the nation, and was abandoned. Officials then considered building an underground steel vault above which it would be displayed, and into which it could be lowered if necessary. The project was dropped when studies found that the digging might undermine the foundations of Independence Hall. On December 17, 1944, the Whitechapel Bell Foundry offered to recast the bell at no cost as a gesture of Anglo-American friendship. The bell was again tapped on D-Day, as well as in victory on V-E Day and V-J Day.

After World War II, and following considerable controversy, the City of Philadelphia agreed that it would transfer custody of the bell and Independence Hall, while retaining ownership, to the federal government. The city would also transfer various colonial-era buildings it owned. Congress agreed to the transfer in 1948, and three years later Independence National Historical Park was founded, incorporating those properties and administered by the National Park Service (NPS or Park Service).[70] The Park Service would be responsible for maintaining and displaying the bell.[71] The NPS would also administer the three blocks just north of Independence Hall that had been condemned by the state, razed, and developed into a park, Independence Mall.[70]

In the postwar period, the bell became a symbol of freedom used in the Cold War. The bell was chosen for the symbol of a savings bond campaign in 1950. The purpose of this campaign, as Vice President Alben Barkley put it, was to make the country "so strong that no one can impose ruthless, godless ideologies on us". In 1955, former residents of nations behind the Iron Curtain were allowed to tap the bell as a symbol of hope and encouragement to their compatriots. Foreign dignitaries, such as Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and West Berlin Mayor Ernst Reuter were brought to the bell, and they commented that the bell symbolized the link between the United States and their nations. During the 1960s, the bell was the site of several protests, both for the civil rights movement, and by various protesters supporting or opposing the Vietnam War.

Almost from the start of its stewardship, the Park Service sought to move the bell from Independence Hall to a structure where it would be easier to care for the bell and accommodate visitors. The first such proposal was withdrawn in 1958, after considerable public protest. The Park Service tried again as part of the planning for the 1976 United States Bicentennial. The Independence National Historical Park Advisory Committee proposed in 1969 that the bell be moved out of Independence Hall, as the building could not accommodate the millions expected to visit Philadelphia for the Bicentennial. In 1972, the Park Service announced plans to build a large glass tower for the bell at the new visitors center at South Third Street and Chestnut Street, two blocks east of Independence Hall, at a cost of $5 million, but citizens again protested the move. Instead, in 1973, the Park Service proposed to build a smaller glass pavilion for the bell at the north end of Independence Mall, between Arch and Race Streets. Philadelphia Mayor Frank Rizzo agreed with the pavilion idea, but proposed that the pavilion be built across Chestnut Street from Independence Hall, which the state feared would destroy the view of the historic building from the mall area. Rizzo's view prevailed, and the bell was moved to a glass-and-steel Liberty Bell Pavilion, about 200 yards (180 m) from its old home at Independence Hall, as the Bicentennial year began.

During the Bicentennial, members of the Procrastinators' Club of America jokingly picketed the Whitechapel Bell Foundry with signs "We got a lemon" and "What about the warranty?" The foundry told the protesters that it would be glad to replace the bell—so long as it was returned in the original packaging. In 1958, the foundry (then trading under the name Mears and Stainbank Foundry) had offered to recast the bell, and was told by the Park Service that neither it nor the public wanted the crack removed. The foundry was called upon, in 1976, to cast a full-size replica of the Liberty Bell (known as the Bicentennial Bell) that was presented to the United States by the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, and was housed in the tower once intended for the Liberty Bell, at the former visitor center on South Third Street.

Today, the Liberty Bell weighs 2,080 pounds (940 kg). Its metal is 70% copper and 25% tin, with the remainder consisting of lead, zinc, arsenic, gold and silver. It hangs from what is believed to be its original yoke, made from American elm. While the crack in the bell appears to end at the abbreviation "Philada" in the last line of the inscription, that is merely the 19th century widened crack that was filed out in the hopes of allowing the bell to continue to ring; a hairline crack, extending through the bell to the inside continues generally right and gradually moving to the top of the bell, through the word "and" in "Pass and Stow," then through the word "the" before the word "Assembly" in the second line of text, and through the letters "rty" in the word "Liberty" in the first line. The crack ends near the attachment with the yoke.

0 Comments

August 31, 1798 – Irish rebels, with French assistance, establish the short-lived Republic of Connacht.

8/31/2021

0 Comments

 
PictureFlag of the Irish Republic of Connacht
The Irish Republic of 1798, more commonly known as the Republic of Connacht, was a short-lived state proclaimed during the Irish Rebellion of 1798 that resulted from the French Revolutionary Wars. A client state of the French Republic, it theoretically covered the whole island of Ireland, but its functional control was limited to only very small parts of the Province of Connacht. Opposing British forces were deployed across most of the country including the main towns such as Dublin, Belfast and Cork.

At the time of the Rebellion of 1798 a force of 1,000 French soldiers under General Humbert landed at Killala in County Mayo. General Humbert proclaimed the Irish Republic in his declaration to the people upon landing in Ireland on 22 August 1798:

LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY, UNION, After several unsuccessful attempts, behold at last Frenchmen arrived amongst you... Union, Liberty, the Irish Republic! Such is our shout. Let us march. Our hearts are devoted to you; our glory is in your happiness.

After the nascent Republic's victory at the Battle of Castlebar which took place on 27 August 1798, General Humbert, on 31 August 1798, issued the following decree, which inter alia appointed John Moore as the President of the Government of the Province of Connacht:

Army Of Ireland
Liberty, Equality
Head quarters at Castlebar, 14th Fructidor, sixth Year of the French Republic, One and Indivisible.
General Humbert, Commander in Chief of the Army of Ireland, desirous of organising with the least possible delay, an administrative power for the Province of Connaught, decrees as follows:
  1. The Government of the Province of Connaught shall reside at Castlebar till further orders.
  2. The Government shall be composed of twelve members, who shall be named by the General-in-chief of the French Army.
  3. Citizen JOHN MOORE is named President of the Government of the Province of Connaught, he is specially entrusted with the nomination and reunion of the members of the Government.
  4. The Government shall occupy itself immediately in organising the Military power of the Province of Connaught, and with providing subsistence for the French and Irish Armies.
  5. There shall be organised eight regiments of infantry, each of twelve hundred men, and four regiments of cavalry, each of six hundred men.
  6. The Government shall declare rebels and traitors to the country all those who having received clothing and arms, shall not join the army within four and twenty hours.
  7. Every individual from sixteen years of age to forty, inclusive, is REQUIRED in the name of the Irish Republic, to betake himself instantly to the French Camp, to march in a mass against the common enemy, the Tyrant of ANGLICIZED IRELAND, whose destruction alone can establish the independence and happiness of ANCIENT HIBERNIA.
    — General Humbert, Commanding-in-Chief

​On 8 September 1798, just over a week after its proclamation, the progress of the new Republic was ended at the Battle of Ballinamuck. President Moore was captured by the British in Castlebar under Lieut.-Col. Crawford. He died while in custody the following year. General Humbert and his men were taken by canal to Dublin and repatriated. The British army then slowly spread out into the rebel held Province of Connacht in a brutal campaign of killing and house burning which reached its climax on 23 September 1798 when Killala was stormed and retaken with much slaughter. Members of the Irish Republic such as George Blake were hunted down and hanged with many other suspected insurgents including Fr Andrew Conroy who led French and Irish forces to Castlebar through the bogs west of Lough Conn.[

0 Comments

August 30, 1917 – Vietnamese prison guards led by Trịnh Văn Cấn mutiny at the Thái Nguyên penitentiary against local French authority.

8/29/2021

0 Comments

 
The Thái Nguyên uprising (Vietnamese: Khởi nghĩa Thái Nguyên) in 1917 has been described as the "largest and most destructive" anti-French rebellion in Vietnam (then part of French Indochina) between the Pacification of Tonkin in the 1880s and the Nghe-Tinh Revolt of 1930–31. On 30 August 1917, an eclectic band of political prisoners, common criminals and insubordinate prison guards mutinied at the Thai Nguyen Penitentiary, the largest one in the region. The rebels came from over thirty provinces and according to estimates, involved at some point roughly 300 civilians, 200 ex-prisoners and 130 prison guards.

The initial success of the rebels was short-lived. They managed to control the prison and the town's administrative buildings for six days, but were all expelled on the seventh day by French government reinforcements. According to French reports 107 were killed on the colonial side and fifty-six on the anti-colonial, including Quyen. French forces were not able to pacify the surrounding countryside until six months later. Can reportedly committed suicide in January 1918 to avoid capture. Both Quyen and Can have since been accorded legendary status as nationalist heroes.
0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    CTROL Blog

    This blog will be used by Center Staff to post articles addressing issues concerning the Rule of Law and how it is taught and understood in our communities, nation, and world.

    Categories

    All
    American Revolution
    Capital Punishment
    Civil Disobedience
    Civil Law
    Civil Rights Movement
    Colonialism
    Criminal Law
    Death Penalty
    Economic Equltiy
    Economics
    Editorials
    Educators
    Fractured History
    Freedom Of Religion
    Freedom Of Speech
    Gender Equality
    Government
    Historical Sources For The Rule Of Law
    Immigration
    Indigenous People
    International
    Jim Crow
    Labor
    Laws
    Literature
    Miscarriage Of Justice
    Nativism
    Property Rights
    Race Relations
    Riots
    Slavery
    Taxation
    The Holocaust
    Today In The History Of The Rule Of Law
    Trials
    United States Supreme Court
    US Constitution
    Vigilantism
    Voting Rights
    Women Of Note
    World War II

    RSS Feed

About

Vision
Rule of Law Project
Rule of Law Blog
​Site Map
Navigation Help

Offerings

Educator Resources
Student Resources
Attorney Engagement
Community Engagement

Contact and Support CTROL

Contact
Support
Privacy Policy
​Contact the Webmaster
© COPYRIGHT 2009-2021. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.