For those of you interested in reading Sen. Marco Rubio’s letter to President Obama, calling on him to renounce a debt ceiling increase, click on the link below.
1.6.12 – Obama Debt Ceiling Letter – FINAL.
Latest
When Governments Fail
One of my pet peeves – ok, my biggest peeve – is that government doesn’t understand it’s role in society. In particular, one of the overarching themes I find disturbing is how government thinks it knows how best to serve the citizenry. The reality is that government, even when it means well, generally manages to get things wrong. Bureaucrats being bureaucrats, the law of unintended consequences is never taken into account. People’s lives are destroyed in a sort of “collateral damage.”
It doesn’t only happen at the Federal level, where the Great Society ushered in the era of society-killing programs. (Think how many families end up dissolving so the mother can receive food stamps). No, it happens all the way down to the local level. Consider the case of the Lakewood (NJ) “Tent City.” I realize most of you reading this have no idea what I’m talking about, so here’s a little background. In 2006, before the Great Recession hit the nation as a whole, Ocean County experienced a dramatic increase in the homeless population. A largely rural area where the principle economic driver is tourism, there are neither facilities nor public funds available to assist the homeless. The nearest homeless shelter is located in Atlantic City; they don’t have the ability to house people except in the short-term and most of their resources are dedicated to the types of problems found in inner-city homeless populations (things like rampant drug and alcohol abuse, for instance). A local pastor, Steve Brigham of the Lakewood Outreach Ministry, saw a need in his community and took action. With a few tents set up in the woods, the Lakewood Tent City was born. With no public funding, Pastor Steve has established a community that at times has housed as many as 76 people. The rules are simple and direct: no drugs, no alcohol, everyone pitches in and everyone has to be actively looking for work (or working).
Lakewood Tent City Chapel
Why local government feels the need to get involved in this ministry is still an open question. The tent city is located in the woods and doesn’t infringe on anyone’s property rights. Nor is it located on public parklands or other facilities. The town has attempted several time to evict the campers, with the most recent rejection of their efforts coming earlier today. Their court pleadings have included the usual, such as health and safety concerns. Yet, by all accounts, this hasn’t been an issue at the tent city – as opposed to most of the “Occupy” encampments from this past fall. No, I suspect the real issue here is that a sole individual used a bit of initiative and with a few hundred dollars of private fundraising accomplished something the county said for years it couldn’t: established a viable homeless shelter. No, it’s far from an ideal solution. These are still tents pitched in the woods, without electricity, running water or heat. But it has provided a sense of community and support for those people that would otherwise fall through the cracks.
And I wasn’t kidding about a few hundred dollars in private donations. A perfect example is Heather Skolsky, who became involved after her cousin stayed at the tent city in 2006. (He now lives in New York and works for the Salvation Army). Her first fundraising effort yielded about $300, a few blankets and other supplies. This weekend she’s organized a benefit concert. These are the types of results that government can’t seem to replicate – and remains dedicated to stopping.
So, what can you do? For starters, look around your own communities. Odds are, you’ll find similar organizations in need of help and under assault from local officials. Of course, if you want to help out Pastor Steve in his mission, you can click here to give a donation. If you’re in the Lakewood area, you can always stop by to lend a hand. And if you’re interested in attending the benefit, I’ve included those details below.
The point is this: too often we’ve forgotten the meaning behind JFK’s inaugural address in 1961. While we all remember the words, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country,” the reality is that the socialist left still prefers government action to citizen initiatives. In the process, they’ve made programs like the Lakewood Tent City persona non grata in the eyes of the public – even though they create far better results at far less cost than similar government programs. Something to keep in mind the next time someone tells you that government assistance programs are “needed.”
To attend the Lakewood Tent City Benefit tomorrow night:
High Velocity Sports Bar, Rte 166, Beachwood NJ
Doors open 9:30pm. Cash bar, cash donations and/or donations of winter camping gear. For more info, call 732-600-7432 or email Laurens72882@comcast.net
Reexamining Rick Perry
After sounding for all the world as if he were dropping out of the Republican primary race Wednesday morning, Rick Perry tweeted he wasn’t less than 12 hours later (said tweet included the picture to the left).
It’s yet another mystifying twist for the Texas governor, who has managed to parlay what was once strong conservative support into a mere 10% finish in the Iowa caucuses. This is despite the fact that he is telegenic, has an immense campaign war chest, the Super PAC “Make us Great Again” is in his corner and has a history of job creation in his home state that should play well in this year’s campaign cycle. Despite these advantages, Perry’s poll numbers continue to drop precipitously. For the past month, he has basically tracked at around 6% nationally; suggesting his relatively good showing in Iowa may be an outlier and portend even worse electoral showings in the future.
There are several reasons that the more the country has gotten the chance to know Rick Perry, the more his numbers drop.
- Public speaking isn’t a strong suit: For most of us, this would be problematic. For a politician, it’s failing at their bread and butter. Perry often comes across in public speaking engagements as befuddled. That may actually be a kind way of expressing his speaking abilities. The reality is he is cringe-inducing when on stage, whether reading from prepared statements or trying to speak “off-the-cuff.” Anyone who watched his bumbling attempts at reading a campaign activist’s letter the other night couldn’t have been impressed. It’s a continuation of a theme that began in earnest with his debate performances (or rather, non-performances). Perry supporters continually dismiss his speaking ability is irrelevant, but the American people have a different opinion. Why? Anyone who has ever taken a public speaking course knows the answer. How you speak in public conveys hidden information regarding your confidence and intelligence. If you want to be seriously considered as Presidential material, it’s fine to be an average speaker. But turning in performances that wouldn’t be suitable for kindergarten won’t win you many votes.
- Illegal Immigration: Perry actually has strong record on attempting to get the Federal government to live up to its responsibility in maintaining border security. That includes urging the current administration to assign National Guard units to patrol the border between Texas and Mexico. Unfortunately for him, he was side-swiped by a decision he made to offer in-state tuition rates to the children of illegal immigrants in Texas. For immigration hard-liners (for whom, nothing short of execution will seem satisfy them), this was a couple of steps too far. Having a moderate position regarding immigration isn’t really anathema to Republican rank-and-file (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both shared similar values), but there is a hard core movement on the right that absolutely refuses to address immigration pragmatically. Rather than take time to fully outline his immigration policy (a sensible plan, that actually reinforces the American ideals of fairness while adopting a tough stance on border security), Perry has vacillated on the issue under the heat of public scrutiny.
- The HPV Mess and privacy rights: In 2007, Governor Perry mandated that underage girls be given the HPV vaccine. His motives sound reasonable. After all, cancer is a terrible disease and a vaccine that can help prevent a form should be lauded. But the mandate runs afoul of several long-standing conservative principles. First is that conservatives (and most liberals, as well) have an aversion to the idea the government can determine what is best for our children. Second is the idea that the government can enforce rules regarding our personal health. Finally, while not particularly vocalized but certainly an affront to religious conservatives, is that the vaccine is used to prevent a sexually transmitted disease in underage girls. It certainly didn’t help Perry’s case when Merck, the maker of the vaccine, was found to have made significant contributions to the Perry campaign. He has attempted to disavow the mandate since, but it’s a bit like closing the barn door long after the horse left.
There are other issues that Perry has found himself fending off, such as his supposed Islamic leanings. (Personally, those seem to be fabricated). Undoubtedly, he never counted on facing such intense scrutiny from his right flank but his inability to properly counter says something about his fitness for office. So does his inability to properly staff his campaign, leading to his not being on the Virginia primary ballot. Can Perry overcome the numerous gaffes he and his campaign have made thus far and still win the nomination? If this were any other candidate possessing the campaign money he does, I would say certainly. But I can’t see it happening here. Perry has yet to demonstrate a feel for the national political stage and worse, seems to be slow on the uptake. I suspect more than a belief he can win the nomination is his personal animosity towards Mitt Romney. If preventing Romney from winning the nomination is the overriding reason Perry is staying in the race, I suggest he drop out sooner than later. I don’t see a way this version can sell his candidacy outside of Texas and his staying in the race will only serve to fracture the conservative base of the party. In case anyone else remembers, it was Fred Thompson’s misguided attempt at reviving his campaign in South Carolina that led to John McCain’s coasting to the Republican nomination in 2008. We all should remember how that turned out.
In light of these failings, I urge Governor Perry to exit the race and support the one true conservative left in the race, Senator Rick Santorum.
Santorum v. Perry
Well, well. It seems Rick Perry took one look at his war chest and decided he’s back in the race. About 12 hours after a dejected and deflated Perry seemingly left the race, he tweeted he was back in. Only caveat: he appears to be bypassing New Hampshire entirely and going for broke in South Carolina.
Skipping New Hampshire makes sense for Perry. That’s Mitt Romney’s back yard and Romney is expected to crush his competition there. Unfortunately for Granite Staters, it makes their primary virtually irrelevant, barring another Rick Santorum miracle or surprise from Jon Huntsman.
No, the real battle becomes a fight for the anti-Romney vote in South Carolina. Perry, well financed but bumbling vs. Rick Santorum, newly minted as the anti-Romney favorite. It should be fun to watch the two conservatives with vastly different styles going after the same voters. Will Perry’s southern charm and immense campaign coffers allow him to overcome the fact he can’t seem to utter a coherent sentence in public? Or will Santorum’s down-to-earth, middle-class sensibilities combine with his oratorical repertoire in wooing over South Carolina’s conservative base?
We’ll know the answer in 16 days. Until then, game on!
5 Things Iowa Taught Us
The Iowa caucuses are over. As usual, they haven’t defined who will win – but they appear to have narrowed the field considerably. Here’s five things other things Iowans clarified last night.
1. The GOP establishment is in trouble: The Republican Old Guard has rallied around Mitt Romney, pitching him as the “electable” candidate who is “inevitable.” They may not say as much, but they have to be worried. Their inevitable candidate has yet to blast through his glass ceiling of support, ending up with only 25% of last night’s vote. Or, to put it in terms they don’t want to hear, 75% of Republican rank-and-file aren’t buying into either the electability or inevitability of Romney – margins eerily similar to the polling prior to the caucus in both Iowa and the national party. They’ll continue to pour in their support (see: John McCain), but Romney is in for a much tougher fight than he or his establishment backers originally thought. A real sign of trouble will be if Romney can’t get past 40% in New Hampshire. If that happens, expect the establishment to really open up with a full barrage – and risk alienating their party’s base of support.
2. Tea Party Conservatives are coalescing: around Rick Santorum. This is the big story out of the caucuses, and already the left is going off a cliff at the idea of a legitimate Santorum candidacy. The real question is how far can Santorum go? He has limited funding and a skeleton operation. He finished strong in Iowa based on old-fashioned retail politicking, a method which is impossible in a nationwide primary. Still, with Michelle Bachmann now officially out and Rick Perry sounding like he is, Tea Partiers are waking to the realization it’s either Santorum or Gingrich for them – and most have an understandable aversion to Newt. Romney may think Santorum will be easy pickings, based on the latter’s lack of political organization. But, the existing Tea Party groups (such as Tea Party Express) may give Santorum all the organization he needs to compete. If they publicly endorse Santorum in the coming days, look for his campaign to take off.
Rick Santorum Celebrates Iowa Win (courtesy: Politico)
3. Newt Gingrich is back in his comfort zone: Newt as the peacemaker never really fit his temperament or his history. Based on his statements leading up to last night’s vote and his remarks after, it sounds as if Newt is going to happily stick around for as long as he can, if just to make life miserable for Romney. Lord knows hell hath no fury like a Gingrich crossed and it looks as if Mitt is about to discover that first hand.
4. The real “flavor of the month” was Ron Paul: No candidate needed a win in Iowa more than Paul. Although he tallied 21% of the vote, the stark reality is that among registered Republicans he only garnered 14%. This comes less than a week after leading all candidates among Republicans in Iowa. It seems once they became familiar with some of his zanier ideas and positions, GOP voters decided a man from Venus wasn’t their best option. Yes, Paul did well in bringing Democrats and independents in to vote for him and the fervor among his disciples is reminiscent of Obama in 2008, but his candidacy is basically over. Look for him to do well in New Hampshire’s open primary, then bolt to challenge Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party nomination after getting whitewashed in South Carolina.
5. The key to the race is still held by Rick Perry: Perry is still officially in the race, although he has gone back to Texas to reexamine his candidacy. Politicians rarely return from self-imposed exile to resume a campaign. However, Perry still has the second largest war chest of any candidate and several PAC’s that were supporting him. Assuming he drops out of the race, the question is: does he keep his money for a potential bid in 2016, or throw that financial might behind a Santorum candidacy? Buoyed by Perry’s finances, Santorum becomes much more formidable – a fact that Perry, who harbors as much (if not more) animosity towards Romney as Gingrich should be all too aware of.
UPDATED 1:02PM: No sooner did I hit publish on this than I read this article from AP, insinuating Perry is going to continue at least through South Carolina. If that is the case (no confirmation yet one way or the other), than point number 5 becomes moot.
UPDATED: Iowa Caucus Results
I’m heading to bed, but as of 11pm Eastern, the results are as follows (88% reporting):
1. Santorum: 25%
2. Romney: 25% (only 13 votes separate these two)
3. Paul: 21%
4. Gingrich: 13%
5: Perry: 10%
6: Bachmann: 5%
Based on this, I’m fully expecting Bachmann to bow out tomorrow. Rick Perry also sounded as if he’s giving up the ship in an interview earlier tonight on Fox.
Stay tuned to this space tomorrow morning for updates.
Update: The final vote tally has Romney edging Santorum by just 8 votes.
Gov. Perry announced last night that he is returning to Texas to determine if his campaign can continue. He has the money, but it doesn’t sound as if he has the will. Bachmann declared she’s in it to win it, but I still expect her to drop out.
Gingrich essentially declared his attempt to remain positive over – while sounding like he’s ready to act as a bulldozer for Santorum.
In their respective speeches, Santorum came across as a sober but ecstatic victor, while Romney gave his standard stump speech – albeit sounding as if he had drunk an industrial sized pot of coffee.
As Santorum announced, it’s “Game On.” See you in New Hampshire!
Conspiracy theorist Ron Paul is unfit to be President – NY Daily News
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
“After 13 debates and most of a year of campaigning, the selection of a Republican nominee begins Tuesday night in Iowa.
“There’s one candidate in the field of seven whom Republicans cannot trust with their votes: Texas Rep. Ron Paul.
“Behind the grandfatherly, unpolished demeanor is a radical with economic and foreign policy views so dangerous they make him utterly unfit to be the party’s nominee, much less commander-in-chief.
“The congressman doesn’t simply want to reform the Federal Reserve bank, one of the pillars of a stable international monetary system. Paul wants to “end the Fed.”
“He doesn’t simply want to shift foreign aid, which, at about 1% of the U.S. budget, is generally a wise investment in saving lives and advancing American values. He wants to eliminate it.
“He views Social Security and Medicare as outright unconstitutional.
“Paul opposes sanctions to stop the Iranian mullahs from acquiring a nuclear weapon. He wants to withdraw all U.S. armed forces from Afghanistan, even if the Taliban and Al Qaeda take over again. He showed his warped thinking in an Op-Ed penned for these pages in October that ludicrously claimed the American drone strike that killed terror master Anwar al-Awlaki violated the Constitution.
“A former senior aide who worked with Paul for 15 years recalls that after the 9/11 attacks, Paul ‘engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA” and “expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11.’
“And we haven’t even mentioned the racially inflammatory and anti-Israel newsletters sent under Paul’s name in the 1980s and 1990s that he disavows and claims he never read.
“Late polls show that this man could win Iowa.
“Republican caucusgoers Tuesday night should do the country a service and bury Paul’s campaign in the cornfields.”
via Conspiracy theorist Ron Paul is unfit to be President – NY Daily News.
Ron Paul Speaks at CPAC (courtesy: NY Daily News)
Don’t Drink the Ron-Aid
Ron Paul, the Libertarian leaning Congressman from Texas, will not get this Libertarian’s vote for President.
This probably comes as a surprise. Given the legions of Ron Paul fans, which appear poised to capture the Iowa caucus for their hero tomorrow, that’s understandable. But there are very good reasons I can’t support Dr. Paul in his Presidential bid.
For starters, although I have no personal knowledge as to whether or not he is a closet racist, there’s been enough written about the subject to give me pause. There are the newsletters authored in his name during the late 80’s and early 90’s. There is a litany of anti-Jewish statements made throughout his long tenure in politics. There’s his curious refusal to disavow the support he’s receiving from David Duke, various Ku Klux Klan factions and the American Nazi Party. If Dr. Paul were a true libertarian, he would be justified in supporting those groups right to spew their hate, as I do. But as I and every other Libertarian I know does, he would also condemn such speech for what it is: not fit for human consumption, except for the buffoons who speak it. To date, Ron Paul has yet to so, although he has taken significant sums of money from those baboons.
And about those newsletters: I am willing to give Dr. Paul the benefit of the doubt that the hateful passages in them were ghost written. However, if you’re going to be President of the United States, you need either an incredibly meticulous attention to detail or to have someone on your staff who does. If, as he has claimed, he was unaware of what was published in his name until confronted with them in 1996, then that shows a lack of oversight that is completely unacceptable in the nation’s Chief Executive. If he was aware of what was being disseminated in his name, but took no action to stop it – which seems more likely – then that shows the type of poor judgment and moral character that should never be allowed into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. After all, those newsletters brought in millions for Paul. It speaks to Dr. Paul’s priorities. Combined with those contributions from the hate groups, it appears Dr. Paul is more concerned with personal profit than dispelling the worst racial and ethnic stereotypes our society has to offer.
There is no doubt that Congressman Paul’s devotion to the cause of personal liberty is real. In the year of the ideological candidate, Dr. Paul is easily the most ideological of them all. Listening to his stump speech (which has only been slightly modified from his original Presidential run in 1988), you get the impression that this is a man who firmly believes what he says. In fact, that unwavering adherence to his ideals is partly responsible for the allegiance his candidacy creates among his followers. While I also support the ideal of personal freedom, the nation as a whole is not ready for the other side of the coin: personal responsibility. If you doubt that, then look no further than the past year. The fights we’ve had over budget priorities; the Occupy movement; these point to a nation still enthralled with Big Government over the hazards of personal freedom and responsibility. Forcing that on the country will lead to blood on the streets. I believe the long-term solution for the country is to return to the Libertarian government we were founded on; I’m pragmatic enough to understand that undoing 100 years of government creep needs to be undone incrementally. If your’e certain I’m wrong, end Social Security tomorrow and watch what happens. Pragmatism is not a Paul strong suit, at least when it comes to governing (it is, of course, when it comes accepting those infernal campaign donations).
That lack of pragmatism is particularly evident in his proposed foreign policy – or perhaps lack of a foreign policy. It’s understandable that a nation that has been at war for 43 of the past 50 years would grow tired of foreign entanglements. But we cannot renounce our international obligations, pack up and come home without plunging the world into utter chaos. One truism has ruled the world since the dawn of civilization: power abhors a vacuum. In a world that is increasingly interdependent, someone had to provide the glue that keeps humanity from entering into a war over resources and economies that would incinerate the globe. Whether or not we like it, absenting ourselves from the world stage would result in just that. After World War II, the world was left with two superpowers. With the dissolution of the Soviet Empire, only the USA remains. The treaties, alliances and trade we’ve developed in the past 70 years are all focused on keeping us prosperous. Abandoning them now would be cataclysmic at best.
And finally, there are is cult of personality that is propelling the Ron Paul candidacy. Fanatical to the core, these people scare me far more than Ron Paul ever will. The world has seen other leaders come to power whose only qualification was the ability to inspire slavish devotion from their followers: Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Napoleon, Julius Caesar. You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks those results were positive. Less extreme, but much more recent, we have the current President – whose tenure thus far has been a disappointment to his followers but about what the rest of us expected.
RON PAUL SUPPORTERS: If you’re looking for a Libertarian who is pragmatic enough to actually accomplish something without alienating 80% of your fellow human beings, look to Gary Johnson. Abandoning Ron Paul would be the smartest decision you’ve made.
Is Modern Politics More Vicious than Ever?
Woodcut of Lyon-Griswold House Floor Brawl, 1798 (Courtesy: Smithsonian Institution)
What spurred me to write about this topic was a recent Facebook discussion I had with an old and respected friend, who opined that he thought political leaders over the past twenty years or so were subjected to more slanderous accusations, ridicule and disrespect than at any time in our history. I might have dismissed that comment, except it seems to be a popular sentiment these days. Whether the cries to denounce comparisons to “Nazis” after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot, complaints by members of Congress regarding ethnic and racial slurs used against them, or statements by people like my friend, there seems to be an overriding sense that politics today has become far too personal. Popular sentiment is that unlike our history, we’re a nation more polarized and more willing to use the most vicious ad hominem attacks in place of reasoned debate than ever before.
Such sentiment may be popular, but it is incorrect. Defaming public figures is an American tradition that is older than the Republic – one can find newspaper articles and pamphlets pre-dating the Revolution that disparage, often in the most personal terms, some of the most famous Americans in history. Thomas Jefferson wrote of “the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed, and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them.” 1 Although Jefferson wrote those words in 1814, the reality is vulgarity and mendacity were hardly new to politics, even at that young age for the nation. As an example, in 1798 Alexander Hamilton published the pamphlet Letter from Alexander Hamilton, Concerning the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq. In it, Hamilton not only defames Adams’ character (among other things, he asserts that Adams is “a drunkard, the type for whom sound judgement <sic> deserts at the first drop of whiskey.”2). Of course, six years later Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton would be killed by Vice President Aaron Burr – a duel sparked by Hamilton’s characterization of Burr as, among other things, corrupt and treasonous; even going so far as to actually recommend assassination should Burr win the Federalist Party nomination for President.
The election of 1824 gave rise to “The Corrupt Bargain,” but was nothing compared to the vindictiveness and nastiness exhibited in 1828. Andrew Jackson was portrayed by John Quincy Adams as an adulterous murderer(and you thought Bill Clinton had it tough), while Jackson and his camp gleefully heaped charges of prostitution, elitism and corruption on Adams. The slander reached levels not seen since, as the “Coffin Handbills” were widely distributed and Jackson’s wife was accused of bigamy. The attacks were so vicious that Mrs. Jackson fell ill and later died as a result. In 1840, the winning campaign of William Harrison completely avoided the issues of the day (including the worst financial crisis in the nation’s history, to that date), focusing instead on comparing the personalities of Harrison and Martin Van Buren. (Although Van Buren tried to make an issue of Harrison’s age, it went nowhere. The nation should have listened – Harrison served the shortest term in history after falling ill during his Inauguration.) And of course, Abraham Lincoln faced the worst kind of personal attack when ½ the country decided they would rather secede than accept him as President.
Personal attacks haven’t always been limited to the Executive Branch, either. Indeed the mudslinging on the floors of the Congress and Senate have even occasionally led to outright brawls. The first occurred in 1798, between Roger Griswold (Ct.) and Matthew Lyon (Vt.). Griswold, upset about charges of cowardice from Lyon, took it upon himself to whack Lyon with his hickory walking stick. Of course, it should be noted that Lyon didn’t help calm the situation when he spat at Griswold. Both men were later censured by the House. In 1856, Andrew Sumner (Ma.) took the floor to deliver a diatribe against Preston Brooks’ (SC) father-in-law. In a scathing bit of oratory, Sumner alleged Brooks’ in-law kept a mistress “who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him.” 3 The result was less brawl than mugging: Brooks beat Sumner to within an inch of his life, using his cane; as other members of the Senate attempted to aid Sumner, Laurence Keitt (SC) bayed them at pistol-point. Keitt was hardly a stranger to fisticuffs on the House floor. Two years later, he took exception to Galusha Grow’s (Pa.) calling him a “negro driver” and attempted to strangle Grow – on the House floor. The result was the largest melee ever seen in Congress, involving at least 50 Representatives.
These are just some of the more outrageous examples of how political slander has been a part of our discourse since the days of the Founding Fathers. In fact, you can argue that if anything, politicians today face less derision than their predecessors. The next time somebody you know complains about our leaders being treated like Rodney Dangerfield, feel free to whip out one of these juicy tidbits – and invite them to pay more attention in history class.
- Excerpted from “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” edited by Lipscomb & Bergh, published 1903. The excerpt is from a letter written to Walter Jones in 1814.
- As excepted in the Philadelphia Aurora, June 12, 1800.
- Detailed in “The Caning of Senator Charles Sumner“, Senate Historical Office, US Senate.
Political Baseballs 