Mengejar Dewan Negara - Sejarah

Mengejar Dewan Negara - Sejarah


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Margaret Chase Smith terpilih menjadi anggota Dewan Negara dari Maine. Dia sebelumnya pernah menjadi anggota Dewan Perwakilan. Dia berkhidmat selama empat penggal, bersara pada tahun 1972 dari Senat.

Margaret Chase Smith: Melanggar Halangan

Tujuh puluh tahun yang lalu, Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME) menyampaikan pidato "Deklarasi Kesadaran", yang mengkritik Senator Joseph McCarthy dan kempen anti-komunisnya.

Senator Margaret Chase Smith, ca. 1954 (Rekod Agensi Maklumat A.S., Arkib Negara)

Pidatonya selama 15 minit di lantai Senat mengecam para anggota yang mengubah Senat menjadi "forum pembencian dan pembunuhan watak." Dia meminta pembaharuan "hak untuk berpikir bebas" dan terus mengatakan bahawa "Kebebasan bersuara tidak seperti dulu di Amerika. . . telah disalahgunakan oleh beberapa orang sehingga tidak dilakukan oleh orang lain. "

Dia meminta rekan-rekannya dari Republikan untuk tidak mengejar kemenangan politik pada "Four Horsemen of Calumny – Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear", dan diakhiri dengan "Titik Hati Nurani" lima poin, di mana dia bergabung dengan enam yang lain senator.

Wanita Kongres ke-89: (berdiri, dari kiri) Florence Dwyer dari New Jersey, Martha Griffiths dari Michigan, Edith Green dari Oregon, Patsy Mink dari Hawaii, Leonor Sullivan dari Missouri, Julia Hansen dari Washington, Catherine May of Washington, Edna Kelly dari New York, dan Charlotte Reid dari Illinois (duduk, dari kiri) Maurine Neuberger dari Oregon, Frances Bolton dari Ohio, dan Margaret Chase Smith dari Maine, ca. 1965-67. (Pengenal Arkib Negara 541939)

Smith adalah wanita pertama yang berkhidmat di kedua-dua rumah Kongres. Satu minggu setelah suaminya, Wakil dari Maine Clyde Smith, meninggal pada tahun 1940, Margaret Chase Smith terpilih untuk mengisi kekosongannya, sehingga memulai perjuangannya untuk menjadi lebih daripada sekadar pemegang tempat. Dia berjaya memperjuangkan empat saingan lelaki untuk pencalonan utama untuk mengekalkan kerusi dan terus menjalani empat penggal di Dewan Perwakilan.

Smith pindah ke Senat pada tahun 1949, menjadikannya satu-satunya wanita di Senat pada masa itu. Tidak sampai satu dekad kemudian wanita lain dipilih menjadi Senat untuk menjalani penggal penuh.

Smith mencalonkan diri sebagai Presiden pada tahun 1964, dengan menyatakan bahawa dia tidak akan kehilangan masa di Senat, dan dia juga tidak akan menerima sumbangan. Kempennya dikendalikan oleh sukarelawan, dan dia tidak menyiarkan iklan televisyen atau radio.

Pencalonannya sebagai Presiden lebih simbolik daripada taktikal. Namun, Smith terus memenangi hampir 30 persen suara di Illinois, sebuah negara di mana dia aktif berkempen, dan memberikan suara di Massachusetts, Oregon, dan Texas, di mana dia tidak muncul dalam kempen.

Pada bulan Julai di konvensyen nasional Republikan, Smith menjadi wanita pertama yang namanya diletakkan dalam pencalonan parti besar. Dia mendapat undian 26 perwakilan. Ketika mencalonkan diri sebagai Presiden, Smith menegaskan bahawa dia mahu peranan itu untuk memecahkan halangan terhadap wanita yang dianggap sebagai calon Presiden yang serius.

Barry Goldwater memenangkan pencalonan Republik pada tahun 1964, kemudian kehilangan Presiden dari calon Demokrat Lyndon B. Johnson. Smith terus berkhidmat di Senat sehingga dia kalah dalam pilihan raya 1972. Secara keseluruhan, dia telah berkhidmat selama 32 tahun di Kongres.

Ketahui lebih lanjut mengenai aktivis wanita di laman web Arkib Negara.


Kandungan

Chase dilahirkan di Cornish, New Hampshire, pada 13 Januari 1808, [2] kepada Janette Ralston dan Ithamar Chase, yang meninggal pada tahun 1817 ketika Salmon berusia sembilan tahun. Nenek moyang pendatang asalnya adalah Aquila Chase dari Cornwall, England, seorang kapal yang menetap di Newbury, Massachusetts, sekitar tahun 1640, sementara datuk dan neneknya dari ibu Alexander Ralston dan Janette Balloch berasal dari Scotland, berasal dari Falkirk. [3] [4] [5] Ibunya ditinggalkan dengan sepuluh anak dan sedikit sumber daya, dan oleh itu Salmon tinggal dari tahun 1820 hingga 1824 di Ohio bersama bapa saudaranya, Uskup Philander Chase, seorang tokoh terkemuka dalam Gereja Episkopal Protestan di Barat. Senator A.S. Dudley Chase dari Vermont adalah bapa saudara lain. [6]

Dia belajar di sekolah umum Windsor, Vermont, dan Worthington, Ohio, dan di Cincinnati College sebelum memasuki kelas junior di Dartmouth College. [5] Dia adalah anggota persaudaraan Alpha Delta Phi dan Phi Beta Kappa, [5] dan lulus dari Dartmouth dengan perbezaan pada tahun 1826. [2] Semasa di Dartmouth, dia mengajar di Royalton Academy di Royalton, Vermont. [5] Chase kemudian pindah ke District of Columbia, di mana dia membuka sekolah klasik sambil belajar undang-undang di bawah Peguam Negara A.S. William Wirt. [2] Dia dimasukkan ke bar pada tahun 1829. [5] Tempat kelahiran dan tempat kanak-kanak Salmon P. Chase masih berdiri di Cornish, New Hampshire.

Chase pindah ke rumah negara dekat Loveland, Ohio, [7] dan mempraktikkan undang-undang di Cincinnati dari tahun 1830. [8] Dia menjadi terkenal kerana penyusunan undang-undang negara yang berwibawa, [2] yang telah lama menjadi karya standar mengenai topik ini .

Sejak awal, walaupun ada risiko untuk mencari nafkahnya, [2] dia membela orang-orang yang telah melarikan diri dari perbudakan dan mereka yang diadili untuk menolong mereka. [2] [9] Dia menjadi sangat setia pada penghapusan perbudakan setelah kematian isterinya yang pertama, Katherine Jane Garmiss, pada tahun 1835, tidak lama setelah pernikahan mereka pada bulan Mac 1834, suatu peristiwa yang merupakan kebangkitan rohani baginya. Dia bekerja pada awalnya dengan American Sunday School Union. [9] Pada saat pendapat umum di Cincinnati dikuasai oleh hubungan perniagaan Selatan, Chase, dipengaruhi oleh peristiwa lokal, termasuk serangan terhadap media James G. Birney ketika rusuhan di Cincinnati tahun 1836, mengaitkan dirinya dengan anti-perbudakan pergerakan. Chase juga merupakan ahli sastera Semi-Colon Club yang dianggotainya termasuk Harriet Beecher Stowe dan Calvin Ellis Stowe. [10] Chase menjadi pemimpin reformis politik, berbanding dengan gerakan penghapusan Garrison.

Untuk membela orang yang ditangkap di Ohio di bawah Fugitive Slave Act tahun 1793, Chase dijuluki sebagai "Peguam Negara untuk Pelarian." [11] Hujahnya dalam kes Jones lwn Van Zandt mengenai ketetapan undang-undang budak buruan di hadapan Mahkamah Agung A.S. menarik perhatian khusus. Chase berpendapat bahawa perbudakan itu bersifat lokal, bukan nasional, dan ia hanya dapat wujud berdasarkan undang-undang negara yang positif. Dia berpendapat bahawa kerajaan persekutuan tidak diberi kuasa oleh Perlembagaan untuk mewujudkan perbudakan di mana sahaja dan bahawa apabila seseorang yang diperbudak meninggalkan bidang kuasa sebuah negeri di mana perbudakan itu sah, dia berhenti menjadi hamba dia terus menjadi seorang lelaki dan meninggalkan undang-undang yang menjadikannya hamba. Dalam kes ini dan serupa, pengadilan memutuskan terhadapnya, dan keputusan terhadap John Van Zandt ditegakkan.

Walaupun terpilih sebagai Whig untuk penggal satu tahun di Majlis Bandaraya Cincinnati pada tahun 1840, [12] [13] Chase meninggalkan parti itu pada tahun berikutnya. [13] Selama tujuh tahun dia menjadi pemimpin Parti Liberty di Ohio. Dia membantu menyeimbangkan idealisme dengan pendekatan pragmatik dan pemikiran politiknya. Dia mahir menyusun platform dan alamat, dan dia menyiapkan platform Liberty nasional tahun 1843 dan alamat Liberty pada tahun 1845. Membangun Parti Liberty berjalan lambat. Menjelang tahun 1848 Chase menjadi pemimpin dalam usaha untuk menggabungkan Parti Liberty dengan Barnburners atau Demokrat Van Buren dari New York untuk membentuk Parti Tanah Bebas.

Chase menyusun platform Bebas-Tanah, [14] dan terutama melalui pengaruhnya bahawa Van Buren adalah calon mereka untuk Presiden pada tahun 1848. Pada tahun 1849, Chase dipilih ke Senat A.S. dari Ohio dengan tiket Tanah Bebas. Tujuan Chase, bagaimanapun, bukan untuk menubuhkan organisasi partai baru yang tetap, tetapi untuk memberi tekanan kepada Demokrat Utara untuk memaksa mereka untuk menentang perpanjangan perbudakan.

Selama berkhidmat di Senat (1849-1855), Chase adalah juara anti perbudakan. Dia berhujah menentang Kompromi tahun 1850 [15] dan Akta Kansas – Nebraska tahun 1854. [16] Setelah berlakunya perundangan Kansas-Nebraska dan keganasan berikutnya di Kansas, Chase meninggalkan parti Demokrat untuk membantu membentuk Parti Republik dengan bekas anggota Whigs dan anti-perbudakan dari Parti Amerika. [17]

Dia adalah pemimpin dalam gerakan untuk membentuk parti baru yang menentang pengembangan perbudakan. Dia berusaha untuk menyatukan Parti Bebas dan Demokrat anti perbudakan dengan Parti Whig yang semakin berkurang, yang menyebabkan penubuhan Parti Republik. "Rayuan Demokrat Bebas dalam Kongres kepada Rakyat Amerika Syarikat", ditulis oleh Chase dan Giddings, dan diterbitkan dalam The New York Times pada 24 Januari 1854, dapat dianggap sebagai rancangan awal akidah parti Republik. Pada tahun 1855, Chase terpilih sebagai gabenor Republik pertama di Ohio. Selama berada di pejabat, dari 1856 hingga 1860, dia mendukung hak wanita, pendidikan umum, dan reformasi penjara. [5]

Pada tahun 1860, Chase mencari pencalonan Republik untuk presiden, dengan Gabenor Massachusetts Nathaniel Banks sebagai pasangannya. [18] Dengan pengecualian William H. Seward, Chase adalah Republikan paling terkemuka di negara ini dan telah melakukan lebih banyak untuk mengakhiri perbudakan daripada Republik lain. Namun, dia menentang "tarif perlindungan," yang disukai oleh kebanyakan Republikan lain, dan catatan kolaborasinya dengan Demokrat mengganggu banyak Republikan yang merupakan bekas Whigs. Pada Konvensyen Nasional Republik 1860, dia mendapat 49 suara pada undi pertama, [19] tetapi dia tidak mendapat banyak sokongan di luar Ohio. Abraham Lincoln memenangi pencalonan, dan Chase menyokongnya.

Chase dipilih sebagai Republikan ke Senat A.S. dari Ohio pada tahun 1860. Namun, dia mengundurkan diri sejurus selepas mengambil tempat duduknya untuk menjadi Setiausaha Perbendaharaan di bawah Lincoln. [5] Dia juga merupakan peserta dalam Persidangan Perdamaian Februari 1861 di Washington, D.C., sebuah pertemuan para ahli politik Amerika terkemuka yang diadakan dalam usaha menyelesaikan krisis pemisahan yang sedang berkembang dan memelihara Kesatuan pada malam sebelum Perang Saudara.

Chase berkhidmat sebagai Setiausaha Perbendaharaan di kabinet Presiden Lincoln dari tahun 1861 hingga 1864, semasa Perang Saudara. Dalam tempoh krisis itu, terdapat dua perubahan besar dalam dasar kewangan Amerika, pembentukan sistem perbankan nasional dan masalah mata wang kertas. Yang pertama adalah ukuran khas Chase sendiri. Dia mencadangkan idea itu, menguraikan prinsip-prinsip penting dan banyak perinciannya, dan mendorong Kongres untuk menyetujuinya. Ia tidak hanya memperoleh pasaran segera untuk bon kerajaan, tetapi juga menyediakan mata wang negara yang tetap, seragam dan stabil. Chase memastikan bahawa Kesatuan dapat menjual hutang untuk membayar usaha perang. Beliau bekerja dengan Jay Cooke & amp Syarikat untuk berjaya menguruskan penjualan $ 500 juta dalam bon perang kerajaan (dikenali sebagai 5/20-an) pada tahun 1862. [20]

Mata wang persekutuan A.S. pertama, nota permintaan dolar AS, dicetak pada tahun 1861-1862 semasa tempoh Chase sebagai Setiausaha Perbendaharaan, dan menjadi tanggungjawabnya untuk merancang wang kertas. Dalam usaha meningkatkan pengakuan masyarakat terhadapnya, Chase meletakkan wajahnya sendiri pada pelbagai mata wang kertas A.S., bermula dengan tagihan $ 1, mungkin untuk memajukan karier politiknya. [21]

Pada 5 Mei 1862, Chase menemani Presiden Lincoln, Setiausaha Perang Edwin M. Stanton, dan Brigadier Jeneral Egbert Ludovicus Viele dalam apa yang akan menjadi minggu penting bagi pasukan Union. Parti presiden meninggalkan Washington Navy Yard di atas pemotong Perbendaharaan lima senjata, Miami, [22] [23] menuju Fort Monroe "untuk memastikan dengan pemerhatian peribadi sama ada kewaspadaan dan semangat lebih lanjut mungkin tidak akan dimasukkan ke dalam operasi tentera dan tentera laut pada ketika itu" untuk menentukan sama ada Norfolk dapat ditangkap. Selepas perjalanan selama 27 jam, the Miami sampai di Fort Monroe pada malam 6 Mei. Chase pergi bersama Mejar Jeneral John E. Wool, yang memerintah Federals di Fort Monroe, untuk memeriksa lokasi pantai untuk kemungkinan pendaratan pasukan dan menyampaikannya ke Lincoln yang dia dan Jeneral Wool telah temui " tempat pendaratan yang baik dan selesa "di pesisir selatan, jauh dari landasan Konfederasi, CSS Virginia. [24] Penyertaan Chase dalam pengintaian berakhir dengan penyerahan Norfolk dan pemusnahan Virginia. [25]

Pada 10 Oktober 1862, Setiausaha Angkatan Laut Gideon Welles menulis bahawa "skema untuk izin, bantuan khas, ejen Perbendaharaan, dan pengurusan yang tidak betul" telah wujud dan diatur oleh Setiausaha Perbendaharaan Chase untuk Jeneral John A. Dix. Motif Chase tampaknya untuk pengaruh politik dan bukan untuk keuntungan kewangan. [26]

Mungkin kecacatan ketua Chase adalah keinginan yang tidak terpuaskan untuk jawatan tinggi. [27] Sepanjang masa jabatannya sebagai Setiausaha Perbendaharaan, Chase mengeksploitasi kedudukannya untuk membangun sokongan politik untuk menjalankan jawatan presiden pada tahun 1864.

Dia juga berusaha memberi tekanan kepada Lincoln dengan berulang kali mengancam pengunduran diri, [ rujukan diperlukan ] yang dia tahu akan menyebabkan kesukaran Lincoln dengan Republikan Radikal.

Untuk menghormati Chase kerana memperkenalkan sistem wang kertas moden, ia digambarkan pada wang kertas $ 10,000 yang dicetak dari tahun 1928 hingga 1946. Chase berperan penting dalam meletakkan frasa "In God We Trust" pada syiling Amerika Syarikat pada tahun 1864. [29]

Pada bulan Jun 1864, Lincoln mengejutkan Chase dengan menerima tawaran peletakan jawatannya yang keempat sebagai Setiausaha Perbendaharaan. Parti Republik pada saat itu telah mencalonkan Lincoln sebagai calon presidennya dan Perbendaharaan berada dalam kondisi yang solid, jadi Lincoln tidak lagi perlu menjaga Chase dalam kabinet untuk mencegah tantangan pencalonan presiden. [30] Tetapi untuk menenangkan sayap Radikal parti, Lincoln menyebut Chase sebagai calon calon Mahkamah Agung yang berpotensi.

Ketika Ketua Hakim Roger B. Taney meninggal pada Oktober 1864, Lincoln menamakan Chase untuk menggantikannya. Dicalonkan pada 6 Disember 1864, dan disahkan oleh Senat AS pada hari yang sama, [31] dia mengangkat sumpah jawatan pada 15 Disember 1864, dan menjalani hukuman mati sehingga 7 Mei 1873. [1] Chase adalah seorang perubahan sepenuhnya dari pro-perbudakan Taney salah satu tindakan pertama Chase sebagai Ketua Hakim adalah dengan mengakui John Rock sebagai peguam Afrika-Amerika pertama yang membantah kes di Mahkamah Agung. [32]

Antara keputusannya yang lebih penting semasa di Mahkamah adalah:

  • Texas lwn White (74 A.S. 700), 1869, di mana dia menegaskan bahawa Perlembagaan memperuntukkan kesatuan tetap, yang terdiri dari negara-negara yang tidak dapat dihancurkan, sambil membiarkan beberapa kemungkinan perpecahan "melalui revolusi, atau melalui persetujuan Negara" [33] [34]
  • Veazie Bank lwn Fenno (75 A.S. 533), 1869, menegakkan undang-undang perbankan Perang Saudara yang mengenakan cukai 10% ke atas wang kertas negara dan
  • Hepburn lwn Griswold (75 A.S. 603), 1870, yang menyatakan bahagian tertentu dari tender undang-undang bertindak sebagai tidak berperlembagaan. Apabila keputusan tender sah dibatalkan setelah pelantikan Hakim Baru, pada tahun 1871 dan 1872 (Kes Tender yang sah, 79 A.S. 457), Chase menyusun pendapat berbeza pendapat.

Sebagai Ketua Hakim, Chase juga memimpin perbicaraan pendakwaan Presiden AS Andrew Johnson pada tahun 1868. Sebagai keadilan yang bertanggungjawab untuk Sirkit ke-4, Chase juga akan menjadi salah satu daripada dua hakim pada perbicaraan Jefferson Davis (yang dipenjarakan di Fort Monroe di Virginia), kerana perbicaraan untuk jenayah besar seperti pengkhianatan memerlukan dua hakim. Namun, pembelaan terbaik Davis adalah bahawa dia kehilangan warganegara A.S. setelah berpisah, dan oleh itu tidak boleh melakukan pengkhianatan. Menyabitkan Davis juga boleh mengganggu cita-cita presiden Chase, seperti yang dijelaskan di bawah. Setelah meluluskan Pindaan ke-14 pada tahun 1868, Chase mengundang peguam Davis untuk bertemu dengannya secara tertutup, dan menjelaskan teorinya bahawa Seksyen 3 Pindaan baru melarang menjatuhkan hukuman lebih lanjut kepada bekas Gabungan. Ketika peguam Davis mengulangi hujah ini di mahkamah terbuka, Chase menolak kes itu, kerana keberatan rakannya, Hakim Daerah A.S., John Curtiss Underwood, dan pemerintah memilih untuk tidak mengajukan banding atas pemecatan tersebut ke Mahkamah Agung A.S. [35]

Chase secara beransur-ansur kembali ke kesetiaan Demokratnya yang lama, dan membuat upaya yang tidak berhasil untuk mendapatkan pencalonan Demokrat sebagai presiden pada tahun 1868. Dia "disahkan kerana sikapnya yang memihak kepada hak suara untuk orang kulit hitam." [32] Pada tahun 1871, kebijakan Keberangkatan Baru dari Demokrat Ohio Clement Vallandigham disahkan oleh Chase. [36] Dia membantu menemukan Parti Republik Liberal pada tahun 1872, tidak berjaya mencalonkan presiden. Chase juga merupakan Freemason, [ rujukan diperlukan ] aktif di pondok masyarakat Midwestern. Dia bekerjasama dengan John Purdue, pengasas Lafayette Bank dan Universiti Purdue. Akhirnya, JP Morgan Chase & amp Co. akan membeli Purdue National Corporation of Lafayette, Indiana, pada tahun 1984. [ rujukan diperlukan ]

Seawal tahun 1868, Chase menyimpulkan bahawa:

Kongres benar dalam tidak membatasi, dengan tindakan rekonstruksinya, hak hak pilih kepada orang kulit putih tetapi salah dalam pengecualian dari hak pilih kelas rakyat tertentu dan semua tidak dapat mengambil sumpah retrospektif yang ditetapkan, dan salah juga dalam penubuhan pemerintahan ketenteraan yang tercela untuk Negara-negara dan dalam memberi kuasa komisen ketenteraan untuk percubaan orang awam pada masa damai. Seharusnya pemerintah ketenteraan sesedikit mungkin tidak ada komisen ketenteraan, tidak ada kelas yang dikecualikan dari hak pilih dan tidak ada sumpah kecuali satu ketaatan dan sokongan yang setia kepada Perlembagaan dan undang-undang, dan ikatan ikhlas kepada Pemerintah perlembagaan Amerika Syarikat. [37]

Beberapa bulan sebelum kematiannya, Chase berada dalam minoritas dari keputusan 4-4 dalam Kes-Kes Rumah Sembelih, yang sangat membatasi ruang lingkup kuasa yang diberikan oleh kerajaan pusat di bawah Pindaan Keempat Belas untuk melindungi orang Amerika dari pelanggaran negara terhadap undang-undang mereka. hak sivil. Dengan penentang lain, Chase bergabung dengan pendapat Hakim Stephen J. Field bahawa pendapat majoriti menjadikan Pindaan Keempat Belas sebagai "enakmen sia-sia dan terbiar." [38] [39]

Pada 23 Oktober 1873, secara resmi mengumumkan kematian Ketua Hakim Chase di Mahkamah Agung dan menyampaikan keputusan yang dikemukakan oleh bar, Jaksa Agung George Henry Williams menyoroti "kerja awal, lanjutan dan efektif untuk kebebasan manusia sejagat". [40]

Chase meninggal dunia akibat strok di New York City pada 7 Mei 1873. [2] Jenazahnya dikuburkan pertama kali di Tanah Perkuburan Oak Hill di Washington, D.C., dan dikebumikan semula pada Oktober 1886 di Spring Grove Cemetery, Cincinnati, Ohio. [41] [42] [43] Chase pernah menjadi ahli aktif Katedral Episcopal St. Paul, Cincinnati. Tempat kelahiran Chase di New Hampshire diisytiharkan sebagai Landmark Bersejarah Nasional pada tahun 1975.

Setelah kematian Chase pada tahun 1873, Mahkamah Agung menetapkan tradisi bahawa ketua Hakim yang baru meninggal dunia dan depan bangku tempat Hakim duduk akan ditutup dengan krep bulu hitam, dengan krep hitam digantung di pintu masuk Mahkamah. [44]

Chase National Bank, pendahulu Chase Manhattan Bank yang sekarang menjadi JPMorgan Chase, dinamakan sebagai penghormatannya, walaupun dia tidak mempunyai hubungan dengan itu, baik dari segi keuangan maupun sebaliknya.

Pada bulan Mei 1865, Chase dipilih sebagai rakan kelas 3 dari Perintah Tentera Legiun Loyal Amerika Syarikat (MOLLUS). MOLLUS adalah organisasi pegawai Kesatuan yang pernah berkhidmat dalam Perang Saudara yang membenarkan orang awam yang telah menyokong Kesatuan untuk bergabung sebagai rakan kelas 3. Chase adalah salah satu yang pertama menerima penghormatan ini dan diberi MOLLUS insignia nombor 46.

Potret Chase muncul pada bil AS $ 10,000, nilai mata wang terbesar AS untuk diedarkan secara terbuka. Rang undang-undang terakhir dicetak pada tahun 1945. Pada tahun 1969, Federal Reserve mulai menarik balik tagihan denominasi tinggi dari edaran, dan pada tahun 2009 hanya 336 $ 10,000 bil belum dikembalikan untuk dimusnahkan. [45]

Chase County, Kansas, Chase City, Virginia, dan bandar-bandar bernama "Chaseville" di Florida, Massachusetts, North Carolina (dari 1868 hingga 1871), New York, Ohio, dan Tennessee dinamakan sebagai penghormatannya. Camp Chase di Columbus, Ohio, dan Chase Hall, barak dan asrama utama di Akademi Pengawal Pantai Amerika Syarikat, dinamakan untuk Chase sebagai penghormatan atas jasanya sebagai Setiausaha Perbendaharaan, dan pemotong Pengawal Pantai Amerika Syarikat Kejar (WHEC 718) dinamai untuknya, seperti Chase Hall di Harvard Business School, Chase House di Tuck School of Business di Dartmouth College, dan Salmon P. Chase College of Law di Northern Kentucky University. Dia dipaparkan pada penanda sejarah New Hampshire (nombor 76) di sepanjang New Hampshire Route 12A di Cornish. [46]

Meskipun tidak disebut namanya, Chase digambarkan oleh Montagu Love dalam filem 1942 Tennessee Johnson dan muncul semasa adegan dakwaan Andrew Johnson. Chase juga digambarkan oleh Josh Stamberg dalam filem 2013 Menyelamatkan Lincoln. [47]


Samuel Chase Terpaksa

Hakim Mahkamah Agung Samuel Chase, seorang penyokong Federalis yang bersemangat, terkenal dengan kepartiannya yang terbuka baik di dalam dan di luar bangku simpanan. Dia berkempen dengan bersungguh-sungguh untuk John Adams dalam pemilihan tahun 1800, dan pada tahun 1803, memberikan tuduhan juri besar di mahkamah litar AS di Maryland yang secara kritikal mengkritik Republik kerana mencabut undang-undang kehakiman 1801 dan menghapuskan hakim litar yang telah ditetapkan . Tuduhan hakim agung terbukti sangat kontroversial dan menyebabkan banyak pihak meminta pemecatan Chase dari bangku simpanan. Pada bulan Mac 1804, setelah membahaskan apa yang menjadi alasan yang tepat untuk penghakiman, Dewan Perwakilan memilih untuk mendakwa Chase. Tuduhan juri besar Maryland menjadi asas bagi salah satu daripada lapan artikel pendakwaan kerana niatnya yang didakwa menghasut, sementara yang lain memfokuskan pada tingkah laku yang didakwa tidak wajar semasa perbicaraan yang didakwa secara politik seperti pendakwaan Akta Hasutan. Selama dua puluh dua hari perbicaraannya di hadapan Senat, Chase berpendapat bahawa dia tidak boleh dihukum atas kesalahan penghakiman atau tingkah laku yang tidak wajar di bangku simpanan, melainkan hanya untuk kesalahan yang dapat didakwa. Pada 1 Mac 1805, Senat membebaskan Chase ketika tidak ada satu pun dari lapan artikel pendakwaan yang memperoleh suara dua pertiga anggota sebagaimana yang disyaratkan untuk sabitan. Pendakwaan Chase membantu menetapkan parameter jenis tingkah laku apa yang memerlukan penghapusan hakim dari bangku simpanan. Walaupun telah ada satu penghakiman kehakiman sebelumnya, yang melibatkan John Pickering dari New Hampshire, ini adalah kes kecacatan yang jelas sehingga tidak begitu berguna sebagai preseden. Pembebasan Chase berfungsi sebagai kemenangan diam-diam untuk kedudukannya bahawa kesalahan yang boleh didakwa diperlukan untuk memenuhi piawaian "jenayah tinggi dan kesalahan pelanggaran" untuk penyangkalan dan sabitan hakim persekutuan. Lebih dari dua abad kemudian, hanya lapan hakim persekutuan yang disingkirkan oleh pemecatan. Pada abad kedua puluh, Kongres meneliti usul untuk menyingkirkan hakim persekutuan yang tingkah lakunya tidak naik ke tahap yang diperlukan untuk pemakmuran, tetapi tidak ada yang diberlakukan, karena sebagian besar keraguan tentang konstitusionalitas tindakan semacam itu.

Pusat Kehakiman Persekutuan menghasilkan dan memelihara laman web ini untuk meneruskan misi berkanunnya. Pusat menganggap kandungan laman web ini bertanggungjawab dan berharga, tetapi kandungan ini tidak menggambarkan dasar rasmi atau cadangan Lembaga Pusat Kehakiman Persekutuan. Laman web ini juga mengandungi pautan ke maklumat yang relevan di laman web yang dikendalikan oleh organisasi lain yang menyediakan pautan luaran ini untuk kemudahan pengguna laman web ini dan tidak merupakan pengesahan atau sokongan maklumat atau laman web yang dihasilkan pautan tersebut. Pendapat yang dinyatakan dalam bahan yang terdapat di laman web ini adalah pendapat penulis, dan tidak semestinya dari Pusat Kehakiman Persekutuan.


& # x27Kami & # x27mengeluarkannya & # x27: Gabenor Virginia mengumumkan penghapusan patung Robert E. Lee

Semasa video lima minit di Facebook, Chase mengatakan "Sosialis Demokrat" Virginia melakukan kesalahan jika mereka melakukan sesuatu yang serupa.

"Ada usaha yang jelas di sini untuk menghapus sejarah putih. Itulah yang mereka ingin lakukan," kata Chase. "Dengar, datuk kita bersalah melakukan perbudakan, dan itu salah. Dan saya mengecamnya. Saya rasa seperti perbudakan itu salah, itu jahat. Kita tidak boleh memiliki manusia lain. Tetapi itu bukan satu-satunya perkara yang Lee dan yang lain terkenal. Mereka melakukan perkara lain. "

Dia melanjutkan dengan mengatakan bahawa penghapusan monumen adalah isu Pindaan Pertama dan mewakili ekspresi artistik, dan bahawa dia terpaksa bertahan sementara Demokrat membenarkan seni yang dia percaya adalah pornografi untuk diajar di sekolah-sekolah awam. Dia dituduh pada musim panas lalu melakukan "perang salib."

"Saya rasa ia tidak sensitif dan bersifat rasis untuk tidak menghormati sejarah semua orang Amerika," kata Chase, sambil menambah: "Ini semua mengenai membuang leher orang ini dan menghapus sejarah orang kulit putih. Dan saya rasa itu salah. Saya tidak akan melakukan perkara itu kepada orang lain, budaya lain. "

Dia juga berkongsi petisyen di Facebook untuk menyelamatkan monumen itu, dengan menulis bahawa "membuang patung Robert E. Lee adalah penakut pengecut kepada penjarah dan pengganas domestik."

Pemimpin GOP Senat Virginia, termasuk Pemimpin Minoriti Thomas Norment Jr., mengecam komen Chase dalam satu kenyataan pada hari Khamis sambil juga menyokong mesejnya yang lebih besar bahawa monumen itu mesti kekal.

"Percubaan untuk membanteras dan bukannya mengontekstualisasikan sejarah selalu gagal," tulis para pemimpin Senat GOP. "Dan kerana sejarah peribadi Gabenor ini, motivasi keputusan ini akan selalu dicurigai. Seperti tanggapan bodoh, tidak pantas dan radang Senator Chase, keputusannya lebih cenderung untuk memecah belah, tidak bersatu, Virginians."

Dalam tindak balas melalui e-mel terhadap kenyataan itu, penasihat Chase, Philip Search, mengatakan pada hari Jumaat bahawa senator itu mengundang kaukus GOP untuk mengarahkan usaha mereka terhadap Northam dan bukannya "berkelahi dengannya," dan bahawa "Amanda Chase adalah calon wanita Republik pertama untuk Gabenor dan lelaki ini tidak dapat mengatasinya. "

"Kami jelas menentang untuk membuang patung dan menghapus sejarah Amerika," tambah Search. "Serangan palsu dari Demokrat ekstrem, media liberal, dan elit penubuhan Republik yang gagal tidak akan menghalang kita."

Chase, yang mengambil alih jawatan pada tahun 2016, adalah penyokong hak senjata, dengan bangga memakai pistol berlengan di pinggulnya semasa sesi Perhimpunan Agung tahun ini, dan mengatakan dia tanpa malu-malu menyokong Presiden Donald Trump. Halaman Facebooknya memuat screengrabs mengenai antifa, gerakan anti-fasis sayap kiri, semasa tunjuk perasaan baru-baru ini, yang telah didiskreditkan sebagai salah maklumat dan ditandai oleh Facebook sebagai "maklumat palsu."

Chase juga bertengkar dengan partinya sendiri. Pada bulan Mac 2019, dia dituduh menghukum dan mencerca senonoh pada seorang pegawai Polis Capitol yang memberitahunya bahawa dia tidak dapat meletak kenderaan di kawasan di luar Capitol Square, yang memimpin GOP untuk menulis surat sokongan kepada polis. Chase juga kemudian meminta maaf. Dia juga diusir dari GOP Chesterfield pada musim gugur lalu dan menolak untuk menjadi anggota kaukus Senat GOP Senat, dengan mengatakan bahawa partinya memerlukan kepemimpinan baru setelah Senat dan Dewan negara membalikkan Demokrat untuk pertama kalinya dalam satu generasi.

Kaukus Virginia House GOP tidak mengulas secara khusus mengenai penghapusan patung-patung itu, tetapi mengkritik pengendalian Northam terhadap tunjuk perasaan baru-baru ini, serta penjarahan dan keganasan, di beberapa bahagian di Virginia, termasuk Richmond.


Sejarah Isteri Mengganti Suami Mereka yang Mati di Kongres

Esok, Marylanders di daerah kongres ke-7 di negeri ini akan memilih dalam pilihan raya utama untuk memutuskan siapa yang akan menjadi calon untuk menggantikan Anggota Kongres Elijah Cummings, yang kematiannya pada bulan Oktober 2019 meninggalkan kerusi yang dipegangnya sejak 1996. Di antara banyak nama ( lebih daripada 20) pada undi utama Demokrat & # 8217 adalah isteri Cummings & # 8217, Maya Rockeymoore Cummings, seorang perunding dasar awam dan bekas ketua Parti Demokrat Maryland.

Sekiranya dia menang, dia akan menjadi sebahagian daripada tradisi berturut-turut & # 8220 lebar & # 8217 berturut-turut, & # 8221 ketika isteri sama ada mencalonkan diri atau dipilih untuk mengisi kekosongan kerusi suami mereka di Kongres di Washington. (Menurut kode untuk Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, kerusi kosong diisi melalui pemilihan khusus, hanya kerusi Senat yang dapat diisi dengan pelantikan gabenor, dengan beberapa pengecualian.)

Kebiasaan ini perlahan sejak beberapa tahun kebelakangan ini: Sekiranya Rockeymoore Cummings memenangkan sekolah dasar dan kemudian jeneral, dia akan menjadi wanita pertama sejak tahun 2005 yang menggantikan suami yang meninggal di pejabat. Tetapi tradisi itu memberi kesan yang jelas terhadap susunan Kongres pada abad ke-20 dan perwakilan politik wanita. Sebagai Los Angeles Times dilaporkan pada tahun 1998, & # 8220Di antara calon Rumah pertama antara tahun 1916-93, 84 peratus daripada janda menang, sementara hanya 14 peratus wanita lain yang menang. Trend ini paling kuat ketika wanita lebih jarang dalam politik 35 daripada 95 wanita yang berkhidmat di Kongres sebelum tahun 1976 adalah isteri kongres terlebih dahulu. & # 8221

Kecenderungan ini begitu ketara sehingga Diane Kincaid, seorang saintis politik yang mempelajari topik ini pada tahun 1970-an, menulis, & # 8220, secara statistik, sekurang-kurangnya, bagi wanita yang bercita-cita untuk berkhidmat di Kongres, suami terbaik telah menjadi suami yang mati. & # 8221 Menulis 25 tahun kemudian, ahli akademik Lisa Solowiej dan Thomas L. Brunell bersetuju bahawa ia & # 8220 boleh dikatakan satu kaedah sejarah terpenting bagi wanita untuk memasuki Kongres. & # 8221

Ketika Anggota Kongres John Nolan dari California meninggal pada pertengahan November 1922, setelah dia terpilih kembali untuk penggal kelima, para pemimpin tempatan datang kepada janda, Mae Ellen Nolan, dengan idea. Sebagai penyelidik Hope Chamberlin menulis di Minoriti Anggota: Wanita di Kongres A.S., & # 8220dan gabungan gabungan Republikan San Francisco yang berpengaruh yang mewakili perniagaan dan pekerja pertama kali menghampirinya. & # 8221 Mengapa merekrut wanita & # 8220 yang cantik, menyenangkan, suka berniaga & # 8221 untuk peranan itu? Chamberlin memetik satu pendapat politik orang dalam & # 8217: & # 8220Nolan bermaksud kemenangan. & # 8221

Nolan berkata pada masa itu, & # 8220Saya berhutang dengan suami saya untuk meneruskan kerjanya. & # 8221 Dalam pemilihan khas yang diadakan untuk menyelesaikan penggal John & # 8217 dan melayani yang berikutnya, dia mengalahkan enam lawan dan menuju ke Washington, di mana dia adalah wanita pertama yang mengetuai jawatankuasa Kongres (Jawatankuasa Pengeluaran di Pejabat Pos).

Pemimpin parti yang merekrut janda hanya melihat mereka sebagai pemegang tempat sementara mereka & # 8220 memanfaatkan simpati orang ramai untuk memastikan parti itu memegang kerusi sementara. dan membantu pihak tersebut mengelakkan perselisihan dalaman dan menyediakan masa untuk merekrut & # 8216real & # 8217 pengganti, & # 8221 menulis akademik Barbara Palmer dan Dennis Simon di Penyelidikan Politik Suku Tahunan. Dalam temu bual, Debbie Walsh, pengarah Pusat Wanita dan Politik Amerika (CAWP), mengatakan bahawa pihak-pihak menganggap bahawa suami dan isteri mempunyai nilai yang sama, sehingga mereka dapat mengandalkan para isteri untuk menegakkan politik suami mereka di pejabat .

Sebilangan janda merasa puas dengan peranan placeholder yang dianggap oleh pihak tersebut, yang hanya melayani satu tahun atau satu penggal. Setelah tempohnya berakhir, Mae Ellen Nolan enggan mencalonkan diri untuk dipilih semula, tidak mahu ada kaitan dengan Washington. & # 8220Politik terlalu maskulin untuk mempunyai tarikan untuk tanggungjawab wanita, & # 8221 katanya ketika itu.

But many women embraced the opportunity to pursue politics themselves and surprised the men who recruited them. Kincaid identified one example in Senator Hattie Caraway of Arkansas, who filled her husband’s seat in the Senate in 1931. Kincaid wrote that Caraway “confounded the Governor who appointed her and who openly coveted the seat himself by entering the primary for renomination.” She won that election, and others, before losing a bid for reelection in 1944.

Women members of the 75th congress photographed in 1938. Left to right: Rep. Caroline O'Day, Rep. Edith Nourse Rogers, Rep. Mary T. Norton, Rep. Nan Honeyman, Rep. Virginia E. Jenckes and Senator Hattie W. Caraway. Nourse Rogers and Caraway both filled seats left vacant by their husbands.

According to research from CAWP, of the 39 women who entered the House of Representatives as successors to their husbands, 21 stayed on for more than two years, often sustaining illustrious careers. Among them are Representatives Edith Nourse Rogers, who sponsored the original GI bill, Florence Prag Kahn, the first Jewish woman to serve in Congress and the first to serve on the House Military Affairs Committee, Corinne “Lindy” Boggs, who championed women’s rights, and Chardiss Collins, who advocated for Medicare expansion and affirmative action.

Although widows had name recognition among constituents, they still faced competitive races. “They usually had to overcome opposition for their office nearly half have sought to retain their seats,” wrote Kincaid. “Significant power was accumulated and employed by those who extend their tenure.”

Moreover, she pointed out that some widows, like Rep. Leonor Sullivan of Missouri, “have vigorously sought and/or campaigned for their husbands’ seats, and have been denied and/or defeated.” Denied the party’s support in the 1951 special election, Sullivan beat six men in the primary and won the general election the next year. As she competes for Maryland Democrats' support, Rockeymoore Cummings carries the enviable endorsement of EMILY’s List, but opponent Kweisi Mfume holds the endorsement of the Maryland State AFL-CIO.

Rep. Beverly Byron, also of Maryland, was candid about her practical reasons running for her husband’s seat, which she occupied from 1979 to 1993. “In 24 hours, I became a widow, a single parent, unemployed and a candidate for Congress,'” she told the Los Angeles Times in 1998. “I knew I needed to work it was the only job offered to me.”

Many widows who went to Congress were already familiar with its working, having been party to their husbands’ world. “They had worked on their husbands’ campaigns and as a result, knew their district well,” explain Palmer and Simon. Many wives were deeply entwined with their husbands’ policy setting and political strategy. Before the powerful congressman Hale Boggs died, his wife, Lindy, “was his chief political adviser,” explains the House of Representatives archives. “She set up her husband’s district office in New Orleans, orchestrated his re–election campaigns, canvassed voters, arranged for her husband’s many social gatherings, and often acted as his political surrogate as demands on his time became greater the further he climbed in the House leadership.”

Some widows’ tenures in D.C. came to overshadow their husbands’ legacies. Perhaps most notable was Senator Margaret Chase Smith, a famous and formidable politician who spoke out against Senator Joseph McCarthy’s redbaiting. She originally went to Congress in 1940 to fill her husband Clyde’s seat and, after her election to the Senate in 1964, she made history as the first woman to serve in both chambers. She lost her last election in 1972, when she was in her mid-70s.

Today, just one widow successor sits in Congress: Rep. Doris Matsui from California. (Matsui is a member of the Smithsonian Board of Regents.) Rep. Debbie Dingell became the first woman to succeed her retiring husband in his congressional seat (John stepped down in 2015 and passed away in 2019). To date, no widower has succeeded his wife.

Widow’s succession “used to be the norm and it is now quite clearly the exception,” says Walsh. “In those early days, these women's lives and careers were probably incredibly closely intertwined with their husbands. They didn't really have their own careers separate from their husbands’ political career.”

“For a lot of women” these days, she continues, “they have their own lives, their own careers. And they may not be available…to just step in and take his job.”

But for Rockeymore Cummings, her career aligns with her husband’s and her political ambition predates his death. She was the chair of the Maryland Democratic Party and was a onetime candidate for governor, before dropping out when Cummings was hospitalized.

As she faces down her many many fellow Democrats in a crowded primary, she echoes widows before her, like Mae Nolan. As she said to CNN, “I’m now running to build on his legacy in Congress.” But it’s just as likely, should she win in the primary, that she’ll make the seat her own.


The Senate Is a Mess. This Former Staffer Knows How to Fix It.

As a high-level aide to Harry Reid back when he was Senate majority leader, Adam Jentleson got an up-close look at how the Senate works—or, more often, doesn’t work. Now he’s written a book , Kill Switch, that explains what the problem is and offers concrete steps to fix it.

So this is a pretty depressing book. It’s about how the filibuster has basically broken the Senate.

People tend to think the filibuster is a foundational feature of the Senate, and they tend to associate it with long-winded speeches in the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington model. Both of those things are totally incorrect. The filibuster did not even come into existence until more than half a century after the Senate was created. And t he filibuster is simply a way for any single senator to raise the threshold for passing a bill from the simple majority—where the framers set it and where Senate rules still put it—all the way up to a supermajority of 60 votes. Instead of a long-winded speech, it is a silent but deadly procedural tool.

So bills that might easily pass never get a vote.

That’s right. These bills aren’t even getting an actual vote. They’re failing on procedural motions, but it’s just become accepted that procedural motions substitute for the final vote. And that is a very recent development. It’s something we’ve accepted as normal but it’s really only in the last few decades that this has come to be common for most major legislation. For the vast majority of its existence, the Senate was a majority-rule body.

The public perception wouldn’t matter so much if it didn’t have such a damaging effect on our ability to craft thoughtful policy solutions to the challenges we face today. Right now, the filibuster prevents our entire federal government from passing common-sense solutions that have broad bipartisan support, because any single senator can impose the filibuster. And then a minority of 40 senators—who can collectively represent as little as 11 percent of the population—can sustain the filibuster and block any bill from passing. The way this works in practice—on balance, in the way it’s used—is reactionary white conservatives from generally relatively low-population states that are predominantly white themselves exercise veto power over all federal legislation that our country seeks to pass. That is a problem in a country that is rapidly diversifying, and it creates a widening disconnect between the American people and the policy solutions that their government is able to pass, which is a fundamentally unhealthy dynamic for democracy.

How do you work on a book like this without walking around furious all the time?

[Laughs.] That’s exactly what my wife said. But for me, it was a bit cathartic because I walked around furious the whole time I was working in the Senate. The book provided an opportunity to run down and examine these facts of life that had been driving me crazy. When you’re there, you’re given very vague answers about why things are the way they are. The Senate is not a particularly self-aware institution. It tends to embrace its own myths and it’s very invested in its own self-mythologizing.

When you ask, “Why is it commonly accepted that all bills need to be 60 votes?” the answer’s generally along the lines of, well, this reflects the wisdom of the ages handed down by generations of senators. What was fulfilling to me about the book was when you look at the history, that’s simply not true. It’s a history of small groups of people making ambitious power plays driven by their own narrow political interests, and then trying to shroud them in rhetoric about lofty Senate tradition. More often than not, that tradition they try to spin has no connection to reality.

You have the sense that this can’t possibly be the way it was supposed to be. So it was fulfilling to chase down the history and see that it really was tidak supposed to be this way. And with a realistic level of reform it could be made to be different.

Mitch McConnell’s refusal to allow a vote on $2,000 stimulus payments seems like a particularly stark example. Why aren’t more Americans angry about the filibuster situation?

Look, writing about Senate procedure is hard enough. Getting people motivated and excited is even harder. It’s a very abstract concept. I think it’s connected to this pretty damaging public perception of what the filibuster is. People associate the filibuster with Jimmy Stewart. It’s a high hurdle to explain why that’s wrong and why it needs to change. I do think that is changing.

What are the chances the Senate will get rid of the filibuster now that the Democrats have taken back control?

I think it’s somewhat inevitable, at least if Biden wants to get anything done. The political environment we’re living in provides extraordinarily strong incentives for Republicans to obstruct. They look at Democrats clinging to narrow majorities in the House and Senate, they look at the midterms coming up in 2022, and they think, “All we have to do to take back the House and Senate is make Democrats look bad.” That’s very easy to do when you need ten or more votes from Republicans in the Senate to pass just about anything at all.

There’s a lot of talk of passing things through reconciliation. I think that’s sort of a mirage. It could work at the beginning, but it leaves you high and dry on critical things like democracy reforms and climate change. So it may take some time for the reality to settle in, but come summer or fall, I think the administration is going be staring out at the prospect of total futility—with the only option for getting things done being a push for reform.

The good news is that Biden has an extraordinary level of credibility with Senators themselves if he chooses to push for reform. It’s obviously not his first preference, and it may take him some time to get there, but if he decides it’s necessary, he has more credibility than probably any living human when he calls up the reluctant Senators and says, “You know I wouldn’t do this if it weren’t necessary, but this is what we have to do.”

To me, the book acts as a sort of companion piece to Robert Caro’s Master of the Senate, which is a deep dive into Lyndon Johnson’s struggles with the filibuster. Is that book kind of a touchstone for you?

Oh, absolutely. That book completely shaped my view of the Senate and is one of my favorite books of all time. I’ve read it three or four times now. Caro did an incredible job of marrying the personalities with the institution and showing how the institution itself is really a function of these outsized personalities. And I don’t think he pulled any punches on the prevalence of white supremacy and racism in the decision-making process in the Senate.

I get the feeling McConnell might have spent a lot of time studying its lessons. Should incoming Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer maybe spend some time studying the lessons in anda book?

[Laughs.] Listen, I think Schumer wants to be a consequential majority leader. I think he wants to do big things and hopefully build a record to rival Lyndon Johnson, and that’s the future that I want for him, too. But I do think the hard reality is that’s not going to happen unless there are major reforms to the Senate rules, probably including reforming the filibuster.


The anticommunist crusader Senator Joseph McCarthy stepped into national prominence on February 9, 1950, when he mounted an attack on President Truman’s foreign policy agenda. McCarthy charged that the State Department and its Secretary, Dean Acheson, harbored “traitorous” Communists. McCarthy’s apocalyptic rhetoric—he portrayed the Cold War conflict as “a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity”—made critics hesitate before challenging him. His purported lists of Communist conspirators multiplied in subsequent years to include employees in government agencies, the broadcasting and defense industries, universities, the United Nations, and the military. Most of those accused were helpless to defend their ruined reputations and faced loss of employment, damaged careers, and in many cases, broken lives. In protest, Republican Senator Margaret Chase Smith composed the following “Declaration of Conscience,” condemning the atmosphere of suspicion and blaming leaders of both parties for their “lack of effective leadership.” Although Smith convinced six additional Republican Senators to join her in the Declaration, the seven refused to support a Senate report prepared by Democrats that called McCarthy’s charges against State Department personnel fraudulent.

Declaration of Conscience, June 1, 1950

Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition. It is a national feeling of fear and frustration that could result in national suicide and the end of everything that we Americans hold dear. It is a condition that comes from the lack of effective leadership in either the legislative branch or the executive branch of our Government.

That leadership is so lacking that serious and responsible proposals are being made that national advisory commissions be appointed to provide such critically needed leadership.

I speak as briefly as possible because too much harm has already been done with irresponsible words of bitterness and selfish political opportunism. I speak as simply as possible because the issue is too great to be obscured by eloquence. I speak simply and briefly in the hope that my words will be taken to heart.

I speak as a Republican. I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States Senator. I speak as an American.

The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world. But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity.

It is ironical that we Senators can debate in the Senate directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to any American, who is not a Senator, any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming an American—and without that non-Senator American having any legal redress against it—yet if we say the same thing in the Senate about our colleagues we can be stopped on the grounds of being out of order.

It is strange that we can verbally attack anyone else without restraint and with full protection and yet we hold ourselves above the same type of criticism here on the Senate floor. Surely the United States Senate is big enough to take self-criticism and self-appraisal. Surely we should be able to take the same kind of character attacks that we “dish out” to outsiders.

I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its Members to do some soul searching—for us to weigh our consciences—on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.

I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech, but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.

Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism—

The right to hold unpopular beliefs

The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn’t? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as “Communists” or “Fascists” by their opponents. Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.

The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed. But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause Nation-wide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.

As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation—in addition to being a party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.

Today our country is being psychologically divided by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of “know nothing, suspect everything” attitudes. Today we have a Democratic administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs. History is repeating itself—and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.

The record of the present Democratic administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears. America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.

The Democratic administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances—that show the people that our Democratic administration has no idea of where it is going.

The Democratic administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia through key officials of the Democratic administration. There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.

Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country. Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic administration.

Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty would prove equally disastrous to this Nation. The Nation sorely needs a Republican victory. But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the four horsemen of calumny—fear, ignorance, bigotry and smear.

I doubt if the Republican Party could—simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.

I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way. While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one-party system.

As members of the minority party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government. But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.

As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in Senate debate—and I use the word “debate” advisedly.

As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for irresponsible sensationalism. I am not proud of the reckless abandon in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle. I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.

I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity. I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the floor of the Senate.

As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of “confuse, divide and conquer.” As an American, I don’t want a Democratic administration “whitewash” or “cover-up” any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.

As an American, I condemn a Republican “Fascist” just as much as I condemn a Democrat “Communist.” I condemn a Democrat “Fascist” just as much as I condemn a Republican “Communist.” They are equally dangerous to you and me and to our country. As an American, I want to see our Nation recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought the enemy instead of ourselves.

It is with these thoughts I have drafted what I call a Declaration of Conscience. I am gratified that Senator Tobey, Senator Aiken, Senator Morse, Senator Ives, Senator Thye and Senator Hendrickson, have concurred in that declaration and have authorized me to announce their concurrence.

Statement of Seven Republican Senators

1. We are Republicans. But we are Americans first. It is as Americans that we express our concern with the growing confusion that threatens the security and stability of our country. Democrats and Republicans alike have contributed to that confusion.

2. The Democratic administration has initially created the confusion by its lack of effective leadership, by its contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances, by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home, by its oversensitiveness to rightful criticism, by its petty bitterness against its critics.

3. Certain elements of the Republican Party have materially added to this confusion in the hopes of riding the Republican party to victory through the selfish political exploitation of fear, bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance. There are enough mistakes of the Democrats for Republicans to criticize constructively without resorting to political smears.

4. To this extent, Democrats and Republicans alike have unwittingly, but undeniably, played directly into the Communist design of “confuse, divide and conquer.”

5. It is high time that we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom. It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques—techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life.

Source: "Declaration of Conscience" by Senator Margaret Chase Smith and Statement of Seven Senators, June 1, 1950, Congressional Record, 82nd Congress. 1st Session, in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and Roger Burns, Congress Investigates: A Documented History, 1792� (New York: Chelsea House, 1963), 84󈟄.


How Margaret Chase Smith stood up to Joseph McCarthy — and won

Ted Widmer is the Saunders Fellow for Public Engagement at Brown University and a senior fellow of the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. He is also a trustee of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

It wasn't much of a sound bite by 2016 standards — way too many syllables. But when a Republican senator, Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, stood up to Joseph McCarthy in 1950, attacking him for his shameful reliance on “the Four Horsemen of Calumny — Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear,” it caused a sensation. Smith’s blast of Northern New England air cooled down a country that had become dangerously overheated and eventually led to McCarthy’s demise.

Sixty-six years later, many of the same toxins have resurfaced in our politics. Ethnic slurs routinely bubble up to the surface, whether it’s Donald Trump on Mexicans, Ben Carson on Muslims, or Ted Cruz on “New York values.” Loudness, innuendo, and snark seem to be the metric for winning debates.

In 1950, Margaret Chase Smith was an unlikely warrior against these powerful forces, much in the ascendant. Americans were frightened by financial trouble at home and depressing events abroad, such as the so-called loss of China and Russia’s success in building an atomic weapon. General disillusionment with the feckless Truman administration had opened the door to a new politics of opportunism, skillfully exploited by rising young Republicans — and none was more opportunistic than Wisconsin’s junior senator. A former Democrat, Joseph McCarthy had switched his affiliation and was elected in the Republican landslide of 1946, the same year that many returning veterans sought office for the first time, including Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy.

By 1950, McCarthy was a national figure with momentum on his side, largely thanks to a sensational speech in which he claimed to know the names of a huge number of subversive employees at the State Department. The exact number — sometimes 57 or 81 or 205 — did not seem to matter. The media did little at first to slow him down. Indeed, national columnists played no small part in stoking the fears that made McCarthy popular, and their syndicates profitable. For a few years, McCarthy’s scare tactics created an entire industry, helping to explain why the United States seemed to be losing ground against shadowy forces around the world. McCarthy had many political gifts, including a powerful oratorical presence, which he leavened with a biting wit, effective at lacerating opponents. No one in the Senate had dared to take him on.

No one, that is, except Margaret Chase Smith. She was the shortest member of the Senate, and its only woman, but on June 1, 1950, she stood up. She had many reasons not to. Smith was a more junior senator than McCarthy, having been elected in 1948 after a career in the House that began when she was appointed to fill the seat of her late husband. She had worked with McCarthy on committees, and she was a Republican loyalist, hesitant to take on a powerful senator in her own party. It was a daunting step to take politically, as well, for McCarthy was popular throughout New England. .


Chief Justice Chase Scolds the Senate for Premature Impeachment Activities (1868)

On February 24, 1868, three days after President Johnson dismissed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton without Senate concurrence, the House voted 126-47 in favor of a resolution “[t]hat Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors.” For a while, exactly what Johnson had done to merit impeachment remained (at least formally) unknown. Yet the Senate went about organizing itself to try Johnson’s impeachment, adopting on March 2 a set of “Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when sitting on the Trial of Impeachments.”

On March 4, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase dashed off a letter to the Senate, “submitting some observations in respect to the proper mode of proceeding upon the impeachment which has been preferred by the House of Representatives against the President now in Office”:

Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution says the “Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments,” but it’s unclear when the Senate may organize itself to try impeachments (when it’s been informed of an affirmative impeachment vote, or only after it’s received detailed articles of impeachment?) and whether it must wait until “sitting for that purpose” to establish rules and procedures for the trial.

Chase’s chief “observation” addressed the timing question. In his view, the Senate could not organize itself under oath as an impeachment court until it had received concrete articles of impeachment. (The articles actually arrived in the Senate later on the afternoon of March 4.) Furthermore, “no summons or other process should issue except from the organized Court, and . . . rules for the government of the proceedings of such a Court should be framed only by the Court itself.” Chase knew the Senate had “proceeded upon other views.” Rather than purport to nullify what it had done, he set out to convince posterity that the Senate’s premature issuances should not be repeated in the event that, God forbid, the chronology of this first presidential impeachment should ever need to be consulted as a precedent.

Here’s page one of the letter Chase wrote to the Senate:

Here’s the full text of Chase’s letter:

    Inasmuch as the sole power to try impeachments is vested by the Constitution in the Senate, and it is made the duty of the Chief Justice to preside when the President is on trial, I take the liberty of submitting, very respectfully, some observations in respect to the proper mode of proceeding upon the impeachment which has been preferred by the House of Representatives against the President, now in office.
    That when the Senate sits for the trial of an impeachment it sits as a Court, seems unquestionable.
    That, for the trial of an impeachment of the President, this Court must be constituted of the members of the Senate, with the Chief Justice presiding, seems equally unquestionable.
    The Federalist is regarded as the highest contemporary authority on the construction of the Constitution and in the sixty-fourth number the functions of the Senate ‘‘sitting in their judicial capacity as a court for the trial of impeachments’’ are examined.
    In a paragraph explaining the reasons for not uniting ‘‘the Supreme Court with the Senate in the formation of the court of impeachments’’ it is observed that ‘‘to a certain extent the benefits of that union will be obtained from making the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court the President of the Court of Impeachments, as is proposed in the plan of the convention, while the inconveniences of an entire incorporation of the former into the latter will be substantially avoided. This was, perhaps, the prudent mean.’’
    This authority seems to leave no doubt upon either of the propositions just stated.
    And the statement of them will serve to introduce the question upon which I think it my duty to state the result of my reflections to the Senate, namely, At what period, in the case of an impeachment of the President, should the Court of Impeachment be organized under oath as directed by the Constitution?
    It will readily suggest itself to anyone who reflects upon the abilities and the learning in the law which distinguish so many Senators, that besides the reason assigned in the Federalist, there must have been still another for the provision requiring the Chief Justice to preside in the Court of Impeachment. Under the Constitution, in case of a vacancy in the office of President, the Vice President succeeds and it was doubtless thought prudent and befitting that the next in succession should not preside in a proceeding through which a vacancy might be created.
    It is not doubted that the Senate, while sitting in its ordinary capacity, must necessarily receive from the House of Representatives, some notice of its intention to impeach the President at its bar but it does not seem to me an unwarranted opinion, in view of this constitutional provision, that the organization of the Senate as a Court of Impeachment under the Constitution, should precede the actual announcement of the impeachment on the part of the House.
    And it may perhaps be thought a still less unwarranted opinion that articles of impeachment should only be presented to a Court of Impeachment that no summons or other process should issue except from the organized Court, and that rules for the government of the proceedings of such a Court should be framed only by the Court itself.
    I have found myself unable to come to any other conclusions than these. I can assign no reason for requiring the Senate to organize as a Court under any other than its ordinary presiding officer, for the later proceedings upon an impeachment of the President, which does not seem to me to apply equally to the earlier.
    I am informed that the Senate has proceeded upon other views and it is not my purpose to contest what its superior wisdom may have directed.
    All good citizens will fervently pray that no occasion may ever arise when the grave proceedings now in progress will be cited as a precedent but it is not impossible that such an occasion may come.
    Inasmuch, therefore, as the Constitution has charged the Chief Justice with an important function in the trial of an impeachment of the President, it has seemed to me fitting and obligatory, where he is unable to concur in the views of the Senate, concerning matters essential to the trial, that his respectful dissent should appear.

Tonton videonya: Latvijas tiesu sistēma