The Texas Archive War

A few cannon shots over a dispute about which town will house some files?  Welcome to Texas history.

From the Revolution of 1836, through its time as a Republic teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, to its first stint as a state (1845-61) it was a wild ride.  THC has posted on the Alamo, the invasion of Nuevo Mexico and the threatened invasion of New Mexico and, of course, Sam Houston, who towered over every other figure in this period, loved or hated by every Texan.

Like so many other events of those times, the Archive War revolved around Sam Houston who was, at the time, President of the Republic of Texas.  First elected president from 1836 to 1838, Houston could not run for a second term under the Texas Constitution, which also provided for three years terms after 1838.  Next up was as president was Mirabeau Lamar, a fierce opponent of Houston; while they greatly differed on policy, particularly towards Mexico and the Indians, Houston's personality also had a significant polarizing impact on Texas politics and factional infighting.  In December 1841, Houston returned as president.

Mexico had never recognized Texan independence and in 1842 launched two invasions of the republic, occupying San Antonio both times along with some towns on the Gulf coast, but eventually withdrawing.  However, the invasions created a panic in the western and central parts of Texas, including its capital Austin.  Sam Houston, who disliked Austin and preferred Houston, founded in 1837 and, of course, named after him, as the capital of the republic, saw an opportunity.

Houston often referred to Austin as "the most unfortunate site on earth for a seat of government", refused to move into the presidential "mansion", a small one story log house, instead taking a room at the boarding house of Mrs Angelina Eberly.

In the wake of the first Mexican invasion in early 1842, Houston called a special session of congress in Houston, arguing that Austin was defenseless, and ordered his Secretary of State to move the Republic's archives to Houston, though no action was taken at the time.  Austin residents formed a Committee of Safety, warning Houston that any attempt to remove the archives would be resisted.  

After the second invasion in September 1842, Houston called a special session at Washington-on-the-Brazos (about halfway between Austin and Houston), the town where Texian independence had been declared in 1836.  Houston's proposal to move the capital to Washington was defeated by one vote, but he nonetheless moved agencies out of Austin to Washington and then, in December 1842, Sam declared Houston the temporary capital and sent a squad of rangers, under Colonel Thomas Smith and Captain Eli Chandler, to Austin to remove the archives.

On December 30, 1842, the rangers managed to load three wagons with the archives before boarding house owner Mrs Eberly noticed them, ran to a cannon kept loaded to alert residents of Indian raids, and fired it (depicted above), alerting the town.  The Committee of Safety organized a pursuit of the wagons, taking with it a cannon from the town arsenal, finally catching up with them at Brushy Creek, north of Austin. The rangers had not expected a pursuit and after a cannon shot surrendered and were escorted back to Austin where the archives were restored to their rightful home.

No one was hurt in the making of this war.

Austin was named temporary capital in 1845 when Texas was admitted to the Union, a location which became permanent after a referendum in 1850.

Tunnel Of Eupalinos

In 1978, Mrs THC and I visited the Greek island of Samos.  We arrived on a boat out of Piraeus after spending a lovely afternoon and evening on the Aegean.  In those day, the ferries used in the Aegean were mostly repurposed ferries from the North Sea countries which could no longer stand up to the rough seas but were fine for the calm Aegean.

Spending our second night on Samos in the small town of Pythagoreio, named after the famed mathematician born on the island, we decided to splurge, spending $12 on a decent hotel (a big expense for us the time) and having an excellent dinner of freshly caught fish at one of the restaurants by the docks.

It was there we first heard about the water tunnel built under the direction of Eupalinos of Megara (a city on the Greek mainland), described as a wonder by the historian Herodotus in the 5th century BC, the location of which was rediscovered in the 19th century.

The 3,400 foot tunnel runs through and under Mount Kastro, carrying water from a spring to the city of Samos, then the capitol of the island (Pythagoreio was founded in the 19th century on the same site), probably in the 6th century BC.

Because only two men could work on excavating at the same time, the tunnel was started from both ends and through Eupalinos' knowledge of geometry was able to meet.

This animated video below provides an entertaining and instructive guide to how the tunnel, which may have provided water for a thousand years, was designed and constructed.

The ferry taking us back to the mainland arrived in Samos 12 hours behind schedule. We spent much of the time sitting in a crowded ferry terminal filled with cigarette smoke but afraid to leave because no one could give us any accurate information on when the ferry might arrive.  When it finally came into port we noticed the boat had a notable list but it did get us back to Piraeus eventually.  A few days later we departed Athens for Paris on the Magic Bus.

 

Art Of The Visual Gag

Good explainer on the silent movie star Buster Keaton, why these gags hold up so well a century later, and how he inspired so many film makers over the years.  One of my favorites, Jackie Chan, has often spoken of his admiration for Keaton and you can see Keaton's inspiration in many of the Jackie's memorable stunt scenes.

 

COVID + 18

This is going to be my last monthly Covid update, though I may do occasional posts on specific aspects.

The Delta wave which severely impacted South and Southeast Asia seems to be receding, as it is in most of Latin America, except perhaps Mexico.  In Europe it has now spread to some of the countries in the east.  The Africa data remains difficult to interpret.

The situation in the U.S. is mixed.  Overall cases are down by about 20% in the past couple of weeks but deaths have not declined.  If cases continue to decline we'd expect deaths to start doing the same over the next 10-14 days.  However, the U.S. also has confounding factors, including geography, what appears to be seasonal patterns, and differing vaccination rates, so whether the current trends continue is in question.

Last year we had patterns where the southern states had a summer wave, followed by the upper midwest and then the northeast over the winter.  Will it repeat or will Delta moderate when it gets to the most vaccinated states?  We are already seeing some increase as it moves north.  An anomaly is what Florida experienced, compared to states like Arkansas and Mississippi which had very low vaccination rates.  When the wave started Florida stood around #20 in vaccination rates, with rates about equal to or slightly higher than a number of northern states but the Delta wave was much worse than last summer's wave.  Figuring out why this occurred may also help better understand how the virus works. 

Small differences in vaccination rates can lead to large differences in the worst outcomes.  Let's take the UK as a comparison.  65.5% of its population is fully vaccinated and 5.9% partially.  In the US it's 54.5% fully vaccinated and 8.9 partially.  If you look at Covid cases and deaths on a per capita basis, the UK 7-day average is about the same as the US peak of two weeks ago but the US 7-day average death rate is over twice as high as the Brits.  Do the math and it means if you were to scale up the UK population to that of the US, the US is experiencing 1,000 more deaths a day than the UK, which I think primarily attributable to the difference in vaccination rates.

Meanwhile, we'll be getting our flu shots and the covid booster as we are now more than seven months out from our second shots.

Let's hope this is the last big wave before we are left with covid as an endemic virus with occasional larger outbreaks.  As much as I don't like the prospect, this is going to be something we will have to learn to live with at some level.

And if you want to keep up with developments on the story around covid origins read Alina Chan.

Grouchy

Following the Battle of Ligny on June 16, 1815, at which Napoleon defeated the Prussian army, the Emperor assigned Marshal Emmanuel de Grouchy along with a substantial part of the French army to follow the retreat of the Prussians while Napoleon took the direct road to Brussels and a confrontation with Wellington's army.  Grouchy's task was to ensure the Prussians did not unite with Wellington.

Grouchy failed in his assignment.  Late on the afternoon of June 18, General Blucher led his Prussians on to the battlefield at Waterloo, ensuring Napoleon's defeat.  Grouchy never made it to Waterloo.

But I didn't mean to talk about that Grouchy.  I'm the one who is grouchy.

I'm grouchy because after yesterday's report on the Arizona "forensic audit" by the cyber ninjas, there are still those who claim the Arizona election results were not legitimate and still believe the "ninja dust" thrown out by the audit team despite their own results - their hand count matched that of Maricopa County (actually Biden's margin got a bit bigger) and they presented no evidence to support the Dominion software conspiracy theory.

Living in Maricopa County, I have followed this much more closely than any of the other election disputes.  The bottom line is pretty simple if you look at precinct results.  The votes Donald Trump picked up in Hispanic precincts were more than offset by Biden gains in the wealthier white precincts; a pattern consistent across metro areas nationwide.  End of story.  Nothing nefarious in a County where four of the five Supervisors are Republican and the Recorder, who oversees elections, is a Republican who beat the incumbent Democrat in the same election alleged to be fixed for Biden and the Democrats.

I could go on to write another multi-thousand word post explaining why the allegations made by the cyber ninjas are nonsense, but the whole thing is so stupid I refuse to spend the time.  Instead here are some references to better understand what is going on:

Open Letter to Arizona Republicans from Stephen Richer (R), Maricopa County Recorder 

Stephen Richer on Twitter

Maricopa County on Twitter 

Maricopa County: Just the Facts - Myth Busters 

Garrett Archer on Twitter 

Rob Graham Twitter thread on audit press conference

- extra added bonus - here's Rob explaining why the Trump Org and Alfa Bank servers weren't connected (relevant to my recent post on this topic), and which contains this observation:

The entire presentation today in Maricopa by Trumpists was the same conspiracy-theory argument: their inability to rationally explain anomalies. But the defect was in themselves not being smart enough to explain, not a conspiracy.

UPDATE: This graphically explains why Trump lost in Maricopa.

 

In 2020, ~100,000 voters voted for Joe Biden and then supported GOP candidates in down ballot races (state legislature / county). Ticket splitting was at its highest in precincts with high levels of 4-year college degree attainment and high median household incomes. pic.twitter.com/XuvJyIvDFe

— Landon Wall (@LandonWall_) December 1, 2021

Welcome To The Club

Standin' in the runway
Wavin' at the plane
There goes everything you own
You called home collect
And they didn't know your name
Starin' at the telephone

Well, welcome to the club 

Time from some riffin' from Joe Walsh.  From the classic So What album.

The Pleasures Of Reading History

I've written before about the unexpected pleasures that give a deeper understanding, encountered while reading and writing about history for this blog.  Recently, I came across a journal article and a book that brought to my attention things I did not know, and hadn't thought about, in this case involving slavery (for a discussion of other readings on slavery go here).

Did you ever think about the implications of the Dred Scott decision on the issuance of patents?  I had not, but U of Kentucky law professor Brian Frye did, and wrote about it in Invention of a Slave, originally published in the Syracuse Law Review (2018) (1).

When issued in 1857, Dred Scott instantly became the most controversial decision of the Supreme Court (for background read Dred Scott's Trial), in particular because of Chief Justice Taney's opinion finding that blacks, whether slave or free, could not be citizens of the United States.  I'd already been aware that as a result of this declaration the State Department ceased to issue passports to free blacks, a policy overturned by Abraham Lincoln soon after his inauguration in March 1861.  Professor Frye explores the consequences of the case and US patent law when it came to the issue of patents by the Patent Office.

Here's Frye's summary:

On June 10, 1858, the Attorney General issued an opinion titled Invention of a Slave, concluding that a slave owner could not patent a machine invented by his slave, because neither the slave owner nor his slave could take the required patent oath.  The slave owner could not swear to be the inventor, and the slave could not take an oath at all.  The Patent Office denied at least two patent applications filed by slave owners, one of which was filed by Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi . . . But it also denied at least one patent application filed by a free African-American inventory, because African-Americans could not be citizens of the United States under Dred Scott.

The Patent Act required a Patent Oath in which the applicant had to swear to be the "original" inventor and that they were an American citizen.  Before Dred Scott, the Patent Office had granted many patents to free African-Americans, the first known being Thomas Jennings in 1827 for a method for "dry scouring" clothing.  Many other followed and there are probably more than currently identified as the patent application did not require the applicant to disclose their race. 

Following Dred Scott, slave owners objected to the position taken by the Patent Office claiming slaves were more creative than free African-Americans(!!) while free African-Americans objected to the new bar on granting them patents. 

In August 1857 (five months after Dred Scott), Oscar J.E. Stuart, a lawyer and planter in Mississippi, wrote the Secretary of the Interior (where the Patent Office was housed) inquiring how to patent an invention of his slave Ned for a "double plow and scraper".  The Secretary forwarded the letter to  Attorney General Jermiah Black for a formal response.  Black responded he could not opine until Stuart submitted an application, which Stuart did.  In November, the new Commissioner of Patents, Thomas Holt, a Southerner, responded the invention could not be patented since neither Stuart nor Ned could take the oath.

As Frye writes:

Holt presumably applied the logic of Dred Scott and concluded that if slaves could not be citizens of the United States, then they could not take the patent oath, and slave owners could not patent the inventions of their slaves.  In other words, Dred Scott denied citizenship to African-Americans in order to help slave owners, but Holt applied the logic of Dred Scott in order to prevent slave owners from claiming ownership of the inventions of their slaves. 

In June 1858, AG Black issued his opinion agreeing with Commissioner Holt.  After Black's opinion, Slave owners tried to get the U.S. Congress to amend the Patent Act to allow owners to obtain patents for the inventions of their slaves but the effort failed, though in 1861 the Constitution of the new Confederate States of America specifically allowed for such patents.

In 1859, Jefferson Davis tried to obtain a patent for the invention of one of his brother's slaves, Benjamin T Montgomery, and was turned down for the same reasons.  In 1866, Davis' brother Joseph, sold his plantations to Montgomery, who even as a slave had become a successful merchant, at first secretly, because sale of property to a black violated the state's Black Code instituted after the end of the Civil War, and then the following year publicly after legislation was passed allowing such transactions.

Did you know that in the 1850s there were Brazilian and Cuban merchants in New York City actively hiring U.S. ships and crews to travel to Africa and bring slaves back to Brazil and Cuba?  Reading The Last Slave Ships: New York and the End of the Middle Passage by John Harris was a revelation.

In 1807 the importation of slaves into the U.S. became illegal and in 1820 Congress passed legislation making Americans engaged in any importation subject to the death penalty (though this was only imposed once, in 1862).  Likewise, under British pressure other nations banned the slave trade, though not slavery itself.  In 1850 Brazil, the largest importer of slaves in the Western Hemisphere (nearly 50% of all Africans imported into the Americas came to Brazil) banned the trade, though slavery would be legal until 1888.  Because of the large U.S. merchant fleet and availability of crews Brazilian and Cuban slave traders set up shop in New York City using a number of subterfuges to disguise what they were doing which was illegal under U.S. law though the slaves were not imported into the U.S.

The Last Slave Ships tells how the scheme worked, the ineffectiveness and at times collusion, of American authorities, and the efforts of some Americans but primarily of the British government to stop the slave trade. 

While there were many new aspects to me, it was one particular issue that I found particularly striking.

The British devoted a large part of their navy to trying to intercept slave ships, supported by a small American squadron and, at times, by the Spanish navy.  When a slave ship was intercepted what became of the freed Africans?  I knew about the interceptions and even that more than 100,000 captives were freed but never thought about what happened next.

It turns out the Africans could not be returned to the ports from which they had embarked because these were run by kingdoms and tribes who were conducting the raids that had enslaved them in the first place.  These Africans were from inland areas not accessible to Western navies.

Instead the British took the Africans to their islands in the Caribbean where they were indentured to work on the sugar plantations for several years and were then freed.  The Americans took freed Africans to Liberia, settled earlier in the century by freed American slaves.  The Africans were indentured, the start of a caste system with descendants of American slaves ruling over native Africans, a system that last well into the 20th century.  As to the Spanish, they took their freed captives to Cuba where they were indentured, though apparently the terms of the indenture were often not honored and the Africans effectively reduced to slavery until it was abolished in 1886 (2).

----------------------------------------------------------

(1) I came across the article completely by accident.  While following a reference that had nothing to do with slavery I came across an index of law review articles, including Frye's which caught my eye.

(2) This prompted me to do some research on these African coastal slave states.  They were very prosperous in the 17th and 18th centuries when the Atlantic slave trade was booming, with most of their revenues derived from the trade.  However, as the trade shrank in the first half of the 19th century and virtually ceased after the American Civil War, the search for replacement revenues led to a switch to agriculture which actually increased their need for slaves, as the labor intensity required more slaves from the inland areas subject to annual sweeps by the coastal slave states.  This persisted until the European carve up of Africa towards the end of the century, which created its own set of problems.

The Return Of Russia Collusion: Clinton Lawyer Indicted

It's been a while since writing about the Russia Collusion mess (for my summary go here, for all posts use this link) but last week Special Counsel John Durham indicted Michael Sussman, a Clinton campaign lawyer, for making a "materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement or representation" to the General Counsel of the FBI.  As two commentators I have found reliable, Andrew McCarthy of NRO and shipwreckedcrew (1), have noted, if this was a simple false statement indictment it could have been done in a couple of paragraphs and pages; instead the indictment runs for 27 pages and exposes a rat's nest of related activities, perhaps presaging more indictments down the road - at least we can hope.  And, unlike the SCO Mueller's showboating indictment against several Russian organizations alleging election interference, the Durham indictment is one of substance (2).

Before discussing the contents of the indictment and what it may indicate, let's rewind the tape.

The starting point for the FBI probe that began in July 2016 and eventually transmogrified into Special Counsel Mueller's investigation in May 2017, was information that a member of Donald Trump's National Security Advisory Board (3), George Papadopolous, had been approached by someone associated with Russia who advised they had damaging information regarding Hillary Clinton.  The alleged transmitter of this information was Josef Mifsud and I hope we eventually find out what, and who, prompted Mifsud to contact Papadopolous (4).

However, the FBI investigation was stalled until Christopher Steele (a former UK intelligence officer) approached the agency with a dossier purporting to include information that Trump had multiple connections with the Russian government, information in part claimed to have been obtained from Russian intelligence sources.  Using the dossier information, which FBI and DOJ officials claimed was verified and reliable, a warrant was obtained (and renewed three times) from the FISA Court allowing communications of Carter Page, another member of Trump's advisory board, to be monitored (5).

We now know that the Steele Dossier was never verified; at least some of the FBI and DOJ officials attesting to its accuracy knew the truth that rather than being sourced from Russian intelligence (which incidentally, if true, would have undercut the narrative that the Kremlin favored Trump in the 2016 election) it consisted mostly of second and third hand gossip, and its primary source stated he had no idea if the information he gave to Steele was accurate.  Indeed, the Steele Dossier, deemed so critical to the case for Russia collusion by the Democrats and the media in 2017, was studiously ignored in Special Counsel Muller's report released in 2019. (5)

Moreover, we learned the dossier had been produced at the direction of, and with funding from, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, which was also leaking its contents to the media during and after the election campaign.  

One of the many allegation contained in the dossier was that the Trump Organization was secretly communicating with the Kremlin through its servers to servers operated by the Russian owned Alfa Bank (mistakenly referred to in the dossier as Alpha Bank).

And that brings us to the recent indictment.

The reason for the indictment is simple.  On September 19, 2016 Michael Sussman met with James A Baker, General Counsel of the FBI, to convey allegations regarding connections between Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, Alfa Bank, and the Russian government.  In that conversation he stated to Baker that he was not acting on behalf of any client in conveying the allegations, in fact he'd come as "a good citizen.”  The indictment alleges that, in fact, Sussman was acting on behalf of the Clinton Campaign and a Tech Executive client (and the indictment includes detailed information on Sussman's billing records to substantiate the allegation).  This statement was a criminal violation of Title 18, Section 1001 of the U.S. Code, more commonly referred to as the "False Statement" provision.

As to the substance of the allegation, the FBI ultimately determined after an investigation that there was no support for them.  The indictment notes:

In particular, and among other things, the FBI's investigation revealed that the email server at issue was not owned or operated by the Trump Organization but, rather, had been administered by a mass marketing email company that sent advertisements for Trump hotels and hundreds of other clients.

And the DOJ Inspector General report concluded:

The FBI investigated whether there were cyber links between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, but had concluded by early February 2017 that there were no such links.

Nonetheless, the allegations required FBI time and resource to investigate and leaks to the media prompting many stories in late October 2016, clearly designed to influence the election, from outlets like Rachel Maddow promoting the allegation as true (media stories continued well into 2018 when Dexter Filkins wrote a ridiculous piece in The New Yorker about the connection).

That this was a significant part of the Clinton campaign effort can be seen by these tweets from Hilary Clinton promoting the story manufactured by her campaign:

Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016

 Note the statement from Jake Sullivan, currently National Security Adviser to President Biden.

It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016

 

 

According to the indictment how did this all come about?

Michael Sussman is a former DOJ lawyer (and Democrat) who had a cybersecurity law practice at the firm of Perkins & Coie, the same firm at which Marc Elias headed, until recently, the election law practice, and represented most of the national organs of the Democratic Party, including the Democratic National Committee and, in 2016, the Clinton campaign.  It was Elias who retained FusionGPS which, in turn, hired Christopher Steele to create the dossier.

In April 2016, Sussman was brought in by Marc Elias to represent the Democratic National Committee in connection with the alleged hacking of its servers by the Russian government.  On December 18, 2017 Sussman gave testimony on that matter to the House Intelligence Committee.  In June 2020 I wrote a summary of that testimony, but what I didn't focus on at the time, not thinking it important, was Sussman's statement to the Committee (at page 56) that he met with James Baker in September 2016 to convey certain allegations regarding the Trump campaign and disclosed he was working for a client on the matter; testimony cited in the recent indictment in support of the false statement allegation.

The only participants in the September 2016 meeting were Baker and Sussman, so the Special Counsel must have testimony directly from Baker that Sussman did not make a disclosure during the meeting and the indictment specifically references Baker's notes from the meeting state, "said not doing this for any client" and that he'd "been approached by Prominent Cyber People (Academic or Corp. POCs)".

Where did the information regarding Trump and Alfa Bank come from?

Sussman frequently served as counsel for a company designated as Internet Company-1 in the indictment and which is apparently Neustar, described by Wikipedia as:

"provides clearinghouse and directory services to the global communications and Internet industries. Neustar is the domain name registry for a number of top-level domains, including .biz, .us (on behalf of United States Department of Commerce), .co, .nyc (on behalf of the city of New York), and .in (on behalf of the National Internet Exchange of India)."

Throughout his work with Neustar, Sussman's primary point of contact was a individual designated in the indictment as Tech Executive-1.  This individual also hired Sussman in 2015 as his lawyer in a matter involved an agency of the U.S. government.  This individual apparently was Rodney Joffe, Senior VP and Senior Technologist of Neustar.  Right after the Sussman indictment, it was announced that Joffe had left Neustar.  The indictment alleges that as a result of his position:

Tech Executive-1 maintained direct or indirect access to, and the ability to provide others access to, large amounts of internet and cybersecurity data

The indictment goes on to allege that Tech Exec-1 claimed:

"I was tentatively offered the top [cybersecurity] job by the Democrats when it looked like they'd win.  I definitely would not take the job under Trump." 

In July 2016, Originator-1, an anonymous computer research and business associate of Tech Exec-1 claimed to have identified DNS lookups between Alfa Bank and the email domain "mail1.trump-email.com" and Tech Exec alerted Sussman.  In the following weeks,

Sussman and Tech Executive-1 engaged in efforts with Campaign Lawyer-1 [Elias] and individuals acting on behalf of the Clinton Campaign to share information about the Russian Bank Data with the media and others . . .

Throughout this period;

Tech Executive-1 used his access at multiple organizations to gather and mine public and non-public Internet data regarding Trump and his associates, with the goal of creating a "narrative" regarding the candidate's ties to Russia.

The indictment alleges Tech Executive-1 wanted that narrative to please certain "VIPs".

The problem was that Tech Exec-1 and Sussman weren't coming up with much and those they had tasked with the research were becoming uncomfortable.  The indictment alleges these individuals:

. . . were uncomfortable regarding this taking from Tech Executive-1 because they believed that using the companies' data in this manner was inappropriate.  They complied with the tasking, however, because Tech-Executive-1 was a powerful figure at both companies.

One of the researchers told Tech Executive-1 that what he was finding "does not make much sense with the storyline you have" and additional disappointing information followed.  Nonetheless Tech Exec-1 told the researchers, "Being able to provide evidence of 'anything' that shows an attempt to behave badly in relation to this, the VIPs would be happy" and insisted that additional research would "give the base of a very useful narrative."

Even after his exhortations, one of the researchers responded:

. . . you do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association . . . we cannot technically make any claims that would fly public scrutiny.  The only thing that drive[s] us at this point is that we just do not like [Trump].  This will not fly in the eyes of public scrutiny.  Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision.

Despite this, Sussman and the others began to prepare a "white paper" on the allegations that would later be provided to FBI General Counsel Baker.  The indictment alleges the white paper was constructed in order to make plausible allegations even if not "fact" and to avoid mentioning any of the issues the researchers encountered which would allow any experts to poke holes in the narrative.

It was this document that Sussman went to Baker with and also used with the media to spread the story.

As Andrew McCarthy summarized it:

In a nutshell, then, people closely connected to the Clinton campaign use privileged access to nonpublic information for political purposes. They concoct it into a political narrative that they know is baseless but can be convincingly spun to suggest Trump is in cahoots with Putin.

I mentioned earlier that Christopher Steele mistakenly referenced Alfa Bank as Alpha Bank in his dossier.  Alfa Bank sued Steele for defamation in the British courts.  In his deposition, Steele revealed his source for the bank allegations was not Russian; it was Michael Sussman! 

Now you know why some people have become obsessed with the Deep State.

An obvious part of the story behind the indictment is Durham's obtaining of lawyer billing records and communications from Perkins Coie, something law firms do not easily part with.  I imagine this took months of negotiations to obtain and it is possible that the law firm itself was threatened with prosecution.  Sussman resigned from Perkin after the indictment and two weeks prior to its filing Marc Elias and his entire election law team left the firm.  At the time, I wondered what was going on and it is obvious now that the firm and Elias knew the indictment was coming and that prompted the split and, as mentioned above Tech Executive-1 (Joffe) has now left his company.

Based on the indictment it looks like Durham has obtained the cooperation of a number of the researchers working for Joffe and a reading of the indictment indicates more prosecutions may be coming (6).

Durham was forced to file regarding Sussman's meeting with Baker because the five-year statute of limitations was expiring but the indictment also alleges that "Sussman would later convey these allegations to another U.S. agency.  In doing so, and as alleged below, Sussman repeated in substance, the same false statement he had made to the FBI General Counsel that he was not acting on behalf of a client".  Those meetings took place in December 2016 and February 2017, so Durham has more time to file additional charges.  It is also possible, given the details laid out, that Special Counsel may eventually allege that this episode is part of a larger conspiracy because of its tie to the Steele Dossier.  In addition, the indictment is careful to lay out Sussman's communications on this matter with Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook and foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan.  It is clear they knew Sussman would meet with Baker.  Did they know Sussman would not disclose his connection to the campaign?  Seems like grand jury time for them.

------------------------------

(1)  shipwreckedcrew is the twitter handle of a former prosecutor with the DOJ for more than 20 years.  I have found his legal commentary to be accurate and insightful though his political commentary more erratic. 

(2) In my 2020 summary post on Russia Collusion, I wrote about the collapse of Mueller's indictment:

In 2018, to great media fanfare, the Mueller team announced an indictment of several Russian companies and individuals alleging interference with the 2016 elections.  All of the usual media suspects greeting it with delight, with this headline from The Atlantic typical, "Mueller's Indictment Puts Details Behind Claims Of Russian Interference".  However, even at the time, it was evident to more neutral observers this was just another gamesmanship move by Mueller to generate headlines from favorable media and keep alive the illusion of a Russian conspiracy with the Trump campaign (though the indictment did not allege collusion), evident because Mueller was using a unique legal theory of liability  and, more importantly, the defendants were all located in Russia, not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore, the Mueller team calculated, no chance the case would ever come to trial and they be forced to proved their allegations, fulfilling their objection of generating press coverage without ever being put to the test.

Well, that's how they thought it would work, but were surprised when one of the Russian companies, Concord Management and Consulting, hired a U.S. law firm which challenged the indictment and immediately ensnared the Mueller team in an embarrassing situation because it could not provide the defendant with legally required discovery materials and was not prepared to actually prove its allegations.  It proved to be a complete fiasco for the prosecution.  In 2019 the Federal District Court judge presiding over the case admonished the Mueller team for making false statements improperly alleging some of the defendants were Russian government tools.  Increasingly tied up in knots by the defendant, unable and unwilling to go to trial, the remaining Muller prosecutor moved to dismiss the case, a dismissal granted by the court on March 16, 2020 "with prejudice", meaning it cannot be refiled in the future. 

 Oddly, the indictment did not charge any of the defendants with spending money to influence US elections or, as agents of foreign countries, engaging in political activities without registering, even though both those actions are against US law (though it didn't stop the news media for reporting that is what the defendants were indicted for).  Instead, the defendants were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, a charge never before filed in such circumstances, and usually utilized when, for instance, someone defrauds Medicare.  The likely reason the Mueller team did not file the obvious charges against the defendants in this case was because Christopher Steele, FusionGPS, and the Clinton campaign could have been indicted on the same basis.

(3) For background on the fiasco around the National Security Advisory Board read this.

(4)  There were two starting strands to the Russia Collusion matter.  One was the Clinton campaign's attempt via the Steele Dossier to concoct a false narrative about Donald Trump's supposed collusion with the Kremlin, an effort in which Trump's stupid and reprehensible statements about Putin played right into Clinton's hands.  The Clinton campaign used this information with the media and to provoke the FBI into beginning an investigation of the Trump campaign, an effort which succeeded though one can question why it did not also prompt the FBI to begin an investigation of the Clinton campaign.

The second, I believe, was an effort by American and some allied intelligence agencies to derail the Trump campaign.  This was the Mifsud gambit, though Stefan Halper also played a role in the effort.  It appears that Mifsud was not a Russian asset, nor did he work for the FBI.  It is possible, but not likely, he may have freelanced and approached Papadopolous on his own.  The more likely scenario is he made the approach prompted by British intelligence (with which he has close links), perhaps encouraged by Clapper and/or Brennan.  This may explain the FBI and Mueller gang's curious treatment of Mifsud.  When he visited Washington in February 2017 (as an invited panelist to a State Department event!), he was interviewed by the FBI, denied Papadopoulos' version of their conversation, claiming he never said anything about Clinton emails, and was allowed to return to Italy.  He was never detained or questioned further by the FBI or Mueller.  For more on this episode see Footnote 2 on my Election Tampering post.

With the opening of Crossfire Hurricane and the subsequent use of the Steele Dossier to obtain the Carter Page warrant, the two strands merged in September/October 2016.  After the election the participants shifted to an outside media strategy of using "Russia Collusion" to delegitimize the results of the election and the Trump presidency and an inside strategy of disrupting the operation of the incoming administration, generating stories for their media allies to use, and hoping to lure Trump into a fatal mistake which could be used to oust him.  The installation of Mueller as Special Counsel in May 2017, along with the sidelining of AG Jeff Sessions, allowed the insiders a free hand generating fake stories for an adoring press for the next two years, before AG Barr stepped in to call a halt to the circus.  All this despite the fact that by the time of Mueller's appointment all the principals knew there was nothing of substance there.

(5) The FISA Court has since found, based upon the devastating DOJ Inspector General report and subsequent government admissions, regarding the Page warrant applications:

"The government acknowledges that there were material omissions, and the Court has found violations of the government's duty of candor, in all four applications" (In Re Carter W. Page, p. 3)

After all he's been through (and without ever having the assistance of counsel) Carter Page stands as the most innocent man in America.

(6)  This link takes you to a link on an article from Paul Sperry at Real Clear Investigations reporting more alleged threads from Durham's investigation.  Unlike McCarthy and shipwreckedcrew who have a good track record on legal analysis, Sperry's record is more spotty, so I've included the link as something highly speculative rather than as something I am confident is correct in all its assertions.  However, one item in Sperry's report is consistent with what I've seen from other sources and that is Durham's interest in Daniel Jones, a Democratic operative and former staffer for Senator Diane Feinstein, who in early 2017 set up an opposition research project, focused on Russia and undermining the results of the presidential election, with $50 million in funding from Silicon Valley sources, a project which seems to have been the source for many media articles.

It Might Have Been

In hindsight, it might have been a mistake to take a wide range of annoying interactions that are nevertheless a normal/unavoidable part of coexisting with other humans in a wildly diverse society and rebrand them as the much scarier-sounding “microaggressions”.

- Kat Rosenfield

Death Of The Institutions

 From the National Park Service:

Do you ever feel we, as a nation, put Abraham Lincoln “on a pedestal”?

What do you think might be a more useful, more complex, or more realistic way to think about or memorialize the 16th president?

Image: Library of Congress pic.twitter.com/6mQJGTUz7J

— Ford's Theatre NPS (@FordsTheatreNPS) September 18, 2021

Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union, freed the slaves(1), bestowed upon us our most memorable language on the meaning of America, and gave his life for our country.  I'm okay with the pedestal.

Though the NPS will just claim its tweet is about starting a dialogue and an honest engagement with history that is not what is really going on here.  It is about creating a mythology that one cannot already find ample critical analysis of Lincoln's actions because the Woke NPS is ready and waiting with its own Critical Race Theory approach to taking down Lincoln.  It is about laying the groundwork to substitute its warped and narrow analysis for any consideration of the man in full (of the kind you can find in the Freedman's Monument Speech of Frederick Douglass - another figure now anathema to the New Racists).  The latter portion of this 2013 post describes a precursor to what we are now seeing in the attack on Lincoln and the curious alliance of those seeking to tear him down.

A nation will always place some figures on metaphorical, and sometimes literal, pedestals.  It is necessary and inevitable.  The question is who will be placed on those pedestals and what that choice tells us about a country.  Should Lincoln be removed from his pedestal it would tell us that we are reverting to tribalism and turning away from the idea of our common humanity.

The Park Service is not the only Federal agency seeking to "reimagine" American history.  Last year the National Archivist created a racism task force "charged with identifying recommendations to NARA's internal and external systems, policies, processes, and procedures in support of an equitable environment".  In a pattern we seen replicated over and over again during the past year, once such a task force is established its findings (issued in April 2021) come as no surprise - the National Archives are a cesspool of structural racism existing in a country with a horrible history of continued racism.

The report makes many recommendations on internal "reforms" designed to allow the New Racists to control the Archives in perpetuity and also makes recommendations, which have been accepted by the National Archivist, regarding the documents displayed in the National Archives Rotunda and on its website.

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley summarized those recommendations:

. . . for many of us, the National Archives’ Rotunda — containing the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — is a moving, reverential place celebrating common articles of constitutional faith. That is not what the task force members saw.

Instead, they declared that the iconic Rotunda is one of three examples of structural racism: “a Rotunda in our flagship building that lauds wealthy White men in the nation’s founding while marginalizing BIPOC, women, and other communities.” They called for “reimagining” the space to be more inclusive, including possible dance and performance art. Even the famous murals in the Rotunda might have to go: The task force noted that some view the murals as “an homage to White America.”

The report objected to the laudatory attention given white Framers and Founders, particularly figures like Thomas Jefferson. It encouraged the placement of “trigger warnings” to “forewarn audiences of content that may cause intense physiological and psychological symptoms.”

The task force report called for “reimagining” the portrayal of founding documents on OurDocuments.gov, the website for America’s “milestone documents.” The task force objected that the “100 milestone documents of American history” included “adulatory and excessive language to document the historical contributions of White, wealthy men.”

The task force called for warnings and revision of racist language but stressed that such language “means not only explicitly harmful terms, such as racial slurs, but also information that implies and reinforces damaging stereotypes of BIPOC individuals and communities while valorizing and protecting White people.” It also called for “the creation of safe spaces” in every facility run by the National Archives and Record Administration (NARA).

A task force subgroup recommended that NARA “retire” the term “charters of freedom” as descriptors for the founding documents because “these documents did not result in freedom for everyone.” In addition, new signage would contain “trigger warnings” to protect tourists from potential trauma in seeing the documents; visitors would now be warned that the documents they are reading may “contain harmful language that reflects attitudes and biases of their time.”

I have no doubt that the Biden Administration, the most race-obsessed presidency since that of Woodrow Wilson, will endorse this massive distortion of American history.

----------------------------------------------------

(1) The 13th Amendment passed the Senate and House before Lincoln's death though ratification did not take place until December 6, 1865.

The Moth Joke

 

The Norm Macdonald "moth joke" is perfection. pic.twitter.com/daC9oPVPsU

— Lights, Camera, Pod (@LightsCameraPod) March 29, 2021

NOTE:  After posting this I listened to a podcast by Conan O'Brien who gave the backstory on the joke.  Norm had already done his bit on the show that night and was prepared to leave when, during the commercial break, he was asked to stay for another 7 minute segment because the next scheduled guest had backed out.  Norm had nothing prepared so what you hear in this segment is a short joke he first heard from Colin Quinn which consisted only of the opening and closing sentence.  Everything in between was improvised by McDonald.  Given Norm's reading interests he embarked on this Chekovian saga of Russian style melancholia and despair.

Moore Hall

I recently wrote about the novel The Year of the French.  Important characters in the book (and in the revolt of 1798) were the George and John Moore, brothers, Catholics, and landed aristocracy in County Mayo.  When the French landed, young John, an ardent supporter of Irish independence, was named "President of the Government of the Province of Connaught" by General Humbert.  When the rebellion quickly collapsed John faced the death penalty but was saved by the behind the scenes intervention of his older brother who had influential friends in London, instead being sentenced to transport to Australia.  Unfortunately John took ill before he could leave Ireland and died at Waterford.

Moore Hall remained in the family into the 20th century.  During the Irish Civil War, George Augustus Moore supported entering into the treaty with England and the creation of the Irish Free State.  Anti-treaty forces burned down Moore Hall on February 1, 1923.

I've come across this photo of the ruins of Moore Hall, which now stands in a large public park, on the twitter feed of Abandoned Places.

Ghostly manor abandoned in County Mayo, #Ireland ... pic.twitter.com/gqZjqkYnWH

— Abandoned Places (@abandonedspaces) February 14, 2021

Down & Out in New York City

James Brown from the soundtrack of the 1973 film Black Caesar, starring Fred Williamson.  Unlike most of Brown's hits which were composed by him, this song is from Barry de Vorzon and Bodie Chandler but I suspect most of the "oomph" of the track is due to Brown's arrangement.

Fighting The Good Fight

One of my occasional reminders that I am continually updating my June 2021 post on the liberals and progressives fighting the New Racism of Critical Race Theory.  You can find it here and this link takes you to the entire Your Future series.

A Song For Tonight

Not that I'd been paying much attention but it turns out tonight is the first game of the NFL season.  Apparently there is some controversy as the league rescinded its booking of Victory Boyd to sing the national anthem because she has refused to get the covid vaccination on religious grounds.  Since the NFL does not require fans attending games nor its own players to be vaccinated I'm not sure what the big deal was.  I'd never heard of Boyd but she's posted her version of the anthem on YouTube and it's quite good.  Will listen to some more of her stuff.  And, yes, I'm vaccinated (and thoroughly caffeinated today as well).

Bert's Blues

From an era when musical genres were all mixed up and no one cared, this is Bert's Blues from Donovan's 1966 album Sunshine Superman.  The album featured a wacky blend of fantasy, jazz, classical, rock, medieval, folk and the newer psychedelic influences.

Bert in the title refers to Donovan's friend, Bert Jansch, a fellow musician and later one of the founders of the group Pentangle.

And Then . . .

 On October 19, 2019 I wrote:

Trump takes down his supporters just as much as he takes down his opponents.  We are all sinking.  The difference between progressives and the rest of us is they think this process started in 2016 while we know our descent into Bizarro World began in 2008 and there are no signs we are emerging.

It is a terrible time in American politics, the worst in my lifetime.  The politically inept, intellectually, and ethically bankrupt GOP that Trump destroyed deserved its fate.  Meanwhile, 21st century Democrats embrace intolerance and division, seemingly intent on making the United States the new Yugoslavia.  Maybe we deserve Trump (though for a contra view see this).  As Henry Kissinger noted in 2018:

"I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.  It doesn't necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could just be an accident."

On December 14, 2020 I wrote:

Can the post-Trump GOP find a path that rejects the coming attempt by the Romney/Sasse/Bush Remnants to regain control while avoiding falling into the fever swamp of crazies?

Will Donald Trump allow the growth of a non-Trump GOP which can tread that path?

Is there a candidate who can retain Trump's appeal to new voters and bring back some of the suburban voters alienated by Trump's personality and antics?

Unless the answer is yes to all, the GOP will have trouble sustaining its national viability.

The repulsive, impulsive, chaotic traits of Donald Trump contributed to his defeat.  But he also realigned the GOP and began creating a new coalition, drawing more than 10 million new voters in this election - more working class, more Hispanic, and with a start on adding black support.

The pre-Trump GOP of chamber of commerce friendliness, always scouting for foreign interventions to Make America Great Again, pretending to care about controlling immigration, afraid of taking on the underlying cultural issues, and running for the hills anytime it is accused of racism, is dead and any attempt to revive it will rip apart the party.  

Donald Trump's time is over.  The question is whether he recognizes it.  Does he want to run again? He will be closer to 79 than 78 on inauguration day in 2025.  I don't think he will wear well with the greater public.  He'll be tweeting and holding rallies and looking even crazier than before because he will not have any positive accomplishments to point to over the next four years to offset the nuttiness.  It would be a disaster if he runs in 2024.

Unfortunately, he retains a large personal following and will be influential if he chooses to be so, I fear a temptation too hard for him to resist.  Even if he ends up not running in 2024 but manages to smother the emergent of any potential successor more palatable to a larger part of the electorate it is a big problem for the future of the GOP and, worse case, it could tear the party apart if he remains a prominent figure.

As of today, I would say the answer to all my questions is No.  It looks like Trump is maintaining, and possibly expanding, his hold on the party.   There are more crazies than I thought, ready to sign on for his 2024 Revenge Tour.  There were always a certain number of crazies but their ranks have been swelled with those who, at one time, appeared sensible but have been driven over the edge by what they see happening in media and with our institutions.  What I see happening is explainable but it's going to be politically counterproductive. 

I think Trump forfeited any right to further support (and I will not support him even if he ends up the nominee) by his behavior post-election, sabotaging the Georgia Senate races in order to support his claim of a stolen presidential election, promoting an insane theory of election fraud and then creating a bizarre theory on the supposed significance of January 6, even as he knew the election results were not a surprise and consistent with his campaign's internal polling.  I don't think he planned or particularly wanted the Capitol stormed on that day, but I believe that once it was occurring it did not bother him and, for that, he should be condemned and, I thought at the time, the 25th Amendment should have been invoked.  But he's a better salesman than I.  Good enough to possibly get the 2024 nomination but not good enough to get elected, even with the Democrats as horrible and authoritarian as they've become.

Despite media portrayals, Trump is not a fascist or dictatorial.  He proved in office to be what I predicted in 2016, Silvio Berlusconi, though without the bunga-bunga room.  In truth, Donald Trump was a weak President and that was the root problem.  His lack of knowledge and interest in the details of government operation led to his appointing many who did not agree with his agenda and his inability to get rid of those embedded in the bureaucracy who undermined him.  His sophomoric instincts led him to appoint General Mattis because he liked his nickname, "Mad Dog", even though Mattis had very different ideas about foreign policy and then, when he became disenchanted with Mattis, appointed General Milley, who also disagreed with Trump, as head of the Joint Chiefs because he knew Mattis hated Milley.  Trump wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan but let the military drag its feet for four years.  In contrast Biden plowed ahead, which I agree with, though at the tactical level the withdrawal was an unbelievable and unnecessary disaster.

Domestically, Trump had a rhetorical agenda but not a legislative one (with Trump you get impulses, not policy), nor did he ever have any idea how to make that happen.  For that reason, there was very little a Democratic Congress had to do in order to undo Trump's agenda.  Trump's major accomplishment, the appointment of judges, is primarily due to Mitch McConnell, not Trump.

Even if he does not run but stays active his "force-field" will distort the 2022 midterms.

I see the net result of this in Arizona where the GOP has split into those who will support Trump in anything he says or does and those trying to retain some objectivity.  We have this ridiculous "forensic audit" ongoing which itself is a fraud.  No good will come from it.

Bad times continue. 

Time

It's Induction Day at the Hall of Fame!  Derek Jeter is the headliner and I'm glad to see Marvin Miller, the player's union leader and a pivotal figure in the game, being recognized by the Hall.

I first began following baseball closely around 1960.  By that time I was pouring over the weekly statistics published in newspapers on the weekends and had read a book of short biographies of players admitted to the Hall of Fame which, at the time, seemed liked an institution that had been around forever.

In reality the first election to the Hall only took place in 1936 with Cobb, Wagner, Ruth, Matthewson, and Johnson being elected and the initial induction ceremony and opening of the Hall taking place in 1939.  As of 2021, I've been following baseball for 61 years and then Hall of Fame has been active for 85 years, so for almost 75% of its history.  Yet, unless I force myself to think about it, my starting mindset and reference point for new and old in the game is still that of the 9 year old boy in 1960.

Indeed, when I started following baseball the major leagues were considered to have begun in 1901 when the American League declared itself the rival to the National.  Yes, "organized baseball" began in 1876 or 1871, depending on your preference but it wasn't considered "major".  Today, for record keeping purposes 1876 is considered the starting date but, again in reality, the type and quality of baseball played in the 19th century only faintly resembled that of the 20th century game.

Even when 1901 was considered the starting date it seemed unimaginably ancient to a 9 year old.  That was 120 years ago and I've been following the game for half of its history.

That Was A Smirk

A charming scene from Man On Fire, a 2004 film starring Denzel Washington and 9 year old Dakota Fanning.  No matter the quality of the film Denzel is in, Denzel is always good and Fanning more than holds her own.  In fact the chemistry between the two of them in the first part is what elevates the movie above an average action picture and sustains the viewer through the bloody mess it becomes in the second part.

Denzel plays a depressed and alcoholic mercenary trying to escape his past who becomes the bodyguard for Fanning, the child of a wealthy Anglo-Mexican family living in Mexico City.  In this scene, everything after Dakota says "you're smiling" is improvised by the two actors.

Onda

THC featured the studio version of Onda by Los Lonely Boys a few years ago.  This is a more recent live version.

We saw them do the extended version in a concert back around 2008.  The feeling took me back to the early 1970s.  Los Lonely Boys are the Garza brothers, Henry, JoJo, and Ringo.

Nighthawks

 

I quite enjoyed this video essay on Edward Hopper's 1942 painting Nighthawks.  Very insightful.  Via Open Culture.

The Birmingham Speech

The Presidency of Warren G Harding (R) is regarded by many historians as one of the worst in American history.  Elected in a landslide in November 1920, he died in the summer of 1923 just as a notorious financial scandal involving several of his cabinet members was becoming front page news.

I think that ranking unfair as Harding's steadfast approach helped America quickly recover from a sharp recession after the end of the First World War and there is another little known aspect of his Presidency that reflects well upon him - his unusual, for the times, stance on race.  He's still not a top-tier executive but should not be at the bottom of the list.

On October 26, 1921 President Harding visited Birmingham, Alabama to give a speech as part of the city's celebration of the 50th anniversary of its founding.  More than 100,000 people lined the streets as his motorcade made its way to where the presidential address would be delivered - a park recently named after Harding's predecessor, President Woodrow Wilson (D), a fervent racist who had resegregated the federal civil service.

The President's speech started out conventionally, reviewing the history of Birmingham in glowing terms and speaking of its critical role in helping the South recover from the Civil War, but then took an unexpected term to focus on race for its last two thirds:

“If the Civil War marked the beginnings of industrialism in a South which had previously been almost entirely agricultural, the World War brought us to full recognition that the race problem is national rather than merely sectional.”  

The President went on to describe what we call "The Great Migration" during the War of blacks from South to North (until that time 95% of America's blacks lived in the former slave states), pointing out:

"it has made the South realize its industrial dependence on the labor of the black man and made the North realize the difficulties of the community in which two greatly differing races are brought to live side by side.”

 "I should say that it has been responsible for a larger charity on both sides, a beginning of better understanding; and in the light of that better understanding perhaps we shall be able to consider this problem together as a problem of all sections and of both races, in whose solution the best intelligence of both must be enlisted."

He then referenced our recent war experience, contrasting the lack of racism faced by black soldiers serving in Europe:

"In another way the World War modified the elements of this problem. Thousands of black men, serving their country just as patriotically as did the white men, were transported overseas and experienced the life of countries where their color aroused less of antagonism than it does here."

"These things lead one to hope that we shall find an adjustment of relations between the two races, in which both can enjoy full citizen- ship, the full measure of usefulness to the country and of opportunity for themselves, and in which recognition and reward shall at last be distributed in proportion to individual deserts, regardless of race or color." 

Harding then went on to make a radical proposal in the context of the times:

“I would insist upon equal educational opportunity for [blacks and whites]. This does not mean that both would become equally educated within a generation or two generations or ten generations. Even men of the same race do not accomplish such an equality as that. They never will. The Providence that endowed men with widely unequal capacities and capabilities and energies did not intend any such thing.”

In the midst of what must have been a disturbing speech for his mostly white audience, the President emphasized:

"Men of both races may well stand uncompromisingly against every suggestion of social equality. Indeed, it would be helpful to have that word " equality " eliminated from this consideration ; to have it accepted on both sides that this is not a question of social equality, but a question of recognizing a fundamental, eternal, and inescapable difference. We shall have made real progress when we develop an attitude in the public and community thought of both races which recognizes this difference."

Though he did not advocate integration of schools he wanted better schools for blacks.

“I would accent that a black man can not be a white man, and that he does not need and should not aspire to be as much like a white man as possible in order to accomplish the best that is possible for him. He should seek to be, and he should be encouraged to be, the best possible black man, and not the best possible imitation of a white man.”

And stressed the importance of economic equality:

"When I suggest the possibility of economic equality between the races, I mean it in precisely the same way and to the same extent that I would mean it if I spoke of equality of economic opportunity as between members of the same race. In each case I would mean equality proportioned to the honest capacities and deserts of the individual."

The President directly addressed the overriding issue in the South - the disenfranchisement of black voters:

"I would say let the black man vote when he is fit to vote: prohibit the white man voting when he is unfit to vote."

Harding went on to express his desire for a common American heritage without separation into classes and groups, a battle many of us thought won with the Civil Rights Movement but now threatened by the New Racism of the Woke:

"Coming as Americans do from many origins of race, tradition, language, color, institutions, heredity; engaged as we are in the huge effort to work an honorable national destiny from so many different elements; the one thing we must sedulously avoid is the development of group and class organizations in this country. There has been time when we heard too much about the labor vote, the business vote, the Irish vote, the Scandinavian vote, the Italian vote, and so on. But the demagogues who would array class against class and group against group have fortunately found little to reward their efforts. That is because, despite the demagogues, the idea of our oneness as Americans has risen superior to every appeal to mere class and group. And so I would wish it might be in this matter of our national problem of races." 

"Just as I do not wish the South to be politically entirely of one party; just as I believe that is bad for the South, and for the rest of the country as well, so I do not want the colored people to be entirely of one party. I wish that both the tradition of a solidly Democratic South and the tradition of a solidly Republican black race might be broken up. Neither political sectionalism nor any system of rigid groupings of the people will in the long run prosper our country. I want to see the time come when black men will regard themselves as full participants in the benefits and duties of American citizenship ; when they will vote for Democratic candidates, if they prefer the Democratic policy on tariff or taxation, or foreign relations, or what-not; and when they will vote the Republican ticket only for like reasons. We can not go on, as we have gone for more than a half century, with one great section of our population, numbering as many people as the entire population of some significant countries of Europe, set off from real contribution to solving our national issues, because of a division on race lines."

"Is it not possible, then, in the long era of readjustment which we are entering for the Nation to lay aside old prejudices and old antagonisms and in the broad, clear light of nationalism enter upon a constructive policy in dealing with these intricate issues? Just as we shall prove ourselves capable of doing this Ave shall insure the industrial progress, the agricultural security, the social and political safety of our whole country regardless of race or sections and along the line of ideals superior to every consideration of groups or class, of race or color or section or prejudice."

By our 21st century standards certainly President Harding's address falls short in several respects but in the context of its time and in the context of the place where it was given it is remarkable and that feature was recognized by both whites and blacks.

The largely white audience had applauded frequently at the start of the speech but that slowly dwindled as Harding expounded at length on his thoughts on race.  It was reported that the state officials and legislators on the platform with the President sat in "stony silence" during the latter part of his speech while he received "thunderous applause" from the blacks sitting in their segregated section. 

This article summarizes some of the other white reaction:

The Birmingham Post called the speech an “untimely and ill-considered intrusion into a question of which he evidently knows little.” Mississippi Senator Pat Harrison said, “If the President’s theory is carried to its ultimate conclusion, then that means that the black man can strive to become President of the United States.” Georgia Senator Thomas E. Watson declared Harding had planted “fatal germs in the minds of the black race.” The junior senator from Alabama, Thomas Heflin, said, “So far as the South is concerned, we hold to the doctrine that God Almighty has fixed the limits and boundaries between the two races and no Republican living can improve upon His work.”

As to the black reaction:

Marcus Garvey, head of the separatist Universal Negro Improvement Association, sent a telegram to the President “on behalf of four hundred million negroes of the world.” He wrote: “All true negroes are against social equality, believing that all races should develop on their own social lines. Only a few selfish members of the negro race believe in the social amalgamation of black and white.”

W.E.B. Dubois had misgivings about Harding’s repeated emphasis that he was not calling for social equality or racial amalgamation, but he wrote: “the sensitive may note that the President qualified these demands somewhat, even dangerously, and yet they stand out so clearly in his speech that he must be credited with meaning to give them their real significance. And in this the President made a braver, clearer utterance than Theodore Roosevelt ever dared to make or than William Taft or William McKinley ever dreamed of. For this let us give him every ounce of credit he deserves.”

This was the NY Times coverage:

President Harding also took other actions (again in the context of a much smaller federal government and constitutional role than today's behemoth administrative state), sponsoring legislation which would have made lynching a federal crime, which passed the House but was blocked in the Senate.  He also appointed several blacks to federal posts which Wilson had refused to do. 

Nor was Birmingham the first time the President spoke on race.  In his acceptance speech at the 1920 Republican Convention, Harding declared:

“No majority shall abridge the rights of a minority.  I believe the Negro citizens of America should be guaranteed the enjoyment of all their rights, that they have earned their full measure of citizenship bestowed, that their sacrifices in blood on the battlefields of the republic have entitled them to all of freedom and opportunity, all of sympathy and aid that the American spirit of fairness and justice demands.”

Earlier in 1921, Harding accepted an offer to give the commencement speech at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, the nation's first degree granting historically black college.  It turned out that the commencement took place only three days after the end of the Tulsa riot and massacre which saw that city's black community destroyed.  The President proclaimed:

“Despite the demagogues, the idea of our oneness as Americans has risen superior to every appeal to mere class and group. And so, I wish it might be in this matter of our national problem of races.”

Addressing the events at Tulsa he added, “God grant that, in the soberness, the fairness, and the justice of this country, we never see another spectacle like it.”

He then shook each graduate's hand.

There is some additional interesting context to all of this.  For all of Harding's life there had been rumours that he had some black ancestry and this even became part of the campaign against him in 1920.  I have not spent time looking at the evidence so have no opinion but these rumours were something Harding was well aware of.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the speech, Harding returned to his hotel for a banquet.  In his remarks at the banquet he made an observation that still resonates today:

“Men who are really worthwhile are simpler than they are appraised, and vastly greater than many partisans have measured them.”