Substacks

November 3, 2024 Heather Cox Richardson

Published

1 month ago

November 4, 2024

I’m home tonight to stay for a bit, after being on the road for thirteen months and traveling through 32 states. I am beyond tired but profoundly grateful for the chance to meet so many wonderful people and for the welcome you have given me to your towns and your homes.

I know people are on edge, and there is maybe one last thing I can offer before this election. Every place I stopped, worried people asked me how I have maintained a sense of hope through the past fraught years. The answer—inevitably for me, I suppose—is in our history.

If you had been alive in 1853, you would have thought the elite enslavers had become America’s rulers. They were only a small minority of the U.S. population, but by controlling the Democratic Party, they had managed to take control of the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court. They used that power to stop the northerners who wanted the government to clear the rivers and harbors of snags, for example, or to fund public colleges for ordinary people, from getting any such legislation through Congress. But at least they could not use the government to spread their system of human enslavement across the country, because the much larger population in the North held control of the House of Representatives.

Then in 1854, with the help of Democratic president Franklin Pierce, elite enslavers pushed the Kansas-Nebraska Act through the House. That law overturned the Missouri Compromise that had kept Black enslavement out of the American West since 1820. Because the Constitution guarantees the protection of property—and enslaved Americans were considered property—the expansion of slavery into those territories would mean the new states there would become slave states. Their representatives would work together with those of the southern slave states to outvote the northern free labor advocates in Congress. Together, they would make enslavement national.

America would become a slaveholding nation.

Enslavers were quite clear that this was their goal.

South Carolina senator James Henry Hammond explicitly rejected “as ridiculously absurd, that much lauded but nowhere accredited dogma of Mr. Jefferson, that ‘all men are born equal.’” He explained to his Senate colleagues that the world was made up of two classes of people. The “Mudsills” were dull drudges whose work produced the food and products that made society function. On them rested the superior class of people, who took the capital the mudsills produced and used it to move the economy, and even civilization itself, forward. The world could not survive without the inferior mudsills, but the superior class had the right—and even the duty—to rule over them.

But that’s not how it played out.

As soon as it became clear that Congress would pass the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Representative Israel Washburn of Maine called a meeting of thirty congressmen in Washington, D.C., to figure out how they could fight back against the Slave Power that had commandeered the government to spread the South’s system of human enslavement. The men met in the rooms of Representative Edward Dickinson of Massachusetts—whose talented daughter Emily was already writing poems—and while they came to the meeting from all different political parties, often bitterly divided over specific policies, they left with one sole purpose: to stop the overthrow of American democracy.

The men scattered back to their homes across the North for the summer, sharing their conviction that a new party must rise to stand against the Slave Power. They found “anti-Nebraska” sentiment sweeping their towns; a young lawyer from Illinois later recalled how ordinary people came together: “[W]e rose each fighting, grasping whatever he could first reach—a scythe—a pitchfork—a chopping axe, or a butcher’s cleaver.” In the next set of midterm elections, those calling themselves “anti-Nebraska” candidates swept into both national and state office across the North, and by 1856, opponents of the Slave Power had become a new political party: the Republicans.

But the game wasn’t over. In 1857, the Supreme Court tried to take away Republicans’ power to stop the spread of slavery to the West by declaring in the infamous Dred Scott decision that Congress had no power to legislate in the territories. This made the Missouri Compromise that had kept enslavement out of the land above Missouri unconstitutional. The next day, Republican editor of the New York Tribune Horace Greeley wrote that the decision was “entitled to just so much moral weight as would be the judgment of a majority of those congregated in any Washington bar-room.”

By 1858 the party had a new rising star, the young lawyer from Illinois who had talked about everyone reaching for tools to combat the Kansas-Nebraska Act: Abraham Lincoln. Pro-slavery Democrats called the Republicans radicals for their determination to stop the expansion of slavery, but Lincoln countered that the Republicans were the country’s true conservatives, for they were the ones standing firm on the Declaration of Independence. The enslavers rejecting the Founders’ principles were the radicals.

The next year, Lincoln articulated an ideology for the party, defining it as the party of ordinary Americans defending the democratic idea that all men are created equal against those determined to overthrow democracy with their own oligarchy.

In 1860, at a time when voting was almost entirely limited to white men, voters put Abraham Lincoln into the White House. Furious, southern leaders took their states out of the Union and launched the Civil War.

By January 1863, Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation ending the American system of human enslavement in lands still controlled by the Confederacy. By November 1863 he had delivered the Gettysburg Address, firmly rooting the United States of America in the Declaration of Independence.

In that speech, Lincoln charged Americans to rededicate themselves to the unfinished work for which so many had given their lives. He urged them to “take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

In less than ten years the country went from a government dominated by a few fabulously wealthy men who rejected the idea that human beings are created equal and who believed they had the right to rule over the masses, to a defense of government of the people, by the people, for the people, and to leaders who called for a new birth of freedom. But Lincoln did not do any of this alone: always, he depended on the votes of ordinary people determined to have a say in the government under which they lived.

In the 1860s the work of those people established freedom and democracy as the bedrock of the United States of America, but the structure itself remained unfinished. In the 1890s and then again in the 1930s, Americans had to fight to preserve democracy against those who would destroy it for their own greed and power. Each time, thanks to ordinary Americans, democracy won.

Now it is our turn.

In our era the same struggle has resurfaced. A small group of leaders has rejected the idea that all people are created equal and seeks to destroy our democracy in order to install themselves into permanent power.

And just as our forebears did, Americans have reached for whatever tools we have at hand to build new coalitions across the nation to push back. After decades in which ordinary people had come to believe they had little political power, they have mobilized to defend American democracy and—with an electorate that now includes women and Black Americans and Brown Americans—have discovered they are strong.

On November 5 we will find out just how strong we are. We will each choose on which side of the historical ledger to record our names. On the one hand, we can stand with those throughout our history who maintained that some people were better than others and had the right to rule; on the other, we can list our names on the side of those from our past who defended democracy and, by doing so, guarantee that American democracy reaches into the future.

I have had hope in these dark days because I look around at the extraordinary movement that has built in this country over the past several years, and it looks to me like the revolution of the 1850s that gave America a new birth of freedom.

As always, the outcome is in our hands.

“Fellow-citizens,” Lincoln reminded his colleagues, “we cannot escape history. We…will be remembered in spite of ourselves.”

–-

Notes:

James Henry Hammond, Selections from the Letters and Speeches of the Hon. James H. Hammond, of South Carolina (New York: John F. Trow and Company, 1866), 126.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/peoriaspeech.htm

New York Tribune, March 7, 1857, p. 4.

Substacks

December 8, 2024 Garamond

Published

58 minutes ago

December 9, 2024

Substacks

Ukrainians Are Sick of the War. But We’re Not Allowed to Say It. Dmytro Filimonov

Published

3 hours ago

December 9, 2024

Dmytro Filimonov in 2015. (Courtesy of the author)

Dmytro Filimonov, 41, is a Ukrainian journalist based in Kyiv. He was one of the first reporters to travel to the separatist-controlled territories of Donbas in 2014–2015 at the very onset of the conflict that would trigger Russia’s full-scale invasion eight years later. Now, having observed the war up close for the last three years, talking to both soldiers and civilians, Russians and Ukrainians, he has found that many of his compatriots just want the conflict to end, but avoid saying so out of fear of being labeled a traitor. Here, he tells his story to our Tanya Lukyanova.

KYIV, Ukraine — On February 24, 2022, I woke up to a phone call from a friend. “It’s started,” he said.

“What started?” I asked. “The war,” he replied. Only then did I hear the sound of the sirens in Kyiv signaling that yes, Russia had begun an invasion, announcing itself with bombs and shellings.

Every hour of that first day brought fresh news of air strikes—in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Mariupol, Mykolaiv, Kherson, Kramatorsk, Odessa. By evening, president Volodymyr Zelensky reported that 137 Ukrainians had died. He also imposed martial law that day.

My younger brother, Anton, enlisted on that first day of the war. I’ve always thought that if war ever came, I would be a conscientious objector. But when the bombs began falling on my hometown, I found myself consumed with an animalistic rage and nearly enlisted, too. Instead, however, I instinctively began helping people escape from Ukraine—organizing transportation for women, children, and the elderly. Leaving wasn’t an option for me. Kyiv is my home. I wasn’t afraid to die. I just wanted to help as much as I can. Within a week, I had four drivers who traveled all over Kyiv, evacuating civilians. Soon, we were helping organize escape routes in other cities, too.

That sense of unity in Ukraine, in those early days of the invasion, was unlike anything I’ve ever seen. I was amazed by my compatriots—by their courage, their humor, the strength of their spirit. During the first week of the war, I saw women handing flowers to soldiers as they marched off to war. When a man who had used his truck to block approaching Russian tanks was given a medal, he shrugged and said, “I don’t know why I did it. I was just drinking.”

At the same time, Ukrainian men from all over the world were rushing home. People had a clear idea what they were fighting for. Hundreds of thousands were standing up as one to defend their land against the Russians who had invaded our country.

And in just over a month, Ukraine managed to achieve the impossible—we drove the mighty Russian army out of the Kyiv region. It was hailed as “the defeat of the ages.” Russian soldiers fled in disarray, abandoning equipment and supplies as our forces pushed them out. In dozens of villages all over Ukraine, citizens emerged from their shelters and hugged soldiers in the streets. Despite the devastation, there was a profound sense of triumph. It felt like a moment of victory. To me, it was victory.

But instead of seizing that moment to negotiate from a position of strength, a political decision was made to push forward. As a former actor, our president, Zelensky, is highly attuned to public perception—and perhaps that’s his biggest weakness. His image is of paramount importance to him. His heroic actions in the early days of the invasion rightly earned him a place in history, but by April 2022, his focus appeared to shift. Optics took priority over human lives. And now, nearly three years later, that sense of unity feels like a distant memory.

Substacks

Kash-ing in: The money-making schemes of Trump’s pick for FBI Director Judd Legum

Published

10 hours ago

December 9, 2024

The current FBI Director, Christopher Wray, was appointed by Donald Trump during his first term. The FBI Director serves a 10-year term, so Wray is not scheduled to depart until 2027. The purpose of having a 10-year term is to insulate the position from political pressures.

Trump, however, is unhappy with Wray for a variety of reasons. At the top of the list is Wray’s oversight of the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago, which revealed that Trump was storing highly classified documents in a bathroom. Trump was later indicted based, in part, on evidence collected in the raid. (A federal judge appointed by Trump later dismissed the case.)

On November 30, Trump announced his intention to replace Wray with Kash Patel. Trump considered appointing Patel as Deputy FBI Director at the end of his first term. But the move was blocked by former Attorney General Bill Barr. “I categorically opposed making Patel deputy FBI director. I told [Trump Chief of Staff] Mark Meadows it would happen ‘over my dead body,'” Barr wrote in his book. Barr said that Patel lacked any qualifications for the job.

What Patel lacks in experience, he makes up for in subservience and loyalty to Trump. He validates Trump’s conspiratorial view of the FBI. In his book, “Government Gangsters,” Patel called the FBI “so thoroughly compromised that it will remain a threat to the people unless drastic measures are taken.” Trump endorsed the book on Truth Social, calling it “the roadmap to end the Deep State’s reign.”

In a podcast appearance promoting the book, Patel vowed to “find the conspirators, not just in government but in the media.” He said that “[w]e’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections.” The appendix of the book includes 60 members of the “deep state” that Patel would target, including President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Barr, and Wray. Trump called the book a “blueprint to take back the White House and remove these Gangsters from all of Government.”

Patel has little experience in law enforcement other than a brief tenure as a federal prosecutor. But he has spent many years monetizing his cartoonish loyalty to Trump.

A $37 “Trumpamania” T-shirt

Patel has translated his devotion to Trump into a massive following on Truth Social, with nearly 1.4 million followers. He uses that following to sell pro-Trump clothing through his apparel brand, Based Apparel. You can buy a “Trumpamania” t-shirt for $37, a hoodie featuring a glamour shot of Trump’s attorney Alina Habba for $59.99, or a Trump “Comeback” t-shirt for $40.

Patel often wears his own gear during podcast and TV appearances.

Patel’s pro-Trump children’s book trilogy

Patel published a children’s book trilogy portraying himself as a wizard and Trump as king. His first children’s book, entitled “The Plot Against the King,” follows “Hillary Queenton and her shifty knight” who “spread lies that King Donald had cheated to become King,” by “claim[ing] he was working with the Russionians!” Patel is depicted as a “Distinguished Discoverer” seen wearing blue wizard robes. On the cover, Trump is shown wearing a crown.

Trump said the “amazing book” should be “in every school in America.”

Patel’s second children’s book, “The Plot Against the King 2,000 Mules” follows “Dinesh and Debbie” as they “search for the truth and uncover evidence of a terrible scheme to elect Sleepy Joe instead of King Donald on Choosing Day.” The book also includes a “special message from Dinesh D’Souza,” a far-right polemicist behind the documentary 2000 Mules which contains baseless allegations about election fraud. The movie was pulled by its distributor and D’Souza recently issued an apology for misrepresenting key video footage.

The third book in Patel’s trilogy is “The Plot Against the King 3: The Return of the King.” The book “continues the silly yet important journey of the MAGA King as he returns to take down Comma-la-la-la and reclaim his throne.” It is described as a “fun story” and “great way to start a conversation with your kids about the election.” You can buy a special signed copy of the book for $99.99.

Subscribe now

“Rid your body of the harms of the vax”

Patel has also sought to exploit health conspiracy theories popular with Trump supporters. Earlier this year, Patel pushed “Nocovidium” and other dietary supplements produced by Warrior Essentials. Patel marketed the supplements as a “mRNA vaccine detoxification system,” which Patel claimed would “rid your body of the harms of the vax.”

COVID vaccines are life-saving, not toxic. NBC News reported that “there is no evidence that Warrior Essentials’ supplements are effective at reducing vaccine side effects — which are mostly mild or moderate and tend to resolve quickly.” A month of the “treatment” costs $150 and the company recommends taking the supplements for “3 to 12 months.”

K$H cabernet

Patel has used his fealty to Trump to develop his own brand, K$H. Through “Great American Craft Spirits” Patel sells cases of “K$H Cabernet Sauvignon,” which has “hints of blackberry, dark chocolate, plum and a touch of French oak.” A case of 6 bottles sells for $243.99.

$10 of every sale benefits an unnamed charity.

An alternative to “credit cards for libs”

Patel has promoted Coign, “the conservative credit card.” On Truth Social, he said Coign was perfect for people sick of “Harris credit cards for libs.” A video posted by Patel says, “every transaction supports conservative causes” and advances a “conservative future.” The company donates 0.25% of each transaction to “non-profits or charitable organizations that have been pre-vetted by Coign.”

Among the charitable beneficiaries is The Heritage Foundation, the group responsible for Project 2025.

Subscribe now

Payment processing “tailored for American patriots”

Patel has “joined forces with Revere Payments,” which he describes as payment processing that is “designed for those who hold the values of this great nation close to their heart.” In a Truth Social post promoting the service, Patel said the choice was to work with Revere Payment or be “in zuckerbucks mafia.” (It is unclear what Mark Zuckerberg has to do with payment processing.)

Pro-Trump “consulting”

In addition to hawking pro-Trump merchandise and services, Patel has also been paid handsomely for offering consulting services to entities connected to Trump and his allies. According to an SEC filing, Trump Media & Technology Group paid Patel at least $130,000 in consulting fees. (The consulting contract ended in March 2024.) Patel was also paid “$325,000 over two years for ‘strategy consulting’ for the pro-Trump Save America PAC.” Former Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who Trump nominated for Attorney General but was forced to withdraw, paid Patel $145,000 for “fundraising consulting.”