Jade among the jackals: Is anyone in the circus around the tragic star fit to care for the two sons she will leave behind?
By ALISON BOSHOFF
Last updated at 10:29 PM on 20th February 2009
Jade Goody, though, will wake up in a hospital bed at her home, a barn conversion in Essex, with a nurse by her side. Until yesterday morning, she didn’t even think she could have her new husband Jack Tweed with her — the conditions of his parole meant he would have to stay at his mother’s house and be home before his 7pm curfew.
But thanks to a last-minute intervention by Justice Secretary Jack Straw, apparently backed by Gordon Brown, he will be by his wife’s side, but it will by no means be a traditional wedding night. And there will be no honeymoon.
Jade Goody's wedding will be anything but traditional
In fact, there are doubts that this bride will be well enough tomorrow even to attend the reception for 100 guests which she has been planning all week.
People who have spent time with her say it is likely she will leave before the band plays. She may even leave without tasting a canapé or greeting a single guest, or pausing to look at the flowers on each table, or the candles which will be lit as day gives way to evening. More
Friday, February 20, 2009
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Barack Obama signs his first Law: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
The first piece of real legislation Barack Obama signed as the 44th President of the United States helps ensure that workers discriminated on the basis of gender have a fair chance to sue their employers. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is named after a woman who was paid less than her male co-workers at an Alabama tire factory. More
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Bolivian referendum gives the indigenous majority more political leverage
Bolivians vote on rights for indigenous population in referendum
Voters in Bolivia went to the polls Sunday to decide whether to change the country's constitution in a referendum that would give the indigenous majority more political leverage and allow socialist President Evo Morales to run for re-election.
Last Updated: 12:06AM GMT 26 Jan 2009
Mr Morales is likely to win the divisive referendum, based on polls before the vote, which showed that the Bolivian leader's new constitution had the backing of about 55 per cent of the population, with support highest in the western highlands where Indians are a majority, while many mixed-race people in the fertile eastern lowlands reject the charter.
The changes also include strengthening state control of the country's natural resources, and no longer recognising Catholicism as the official religion.
Mr Morales says the constitution is the cornerstone of his plan to tilt the balance of power in favour of Bolivia's indigenous people after centuries of discrimination.
Most Bolivians describe themselves as indigenous, but politics and business have long been dominated by a small elite with European roots. more
Voters in Bolivia went to the polls Sunday to decide whether to change the country's constitution in a referendum that would give the indigenous majority more political leverage and allow socialist President Evo Morales to run for re-election.
Last Updated: 12:06AM GMT 26 Jan 2009
Mr Morales is likely to win the divisive referendum, based on polls before the vote, which showed that the Bolivian leader's new constitution had the backing of about 55 per cent of the population, with support highest in the western highlands where Indians are a majority, while many mixed-race people in the fertile eastern lowlands reject the charter.
The changes also include strengthening state control of the country's natural resources, and no longer recognising Catholicism as the official religion.
Mr Morales says the constitution is the cornerstone of his plan to tilt the balance of power in favour of Bolivia's indigenous people after centuries of discrimination.
Most Bolivians describe themselves as indigenous, but politics and business have long been dominated by a small elite with European roots. more
Obama's silent revolution takes off
Paul Harris article in The Observer
.......
In his first 100 hours in power, Barack Obama reversed many policies put in place by George W Bush, ranging from curbing lobbyists to closing Guantánamo to appointing new special envoys to the world's trouble spots.
The new era of Obama dawning in America's capital has begun well, receiving rave reviews from the media and even winning grudging respect from Republicans. It has been a frenetic few days as Obama and his top staff have struggled to move into their new homes and offices, as well as trying to impose a dramatic new direction from day one. Few experts think it could have gone much better. "Expectations and anticipation are clearly high and it is unfair to put that on anyone's shoulders. But if anyone can live up to those expectations, it is him. It is like suddenly the adults are in charge again," said Professor Shawn Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside.
But those very expectations are a problem. Few presidents have entered the Oval Office amid such a mixture of hope and fear. The economic crisis has many ordinary Americans in a panic and looking to Washington for a steady hand. At the same time Bush has departed as a hugely unpopular leader, seen by many as a disaster for America, both at home and abroad, and so Obama is seen as almost a revolutionary change.
Certainly Obama has moved quickly to try to live up to those expectations. It began in the first minutes of his presidency, when he delivered an inaugural speech that was a stinging attack on Bush's legacy. As Bush listened, Obama rejected many of the key planks of Bush's rule, from national security policy to the misuse of science. Washington had seen nothing like it since Franklin Roosevelt rebuked Herbert Hoover in 1933 by saying: "The money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilisation." No wonder Bush's top aides were rankled on the plane home to Texas, openly complaining about Obama's tone.
Not that Obama or his staff cared. During the first three full days of his presidency, Obama and his team pushed through a series of measures and appointments signalling a new beginning. Yesterday was also a working day, as Obama unveiled details of the massive economic stimulus package he intends to force through Congress, despite Republican reservations.
The most dramatic move was the order to close the Guantánamo terrorist detention centre in Cuba. The jail had become a rallying cause for critics of America worldwide and Obama's swift move is likely to rehabilitate much of America's reputation abroad. Obama also effectively banned the CIA's controversial practice of rendition and closed off its ability to use torture techniques to interrogate suspects abroad. The diplomatic offensive continued with the appointment of former Senator George Mitchell as a special envoy to the Middle East and former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke to the same post for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
A similarly hot pace was set domestically. Obama issued three executive orders aimed at increasing the transparency of his government and opening access to presidential documents that Bush had made more difficult. He also took the important symbolic measure of freezing wages for 100 of his top staffers. Finally, he introduced a genuinely tough set of rules aimed at curbing the influence of the lobbyist industry, limiting their ability to join government or for his staff to leave and take jobs at lobbying firms.
The pace and calm execution of measures impressed many, though few of Obama's plans were radical. Instead they reflected a firm moderation that typified his campaign message of appealing to middle-ground Americans. "He has done some very smart things. From day one he has also been reaching out to Republicans," said Bowler. "He's getting rave reviews. Even from Republicans."
To his supporters, which seem to include many in an almost fawning US media, Obama last week successfully blended elements of some of the most fondly remembered presidents. He has shown some of the charm and humour of Ronald Reagan, the seriousness of purpose of Franklin Roosevelt, and the rhetorical, unifying flourishes of his hero, Abraham Lincoln. Read it all here
.......
In his first 100 hours in power, Barack Obama reversed many policies put in place by George W Bush, ranging from curbing lobbyists to closing Guantánamo to appointing new special envoys to the world's trouble spots.
The new era of Obama dawning in America's capital has begun well, receiving rave reviews from the media and even winning grudging respect from Republicans. It has been a frenetic few days as Obama and his top staff have struggled to move into their new homes and offices, as well as trying to impose a dramatic new direction from day one. Few experts think it could have gone much better. "Expectations and anticipation are clearly high and it is unfair to put that on anyone's shoulders. But if anyone can live up to those expectations, it is him. It is like suddenly the adults are in charge again," said Professor Shawn Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside.
But those very expectations are a problem. Few presidents have entered the Oval Office amid such a mixture of hope and fear. The economic crisis has many ordinary Americans in a panic and looking to Washington for a steady hand. At the same time Bush has departed as a hugely unpopular leader, seen by many as a disaster for America, both at home and abroad, and so Obama is seen as almost a revolutionary change.
Certainly Obama has moved quickly to try to live up to those expectations. It began in the first minutes of his presidency, when he delivered an inaugural speech that was a stinging attack on Bush's legacy. As Bush listened, Obama rejected many of the key planks of Bush's rule, from national security policy to the misuse of science. Washington had seen nothing like it since Franklin Roosevelt rebuked Herbert Hoover in 1933 by saying: "The money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilisation." No wonder Bush's top aides were rankled on the plane home to Texas, openly complaining about Obama's tone.
Not that Obama or his staff cared. During the first three full days of his presidency, Obama and his team pushed through a series of measures and appointments signalling a new beginning. Yesterday was also a working day, as Obama unveiled details of the massive economic stimulus package he intends to force through Congress, despite Republican reservations.
The most dramatic move was the order to close the Guantánamo terrorist detention centre in Cuba. The jail had become a rallying cause for critics of America worldwide and Obama's swift move is likely to rehabilitate much of America's reputation abroad. Obama also effectively banned the CIA's controversial practice of rendition and closed off its ability to use torture techniques to interrogate suspects abroad. The diplomatic offensive continued with the appointment of former Senator George Mitchell as a special envoy to the Middle East and former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke to the same post for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
A similarly hot pace was set domestically. Obama issued three executive orders aimed at increasing the transparency of his government and opening access to presidential documents that Bush had made more difficult. He also took the important symbolic measure of freezing wages for 100 of his top staffers. Finally, he introduced a genuinely tough set of rules aimed at curbing the influence of the lobbyist industry, limiting their ability to join government or for his staff to leave and take jobs at lobbying firms.
The pace and calm execution of measures impressed many, though few of Obama's plans were radical. Instead they reflected a firm moderation that typified his campaign message of appealing to middle-ground Americans. "He has done some very smart things. From day one he has also been reaching out to Republicans," said Bowler. "He's getting rave reviews. Even from Republicans."
To his supporters, which seem to include many in an almost fawning US media, Obama last week successfully blended elements of some of the most fondly remembered presidents. He has shown some of the charm and humour of Ronald Reagan, the seriousness of purpose of Franklin Roosevelt, and the rhetorical, unifying flourishes of his hero, Abraham Lincoln. Read it all here
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Barack Obama retakes the oath of office
The president was supposed to say on Tuesday: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States." But Roberts misplaced one word, saying: "I will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully."
Obama told the small group gathered in the White House he had decided to do it again because it had been so much fun the day before. Roberts donned his black robe and asked: "Are you ready to take the oath?" Obama replied: "I am, and we're going to do it very slowly."
He is not the first president to have to repeat the ceremony: Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur also had to.
After the rerun, Obama joked with reporters that they were also going to repeat the rest of inauguration day. "The bad news for the [reporters] is there's 12 more balls," he said.
In a statement afterwards, Craig said he believed that the oath had been effectively administered on Tuesday. "But the oath appears in the constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, chief justice Roberts administered the oath a second time," he said.
That is not likely to end the conspiracy theorists. There is already traffic asking why Obama did not swear on a bible the second time round. Others suggested that, since he was not legally president for much of Wednesday, the executive orders he had signed until that point were not legally binding. Others ask why television cameras were not present.
In reality, Obama did not even have to be sworn in on Tuesday. There is a near-consensus among lawyers and politicians that he became president at noon on Tuesday, and had been for four minutes when he took the oath of office at 12.04pm. Read it all
Obama told the small group gathered in the White House he had decided to do it again because it had been so much fun the day before. Roberts donned his black robe and asked: "Are you ready to take the oath?" Obama replied: "I am, and we're going to do it very slowly."
He is not the first president to have to repeat the ceremony: Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur also had to.
After the rerun, Obama joked with reporters that they were also going to repeat the rest of inauguration day. "The bad news for the [reporters] is there's 12 more balls," he said.
In a statement afterwards, Craig said he believed that the oath had been effectively administered on Tuesday. "But the oath appears in the constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, chief justice Roberts administered the oath a second time," he said.
That is not likely to end the conspiracy theorists. There is already traffic asking why Obama did not swear on a bible the second time round. Others suggested that, since he was not legally president for much of Wednesday, the executive orders he had signed until that point were not legally binding. Others ask why television cameras were not present.
In reality, Obama did not even have to be sworn in on Tuesday. There is a near-consensus among lawyers and politicians that he became president at noon on Tuesday, and had been for four minutes when he took the oath of office at 12.04pm. Read it all
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Barack Obama inauguration, Text of speech
America finally got its first black president on Tuesday, and the country's usually staid capital was engulfed in a contagious party spirit.
Two million people covered almost every square foot of Washington's two-mile grass runway from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial to watch the inauguration of Barack Obama – a restless sea of red, white and blue flags that barely stopped waving from freezing dawn to chilly dusk.
Tens of thousands more lined Pennsylvania Avenue, where an armoured black limousine later took the first black American president to his new home – a house built by slaves. Millions, possibly billions, watched on television around the world, but it was the extraordinary numbers who braved the numbing chill of a harsh Washington winter that really spoke best of the Obama appeal.
It didn't matter that the man the Mall crowds had come to see was, aside from the giant television screens, not even a speck in the distance, separated by a security operation so intense that a police sniper stood on every roof.
Nor did it really matter that, when asked, everyone trotted out precisely the same line about why they had come: "being present at a moment of history" might have been a cliché but that didn't mean it wasn't true.
Heeding official advice to get there early, many had arrived while it was still dark with little to protect themselves against the biting cold. more
This is the full text of President Obama’s inaugural speech:
My fellow citizens: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and co-operation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.
The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics. Read it all here
Two million people covered almost every square foot of Washington's two-mile grass runway from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial to watch the inauguration of Barack Obama – a restless sea of red, white and blue flags that barely stopped waving from freezing dawn to chilly dusk.
Tens of thousands more lined Pennsylvania Avenue, where an armoured black limousine later took the first black American president to his new home – a house built by slaves. Millions, possibly billions, watched on television around the world, but it was the extraordinary numbers who braved the numbing chill of a harsh Washington winter that really spoke best of the Obama appeal.
It didn't matter that the man the Mall crowds had come to see was, aside from the giant television screens, not even a speck in the distance, separated by a security operation so intense that a police sniper stood on every roof.
Nor did it really matter that, when asked, everyone trotted out precisely the same line about why they had come: "being present at a moment of history" might have been a cliché but that didn't mean it wasn't true.
Heeding official advice to get there early, many had arrived while it was still dark with little to protect themselves against the biting cold. more
This is the full text of President Obama’s inaugural speech:
My fellow citizens: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and co-operation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.
The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics. Read it all here
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Abraham Lincoln's Inauguration Speech
East Portico, U.S. Capitol
March 4, 1861
"Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that--
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
'Resolved', That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to 'how' it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is 'less' perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that 'resolves' and 'ordinances' to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it 'will' constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. 'May' Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. 'Must' Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
One section of our country believes slavery is 'right' and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is 'wrong' and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases 'after' the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory 'after' separation than 'before'? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their 'constitutional' right of amending it or their 'revolutionary' right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.
By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and 'well' upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to 'hurry' any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take 'deliberately', that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.
In 'your' hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in 'mine', is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail 'you'. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. 'You' have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." source
March 4, 1861
"Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that--
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
'Resolved', That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to 'how' it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is 'less' perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that 'resolves' and 'ordinances' to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it 'will' constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. 'May' Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. 'Must' Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
One section of our country believes slavery is 'right' and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is 'wrong' and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases 'after' the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory 'after' separation than 'before'? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their 'constitutional' right of amending it or their 'revolutionary' right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.
By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and 'well' upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to 'hurry' any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take 'deliberately', that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.
In 'your' hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in 'mine', is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail 'you'. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. 'You' have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." source
Obama traces Lincoln's step to Baltimore
www.chinaview.cn 2009-01-18 15:37:30 Print
by Wang Wei
BALTIMORE, United States, Jan. 17 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President-elect Barack Obama Saturday visited Baltimore, Maryland, in memory of former President Abraham Lincoln, as the last stop of his train tour before arriving at Washington D.C. for inauguration.
Obama showed up in the afternoon with Vice President-elect Joe Biden as well as their family members in the War Memorial Plaza of the city, where as Obama's team earlier said "the promise was defended," as hundreds of thousands audience hailed their names.
The train heading to the capital started from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a historical city where "promise was founded," and picked up Biden at Welmington, Delaware, with a final destination at the Union Station in Washington, D.C.
"A few decades after the framers met in Philadelphia, our new union faced its first true test," Obama told the crowd. "The White House was in flames, and the British were advancing on Baltimore."
He retrieved Baltimore's history of defeating British Navy troops and inspiring a poem that later was adopted as lyrics of the American National Anthem.
With the spirit Baltimore left behind to the nation, Obama encouraged Americans to confront with challenges the country is facing now -- faltering economy, two wars and dependence on imported oil.
"What is required is the same perseverance and idealism that those first patriots displayed," he said. "What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives."
Obama is expected to take over the White House on Jan. 20 as the first African-American president in history and bring changes to the country as he promised in the presidential campaign.
Along the day-long train tour, he reiterated calls for nation unity among different parties, regions and races, among others, and reaffirmed promises to work out better policies for job creation, education and health care.
"It is a reiterating of what he has said over the last year that the country is ready for change," said Brad Gillenwater, a Baltimore resident. "All Americans, in general, wish him nothing but the best. We were excited about his leadership that we hope he is going to provide."
Despite an unusual temperature below zero degree in Baltimore, people started to form a line at the entrance to the War Memorial Plaza at about 8:00 a.m., keeping themselves warm with blankets, hats and body warmers.
"It is such a historical event that I have to come out and brave this bad cold weather," said Vivian Malloy, who came to Baltimore around 7:00 a.m. for a good spot to watch Obama. "I hope he will be able to make wise decision for the prosperity of our country, and bring our country into more uniformity."
Like other cities where Obama stopped during the train tour, Baltimore has been put on high alert since early Saturday morning, with many roads leading to the plaza closed and a dozen of security checkpoints set up.
A Baltimore volunteer assisting the Saturday event whose given name is Sarah told Xinhua that Obama decided to come to the city before heading to Washington D.C. because he would like to follow steps of former President Lincoln, who went to the capital through Baltimore by train in 1861. read it all
by Wang Wei
BALTIMORE, United States, Jan. 17 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President-elect Barack Obama Saturday visited Baltimore, Maryland, in memory of former President Abraham Lincoln, as the last stop of his train tour before arriving at Washington D.C. for inauguration.
Obama showed up in the afternoon with Vice President-elect Joe Biden as well as their family members in the War Memorial Plaza of the city, where as Obama's team earlier said "the promise was defended," as hundreds of thousands audience hailed their names.
The train heading to the capital started from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a historical city where "promise was founded," and picked up Biden at Welmington, Delaware, with a final destination at the Union Station in Washington, D.C.
"A few decades after the framers met in Philadelphia, our new union faced its first true test," Obama told the crowd. "The White House was in flames, and the British were advancing on Baltimore."
He retrieved Baltimore's history of defeating British Navy troops and inspiring a poem that later was adopted as lyrics of the American National Anthem.
With the spirit Baltimore left behind to the nation, Obama encouraged Americans to confront with challenges the country is facing now -- faltering economy, two wars and dependence on imported oil.
"What is required is the same perseverance and idealism that those first patriots displayed," he said. "What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives."
Obama is expected to take over the White House on Jan. 20 as the first African-American president in history and bring changes to the country as he promised in the presidential campaign.
Along the day-long train tour, he reiterated calls for nation unity among different parties, regions and races, among others, and reaffirmed promises to work out better policies for job creation, education and health care.
"It is a reiterating of what he has said over the last year that the country is ready for change," said Brad Gillenwater, a Baltimore resident. "All Americans, in general, wish him nothing but the best. We were excited about his leadership that we hope he is going to provide."
Despite an unusual temperature below zero degree in Baltimore, people started to form a line at the entrance to the War Memorial Plaza at about 8:00 a.m., keeping themselves warm with blankets, hats and body warmers.
"It is such a historical event that I have to come out and brave this bad cold weather," said Vivian Malloy, who came to Baltimore around 7:00 a.m. for a good spot to watch Obama. "I hope he will be able to make wise decision for the prosperity of our country, and bring our country into more uniformity."
Like other cities where Obama stopped during the train tour, Baltimore has been put on high alert since early Saturday morning, with many roads leading to the plaza closed and a dozen of security checkpoints set up.
A Baltimore volunteer assisting the Saturday event whose given name is Sarah told Xinhua that Obama decided to come to the city before heading to Washington D.C. because he would like to follow steps of former President Lincoln, who went to the capital through Baltimore by train in 1861. read it all
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Cambridge University celebrates its 800th birth anniversary
Octocentenary: At Trinity College, Cambridge.
London: Universities across the world on Saturday of Cambridge University, ringing church bells in a synchronised salute to one of the world’s greatest institutions of learning.
In Cambridge itself, the university rolled out a grand celebration, including a spectacular light and bell-ringing show. Four churches in central Cambridge rang a new work for bells specially composed by Clare College alumnus Phil Earis.
The sound of bells celebrating the university’s octocentenary reverberated across the world as churches from the U.S. to Australia joined in to mark the occasion.
In India, bells rang out at St. Paul’s Cathedral, Kolkata, Sacred Heart Cathedral and St. James’ Church in New Delhi, and St. Mark’s Cathedral in Bangalore, keeping a promise made to Cambridge Vice-Chancellor Alison Richard during a visit to India.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is an alumnus of St. John’s College, Cambridge.
— PHOTO: N. RAM
Amartya Sen, who was Master of Trinity College from 1998 to 2004, at the Master’s Lodge during his tenure. The clock belonged to Sir Isaac Newton, who was himself a Master.
All Church of England bishops were asked to have churches in their diocese ring their bells along with the university and many agreed — even Lincoln College in rival Oxford University. more
London: Universities across the world on Saturday of Cambridge University, ringing church bells in a synchronised salute to one of the world’s greatest institutions of learning.
In Cambridge itself, the university rolled out a grand celebration, including a spectacular light and bell-ringing show. Four churches in central Cambridge rang a new work for bells specially composed by Clare College alumnus Phil Earis.
The sound of bells celebrating the university’s octocentenary reverberated across the world as churches from the U.S. to Australia joined in to mark the occasion.
In India, bells rang out at St. Paul’s Cathedral, Kolkata, Sacred Heart Cathedral and St. James’ Church in New Delhi, and St. Mark’s Cathedral in Bangalore, keeping a promise made to Cambridge Vice-Chancellor Alison Richard during a visit to India.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is an alumnus of St. John’s College, Cambridge.
— PHOTO: N. RAM
Amartya Sen, who was Master of Trinity College from 1998 to 2004, at the Master’s Lodge during his tenure. The clock belonged to Sir Isaac Newton, who was himself a Master.
All Church of England bishops were asked to have churches in their diocese ring their bells along with the university and many agreed — even Lincoln College in rival Oxford University. more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
