Two different parts to this post. Stay with us.
On April 15, 1865, at 7:22 a.m., (some reports 7:21 a.m. but we give him an extra moment of life) our greatest president died of wounds from an assassin. As part of his cabinet huddled around his bedside, Edward Stanton, the secretary of war, said "Now he belongs to the ages" as Lincoln took his last measured breath. (There is an alternate version of Staton saying "now he belongs to the angels" but we like ages better, as it is in fact where Lincoln belongs).
There is something uniquely American about Abraham Lincoln. Self-taught; from dirt poverty; a life of continued failed ventures; never rich- an everyman (and woman's) struggle to provide for a family; a wife suffering from depression; Lincoln's brilliance would not let him fail. Prior to the presidency, he was not from a powerful family like the Roosevelts or Kennedys. He was not a hero on the battlefield like Grant or Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt, or George HW Bush. But Lincoln's genius for the written and spoken word would not let him fail. In 1860 he engaged in a series of debates with Stephen Douglas, challenging the Democrat Douglas for his senate seat. Lincoln narrowly lost the election 54-46 as the State legislature voted for senators at that time. But Lincoln's performance, his words (he first spoke "A house divided cannot stand" in his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination for senate) and his uniqueness, propelled him to the forefront of the nation's conscience as the leader of the anti-slavery movement. In a uniquely American turn of events, his loss in the senate race propelled him to the presidency.
In the White House, he lost a child, won a war and saved the Nation. No president endured the tragedies Lincoln did. His leadership and wisdom endures, and he does in fact, belong to the ages. When the North captured a British ship supplying the South, and England threatened war unless their sailors were released, Lincoln quietly ordered them released, saying "One war at a time." We reflect on that decision often, when in the heat of a trial or defense, clients or prosecutors attempt to open a second front.
When the first reports of casualties at the battle of Antietam came in - 23,000 in a force of 100,000- the deadliest day in American History, Lincoln, stunned, muttered "What will the nation say?" And yet, he endured, singularly carrying a nation on his back unlike any leader before him and something never repeated until Churchill and now Ukranian President Zelensky. In an ending that can only be described as Biblical, having won the war, Lincoln, like Moses, was denied entry into the promised land of peace.
He is our greatest president, the greatest American, one of the great if not greatest figures from all of recorded time. Lincoln is the best example of the man meeting the moment, and he truly belongs to the ages.
NO PAPER IN JAIL
We cannot end this post without commenting on the endless chatter on certain listservs we are morally if not legally prevented from mentioning in public (See The Rumpole Cannot Talk About Us Act, Fla. Stat. et. seq).
Lawyers are now slowly realizing that they cannot bring paper into local jails. Something we posted about here A Problem With Paper, a month ago (March 17).
Lawyers cannot bring paper into jails because unscrupulous individuals are sending paper products like books and greeting cards laced with liquid drugs into jails.
OK- we get that. The jails need to be careful. BUT please explain why lawyers cannot bring laptops and iPads into jails? The electronics cannot be laced with anything. What is the absolute worst that can happen? A lawyer will show a client a news article posted on the Fox website? Really? The jail needs to stop inmates from reading on TMZ that Ben and JLo went for coffee at Starbucks yesterday and were seen holding hands and sipping matching lattes? "Warden we have a big problem! A lawyer showed an inmate a video of Chris Rock being slapped!" "OMG! Order a total lockdown. Condition RED!"
Think about it. Prosecutors send discovery digitally. Lawyers cannot bring the paper discovery into the jail and cannot show our clients the digital version. So we are left with using our imaginative description's of the discovery:
"Close your eyes, imagine a video of you, entering a warehouse, it's wired, there are cameras on the walls. You have a hundred thousand dollars in a small satchel. The seller pulls out a brick of white powder from a Publix bag. In the background Glenn Frey's Smuggler's Blues plays on a radio:
'Cause you always carry cash
There's lots of shady characters
Lots of dirty deals
In case somebody squeals
It's the lure of easy money
It's got a very strong appeal
9 comments:
Poignant yet funny. Another post showing why you're in a league of your own.
Thanks Mom
A statement. For immediate release.
Twitter remains the preeminent platform across the world for human discourse and interaction. It is a superior place to sell cigars. I remain committed to Twitter being free and accessible to all. I will have further statements on ELon Musk's attempt to buy Twitter shortly.
Lincoln was the most influential president, insofar as the nation that emerged after his presidency was nothing like the one built by (and would have been anathema to) the founders.
If youre capable of discussing free speech as a concept, bracketing your moral outrage over some incendiary comment or slur, you should also be capable of discussing secession without delving into slavery. If free speech can exist, it can exist for terribly ugly reasons. And looked at from this pov, its inarguable that secession was legal -- or at least as legal as the American Revolution.
Lincoln had every legal right to work to outlaw chattel slavery. He had no legal right to prevent secession. And to do so he had to construct an entirely new nation, with an entirely new understanding of federal supremacy.
Lincoln saved the nation.
Rumpole saved the REGJB
keep it in perspective
Re: Lincoln. He is painted as a humble man living a humble life. But he was one of the best lawyers of his era. He specialized in railroad law. Back then, that was akin to being an M & A specialist. His view on slaves was blatantly racist. He vewed them as sub-human and said so. The Civil War was not fought over slavery per se until the Emancipation Proclamation. Before that, the sole issue was the spread of slavery which was all about free labor for white people expanding westward. The demand for cotton was growing and the South needed more land to feed that need. The North needed more land for its expanding population and free market based economic model. The conflict was inevitable. But disabuse yourself of any notion that it was a morality play.
This comment is what I would call a 10-11th grade high school view of Lincoln. The teenage need to be different and break away from what is being taught. It is, of course way too simplistic and demonstrates only a passing understanding of the man and the times.
Lincoln was not racist. But he lived in blatantly racist times. He was, based on all of his writings that exist, a humanist. He recognized the wrong in one part of humanity treating another part of humanity as chattel. Because of the times, and the pragmatism, you can find statements attributed to him that do not reflect his deep-seated beliefs expressed in his famous speeches and the emancipation proclamation.
Put another way, based on the times, you could find statements and writings from just about any figure of that time that would be racist and for that matter sexist and homophobic. But that is a reflection of the times, and those who deeply study such figures understand they are looking at the person through the lens of the time. This is something your analysis lacks, being a high school grade take on Lincoln.
Was MLK sexist? The great civil rights leader had affairs. No, he was not sexist, despite being a leader and moving society, he was still a product of the times. Was Thomas Jefferson a racist? Does his owning slaves and fathering children with slave women make him a slave owning rapist and thus negate the genius of his writings that formed the basis for this country? No. He was a human being, with the same fragilities and short comings of others and also a product of the time. I deplore his personal conduct; I admire the genius of his political writings.
We live now in a culture where any individual, usually a man, who if he has a relationship with a younger woman is accused of grooming and taking advantage of his power and thus not fit to rule. I do not in any way condone men or any person who uses their position of power to exploit another person. In the law I have taken my obligation to mentor younger lawyers very seriously and I am proud of the many women I have mentored who have gone on to wonderful careers who I know never for one solitary second felt uncomfortable. To this day, when I have an intern working with me, I make sure that I am the one that prepares our coffee or tea and snacks for our meetings. I want them to feel comfortable and valued for their internship and no other reason. Indeed, in 35 plus years of working in offices, I have never, not once, allowed any staff member, any lawyer, any person, to bring me anything of comfort. Not even a glass of water if I am not feeling well. Even when working with a lawyer who says "I'm going to make a coffee, want one?" I will decline and if I want one, get up with them and make my own. I've done this since the day I started working in an office in the early 1980s.
But getting back to men using power for inappropriate relationships, making such an occurrence a disqualifying factor for leadership would have removed both FDR and Eisenhower as leaders during WWII. Kennedy would not have been president and thus not able to defuse the Cuban Missile crisis. LBJ would not have been president and gotten the civil rights act enacted.
My point is we are human, and we need to recognize our frailties. Work for the best, but be cautious of those events automatically being a disqualifying event, lest we become a society of average people. Good personal attributes do not make good leaders.
We are better as nation for Jefferson, FDR, MLK, et. al.
If a female scientist who happened to be gay and liked women half her age invented a machine to remove all carbon from the air and cure global warming, I would not as president disqualify her because I disagreed with her personal life.
And finally, I again ask you as I have many times on this blog- suffering a heart attack, and having the choice of two surgeons, do you want to brilliant doctor who hits on nurses, or the middling hack who respects people in all ways, but about 50% of her patients die? I know who I would want.
I think you meant to add George Washington to the list of battlefield hero Presidents. Back then, when some Americans decided to have a little rebellion, our county sent Washington on a horse with 10,000 troops. History reflects that worked better than what we saw recently.
Rumpole, that 10.34 entry may be the best exegesis of the aspirational and imperfect history of our country I have read yet. In re: women's role in those earlier times. I regret it, but do not spend any time attacking men for failures in that regard in the past. That is where De Santis has gone wrong (well, one area of many. . . . ): he assumes that people should not only not regret the past but should shut the door on it, which is always a mistake. We can and must learn about and from the past, while not shutting the door on it; it happened. No point in agonizing over failure to employ women, not letting them vote, treating them badly: just quit doing it!
Post a Comment