If I were a relative or close confidant of President Biden, I’m pretty sure I’d give him a hug, thank him for his service, and tell him to seriously consider walking away.
I’d tell him that after a life of service, he can pass the torch with pride, with dignity, and with grace.
Someone probably should have done this months ago, out of love or duty, and out of the concern that Biden’s health is likely to get worse in coming years.
But we’re not very good at this sort of thing — at summoning the courage it takes to confront a loved one or a boss who’s in decline and being totally honest about it. To be courteous but firm. I had trouble telling my own father it was time to give up driving. He resisted, unaware of or unwilling to accept the reality of his obvious shakiness behind the wheel, and unwilling to surrender his keys or his pride.
By many accounts, people close to Biden have been aware of a decline but have not pressed him to step aside. The New York Times reported on Tuesday that in “the weeks and months” before last Thursday’s presidential debate, “several current and former officials and others who encountered him behind closed doors noticed that he increasingly appeared confused or listless, or would lose the thread of conversations.” There are also reports that people are encouraging him to keep going.
There are some analogies to California‘s Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who died last year at the age of 90 after more than 30 years in office. If there was any inner-circle effort to persuade her to leave the Senate due to her obvious cognitive and physical decline, that effort failed. She died in office after announcing she would not run again.
In some cases, stepping aside is the right thing to do.
This might sound odd to those who’ve followed my Golden State column over the last 28 months. One of my driving principles has been to stand firm against the notion that we’re incapable of contributing as we age, or that our value diminishes.
In recent columns, I’ve been pointing out, with the help of experts, that you can’t diagnose dementia from afar, though many people have tried to do so in Biden’s case, especially after his debate performance.
I’ve also written that whatever the cause of his foggy gaze and occasional meandering phrase (the medical possibilities are numerous), Biden seemed lost and unsteady. He may still have some gas in the tank, but time is working against him. A year from now, or two, or three or four, how will he be?
The world population is aging rapidly, and more people are staying on the job longer — and while the benefits are many, the risks are real. Bodies and minds break down. It’s OK, when they do, to punch out and move on.
Since the debate, I’ve been thinking about something USC gerontology professor Caroline Cicero said to me last year, when I wrote about whether Biden or Feinstein should step aside.
“I’m very concerned about ageism in the workplace, but I’m also concerned about people who think they have to work forever,” said Cicero. “Giving people permission to retire is something I think we need to do.”
She picked up on that line of thinking this week.
“In recent decades, society has told us that we can have it all. In a battle against ageism, we tell people they can work as long as they want,” she said. “In a battle to prove ourselves, we tell ourselves we can beat normal slowdowns that come with the passage of time.”
But most of us can’t.
Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney, each north of 80, are still holding a tune, and Warren Buffett, at 93, seems to be doing OK. But that’s the thing about aging, as I‘ve said before: You can be old at 60 and young at 85.
Biden has obvious strengths, chief among them experience, wisdom, decency, civility and the empathy that comes with crushing loss. It may be that those in his inner circle, knowing what he’s made of, can’t bring themselves to question his strength and resolve, even in the face of obvious decline. Sure, his family knows him better than we do, but maybe they can’t see what we see from afar.
Some of you might be wondering, right about now, that if I’m all about frank discussions on knowing when it’s time to go, then how come I’m not bringing the Trump family into this.
I would, but their task is even harder than the Biden family’s. What would be the point of saying to a convicted felon who continues to insist he won the 2020 election, “Hey Pop, the fact-checkers are still recovering from the workout you gave them in the last debate”? It takes a bit of humility to see the truth about yourself, and when you begin listing the qualities that define Donald Trump, humility and truth do not make the cut.
iden may be having trouble seeing himself as anything other than what he is now — a public servant at the top of the flow chart. You can’t be president of the United States without a healthy ego, and in jobs that people are passionate about — that become their very identity — they often can’t imagine what or who else they could be in retirement, provided they can afford to retire, which many cannot.
These people may not be able to imagine that anyone waiting in the wings is as up to the task as they are, and perhaps that’s part of Biden’s calculation. If he takes the next exit, who would take his place? And is there enough time for Vice President Kamala Harris or any of the other potential last-minute candidates to find traction?
It never should have come to this.
The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg comes to mind as Exhibit A for lessons on the price of stubbornly holding on. She refused to surrender her position as her health faded, and women’s reproductive rights suffered a blow as a result.
“I see it with entrepreneurs who created a business and have hard time letting go,” said Helen Dennis, who started a support group called Renewment — combining the words “renewal” and “retirement” — 25 years ago for successful women who had trouble imagining the next versions of themselves. The group now includes “teachers, nurses, doctors, several attorneys,” all of them leaning on each other as they learn “how to navigate the next chapter.”
Work is not life, and life is not work, USC’s Cicero once said to me. That must be a foreign concept to a sitting president, but I’m thinking of former President Jimmy Carter as one of the best examples of those who have found ways to contribute after leaving office. He took up a hammer and went to work for Habitat for Humanity — and he won the Nobel Peace Prize for working on peaceful solutions to world conflicts.
“People often fear retirement because they don’t want to be labeled as old, invisible or unimportant,” Cicero said. And many of those who are “addicted to routine don’t know how they will spend their time without the rigors of a work schedule,” she added — but that “does not mean they need to keep working to have a satisfying later life.”
Biden, after his debate stumble, was quickly back on the stump, telling supporters that when you’re knocked down, you get back up and keep fighting.
But Father Time, as they say, is the one who’s undefeated.
I’d remind Biden that the country and the world have problems neither he nor Trump can fix, and that if he’s reelected he will be subjected to four more years of unrelenting judgments about his fitness to hold office.
I’d tell him that, at 81, when you’re knocked down, you’ve earned a rest.
On June 19, 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was approved by the U.S. Senate, 73-27, after surviving a lengthy filibuster.
The act banned discrimination in employment and public accommodations based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This included prohibiting discrimination in hiring, promoting, and firing.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to undo the damage of Jim Crow policies.
This act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on July 2, 1964.
This article appears in the May 27, 2024 Time magazine
In exclusive interviews, the former President lays out a second-term agenda that would reshape America and its role in the world.
Donald Trump thinks he’s identified a crucial mistake of his first term: He was too nice.
We’ve been talking for more than an hour on April 12 at his fever-dream palace in Palm Beach. Aides lurk around the perimeter of a gilded dining room overlooking the manicured lawn. When one nudges me to wrap up the interview, I bring up the many former Cabinet officials who refuse to endorse Trump this time. Some have publicly warned that he poses a danger to the Republic. Why should voters trust you, I ask, when some of the people who observed you most closely do not?
As always, Trump punches back, denigrating his former top advisers. But beneath the typical torrent of invective, there is a larger lesson he has taken away. “I let them quit because I have a heart. I don’t want to embarrass anybody,” Trump says. “I don’t think I’ll do that again. From now on, I’ll fire.”
Six months from the 2024 presidential election, Trump is better positioned to win the White House than at any point in either of his previous campaigns. He leads Joe Biden by slim margins in most polls, including in several of the seven swing states likely to determine the outcome. But I had not come to ask about the election, the disgrace that followed the last one, or how he has become the first former—and perhaps future—American President to face a criminal trial. I wanted to know what Trump would do if he wins a second term, to hear his vision for the nation, in his own words.
What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world. To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding. He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.
Trump remains the same guy, with the same goals and grievances. But in person, if anything, he appears more assertive and confident. “When I first got to Washington, I knew very few people,” he says. “I had to rely on people.” Now he is in charge. The arranged marriage with the timorous Republican Party stalwarts is over; the old guard is vanquished, and the people who remain are his people. Trump would enter a second term backed by a slew of policy shops staffed by loyalists who have drawn up detailed plans in service of his agenda, which would concentrate the powers of the state in the hands of a man whose appetite for power appears all but insatiable. “I don’t think it’s a big mystery what his agenda would be,” says his close adviser Kellyanne Conway. “But I think people will be surprised at the alacrity with which he will take action.”
The courts, the Constitution, and a Congress of unknown composition would all have a say in whether Trump’s objectives come to pass. The machinery of Washington has a range of defenses: leaks to a free press, whistle-blower protections, the oversight of inspectors general. The same deficiencies of temperament and judgment that hindered him in the past remain present. If he wins, Trump would be a lame duck—contrary to the suggestions of some supporters, he tells TIME he would not seek to overturn or ignore the Constitution’s prohibition on a third term. Public opinion would also be a powerful check. Amid a popular outcry, Trump was forced to scale back some of his most draconian first-term initiatives, including the policy of separating migrant families. As George Orwell wrote in 1945, the ability of governments to carry out their designs “depends on the general temper in the country.”
Every election is billed as a national turning point. This time that rings true. To supporters, the prospect of Trump 2.0, unconstrained and backed by a disciplined movement of true believers, offers revolutionary promise. To much of the rest of the nation and the world, it represents an alarming risk. A second Trump term could bring “the end of our democracy,” says presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, “and the birth of a new kind of authoritarian presidential order.”
Trump steps onto the patio at Mar-a-Lago near dusk. The well-heeled crowd eating Wagyu steaks and grilled branzino pauses to applaud as he takes his seat. On this gorgeous evening, the club is a MAGA mecca. Billionaire donor Steve Wynn is here. So is Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who is dining with the former President after a joint press conference proposing legislation to prevent noncitizens from voting. Their voting in federal elections is already illegal, and extremely rare, but remains a Trumpian fixation that the embattled Speaker appeared happy to co-sign in exchange for the political cover that standing with Trump provides.
At the moment, though, Trump’s attention is elsewhere. With an index finger, he swipes through an iPad on the table to curate the restaurant’s soundtrack. The playlist veers from Sinead O’Connor to James Brown to The Phantom of the Opera. And there’s a uniquely Trump choice: a rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner” sung by a choir of defendants imprisoned for attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, interspersed with a recording of Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. This has become a staple of his rallies, converting the ultimate symbol of national unity into a weapon of factional devotion.
The spectacle picks up where his first term left off. The events of Jan. 6, during which a pro-Trump mob attacked the center of American democracy in an effort to subvert the peaceful transfer of power, was a profound stain on his legacy. Trump has sought to recast an insurrectionist riot as an act of patriotism. “I call them the J-6 patriots,” he says. When I ask whether he would consider pardoning every one of them, he says, “Yes, absolutely.” As Trump faces dozens of felony charges, including for election interference, conspiracy to defraud the United States, willful retention of national-security secrets, and falsifying business records to conceal hush-money payments, he has tried to turn legal peril into a badge of honor.
In a second term, Trump’s influence on American democracy would extend far beyond pardoning powers. Allies are laying the groundwork to restructure the presidency in line with a doctrine called the unitary executive theory, which holds that many of the constraints imposed on the White House by legislators and the courts should be swept away in favor of a more powerful Commander in Chief.
Nowhere would that power be more momentous than at the Department of Justice. Since the nation’s earliest days, Presidents have generally kept a respectful distance from Senate-confirmed law-enforcement officials to avoid exploiting for personal ends their enormous ability to curtail Americans’ freedoms. But Trump, burned in his first term by multiple investigations directed by his own appointees, is ever more vocal about imposing his will directly on the department and its far-flung investigators and prosecutors.
Nowhere would that power be more momentous than at the Department of Justice. Since the nation’s earliest days, Presidents have generally kept a respectful distance from Senate-confirmed law-enforcement officials to avoid exploiting for personal ends their enormous ability to curtail Americans’ freedoms. But Trump, burned in his first term by multiple investigations directed by his own appointees, is ever more vocal about imposing his will directly on the department and its far-flung investigators and prosecutors.
Such moves would be potentially catastrophic for the credibility of American law enforcement, scholars and former Justice Department leaders from both parties say. “If he ordered an improper prosecution, I would expect any respectable U.S. Attorney to say no,” says Michael McConnell, a former U.S. appellate judge appointed by President George W. Bush. “If the President fired the U.S. Attorney, it would be an enormous firestorm.” McConnell, now a Stanford law professor, says the dismissal could have a cascading effect similar to the Saturday Night Massacre, when President Richard Nixon ordered top DOJ officials to remove the special counsel investigating Watergate. Presidents have the constitutional right to fire U.S. Attorneys, and typically replace their predecessors’ appointees upon taking office. But discharging one specifically for refusing a President’s order would be all but unprecedented.
Trump’s radical designs for presidential power would be felt throughout the country. A main focus is the southern border. Trump says he plans to sign orders to reinstall many of the same policies from his first term, such as the Remain in Mexico program, which requires that non-Mexican asylum seekers be sent south of the border until their court dates, and Title 42, which allows border officials to expel migrants without letting them apply for asylum. Advisers say he plans to cite record border crossings and fentanyl- and child-trafficking as justification for reimposing the emergency measures. He would direct federal funding to resume construction of the border wall, likely by allocating money from the military budget without congressional approval. The capstone of this program, advisers say, would be a massive deportation operation that would target millions of people. Trump made similar pledges in his first term, but says he plans to be more aggressive in a second. “People need to be deported,” says Tom Homan, a top Trump adviser and former acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “No one should be off the table.”
For an operation of that scale, Trump says he would rely mostly on the National Guard to round up and remove undocumented migrants throughout the country. “If they weren’t able to, then I’d use [other parts of] the military,” he says. When I ask if that means he would override the Posse Comitatus Act—an 1878 law that prohibits the use of military force on civilians—Trump seems unmoved by the weight of the statute. “Well, these aren’t civilians,” he says. “These are people that aren’t legally in our country.” He would also seek help from local police and says he would deny funding for jurisdictions that decline to adopt his policies. “There’s a possibility that some won’t want to participate,” Trump says, “and they won’t partake in the riches.”
As President, Trump nominated three Supreme Court Justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he claims credit for his role in ending a constitutional right to an abortion. At the same time, he has sought to defuse a potent campaign issue for the Democrats by saying he wouldn’t sign a federal ban. In our interview at Mar-a-Lago, he declines to commit to vetoing any additional federal restrictions if they came to his desk. More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. “I think they might do that,” he says. When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.” President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation.
Trump’s allies don’t plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power. The Heritage Foundation has called for enforcement of a 19th century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80% of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to “the moment of fertilization.” I ask Trump if he would veto that bill if it came to his desk. “I don’t have to do anything about vetoes,” Trump says, “because we now have it back in the states.”
Presidents typically have a narrow window to pass major legislation. Trump’s team is eyeing two bills to kick off a second term: a border-security and immigration package, and an extension of his 2017 tax cuts. Many of the latter’s provisions expire early in 2025: the tax cuts on individual income brackets, 100% business expensing, the doubling of the estate-tax deduction. Trump is planning to intensify his protectionist agenda, telling me he’s considering a tariff of more than 10% on all imports, and perhaps even a 100% tariff on some Chinese goods. Trump says the tariffs will liberate the U.S. economy from being at the mercy of foreign manufacturing and spur an industrial renaissance in the U.S. When I point out that independent analysts estimate Trump’s first term tariffs on thousands of products, including steel and aluminum, solar panels, and washing machines, may have cost the U.S. $316 billion and more than 300,000 jobs, by one account, he dismisses these experts out of hand. His advisers argue that the average yearly inflation rate in his first term—under 2%—is evidence that his tariffs won’t raise prices.
Since leaving office, Trump has tried to engineer a caucus of the compliant, clearing primary fields in Senate and House races. His hope is that GOP majorities replete with MAGA diehards could rubber-stamp his legislative agenda and nominees. Representative Jim Banks of Indiana, a former RSC chairman and the GOP nominee for the state’s open Senate seat, recalls an August 2022 RSC planning meeting with Trump at his residence in Bedminster, N.J. As the group arrived, Banks recalls, news broke that Mar-a-Lago had been raided by the FBI. Banks was sure the meeting would be canceled. Moments later, Trump walked through the doors, defiant and pledging to run again. “I need allies there when I’m elected,” Banks recalls Trump saying. The difference in a second Trump term, Banks says now, “is he’s going to have the backup in Congress that he didn’t have before.”
The former vice president’s comments mark a stunning repudiation of his ex-boss and the president he served with.
Pence did not reveal who he’ll vote for in the 2024 general election, saying that he’ll keep “my vote to myself.” He, however, said he will “never vote” for President Joe Biden. Pence also suggested that he would not back a third-party candidate.
It is a good bet that he will vote for Trump. Pence showed he has no spine and couldn’t even stand up for his conservative principals.
PUBLISHED: February 16, 2024 at 4:33 p.m. | UPDATED: February 16, 2024 at 4:34 p.m.
When they came for my typewriter and replaced it with a word processor, I grumbled but said nothing.
When they took away my vinyl LPs and replaced them with CDs, I begrudgingly put my Sinatra albums in storage and bought his discs.
When bookstores began closing, I built more shelves in my home and started my own bookstore.
Now, AT&T wants to take away my landline, and I say enough, already! Keep your hands off Ma Bell.
Her rotary phones were our lifelines — our memories of when you could stay in touch with the world with a phone, a newspaper and Walter Cronkite.
Today, I’m paying AT&T and Verizon nearly $400 a month to stay in touch, and I don’t have a clue of what’s going on.
In case you missed it, AT&T wants out of the old copper wire business that delivers landline access to around 25% of the households in California that still have landlines and a cell phone. It drops to around 15% with landlines only.
With the speed and technology AT&T possesses, you’d think they’d have texted me with the news, but they chose good, old, reliable snail mail to let me know. How’s that for a shot of irony?
It’s asking the California Public Utilities Commission for a release from its obligation to provide landline phone service in a large portion if its service territory in the state. My portion.
If approved, AT&T will give us land liners six months before it cuts the copper wires and we have to move to a private, unregulated carrier to keep our landline. If no alternative voice services are available, it will hang on until there are.
Not so fast, though. I kind of like the government keeping an eye on my phone bills. It keeps an eye on everything else for me.
I still have an old rotary phone I keep at the end of my desk for personal therapy. The number’s University 6-3230.
Whenever I’m feeling down or stressed out, I stick my forefinger in one of the 10 holes — digits 1 through 9, and zero — on the rotary dial, and give her a whirl, cradling the receiver between my chin and shoulder, like I used to.
That familiar clicking noise when you turn the rotary dial is a glass of chocolate milk and Oreo cookies to me. I’m back in the old neighborhood calling my high school buddies and old girlfriends in my mind.
Ma Bell hung from our kitchen wall and sat on a side table in the living room in the 1950s when two-thirds of American households had at least one rotary phone, thanks to that old copper wiring it now wants to cut.
Ma couldn’t fit in our pocket or do all the things smart phones can do now, but somehow we made do.
Calendars told us what day it was and watches told us the time. Newspapers, TV and radio news kept us in the loop.
Ma couldn’t check our messages or text our friends for lunch, but she gave us great reception and that’s all we were asking for. She never died in the middle of a call.
By the 1970s, push buttons began replacing rotary dials, and that therapeutic clicking sound was gone forever. By the 80s, most rotary phones were being phased out as Ma Bell sang her swan song in 1984.
Today, when my cell phone rings in my house, it’s a mad dash to the window in my den where I get the only good reception in the place and don’t lose the call.
When my landline rings, I take my time walking over to answer it. It never loses a call.
Before the California Public Utilities Commission makes a decision in April on AT&T’s request, it’s asking for public comments.
Also, the California Public Utilities Commission is holding two in-person public forms — Feb. 22 in Ukiah, and March 14 in Indio.
One virtual meeting to be held at 2 and 6 p.m. March 19. Information about these meetings and other information on the issue on the CPUC page here: tinyurl.com/yx9sv9zw
For more information on the issue of AT&T’s request to be relieved of its “Carrier of Last Resort” obligations in certain areas of California go online to: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/attcolr
Or, better yet, give them a call on your landline at 866-849-8390.
What a great country this is. Everyone can obtain a gun. Background checks are not done, not enforced or are not done at all. The following listing was posted on CNN.
We will continue to have vigil and conduct prayers. The NRA and the gun manufacturers couldn’t be happier.
Millions of people, including politicians and journalists, refer to “second amendment rights” and “second amendment advocates.” They use this as an excuse that nothing can be done. The Eighteenth Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment on December 5, 1933.
Special Counsel Robert Hur was appointed to oversee the investigation of President Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents during his time as Vice-President.
Hur described President Biden as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” and said he would bring no criminal charges against the president after a months-long investigation into his improper retention of classified documents related to national security.
Hur’s report was made public Thursday afternoon.
Hur has been investigating Biden’s improper retention of classified records since last year. Those records included classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan, among other records related to national security and foreign policy which Hur said implicated “sensitive intelligence sources and methods.”
Hur, in the report, said the special counsel’s team “also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
“Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone from whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt,” the report states. “It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him—by then a former president well into his eighties—of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”
Biden’s “memory also appeared to have significant limitations” according to the report, and during conversations with his ghostwriter, recorded in 2017, his conversations were “painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries”
Hur’s report pointed out that Biden’s memory was “worse” during an interview with the Special Counsel’s office.
During the interview, Biden “did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (‘if it was 2013 – when did I stop being Vice President?’), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (‘in 2009, am I still Vice President?’)”
“He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died. And his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him. Among other things, he mistakenly said he ‘had a real difference’ of opinion with General Karl Eikenberry, when, in fact, Eikenberry was an ally whom Mr. Biden cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama,” Hur’s report said.
One GOP representative Rep. Claudia Tenney is calling for the Cabinet to “explore” the use of the Constitution’s 25th Amendment to remove President Biden from office, following Special Counsel Robert Hur’s “alarming” report.
Of course Democrats will rally around the president. But should they?
The United States may have been founded on the idea that all men are created equal, but during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, slaveholding was common among the statesmen who served as president.
Slavery was legal in the United States from its beginning as a nation. During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, slaveholding was common among the statesmen who served as president. In all, 12 chief executives enslaved people during their lifetime; of these, eight owned slaves while in office. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution formally abolished slavery in 1865, but the history of the American presidency’s relationship to slavery remains an uncomfortable one. So, who are these White House incumbents that were also enslavers?
Picture from history.com
President George Washington
A Founding Father of the United States and the country’s first president, George Washington kept over 300 enslaved people at his Mount Vernon plantation.
As president of the United States, Washington oversaw the implementation of the 1787 Northwest Ordinance, which banned slavery north of the Ohio River. But in 1793 he signed the Fugitive Slave Law, which empowered a slaveowner or his agent to seize or arrest any enslaved person on the run. His views on slavery took another turn the following year, when he wrote into law the Slave Trade Act of 1794, which prohibited the export of slaves from the United States to any foreign place or country.
President Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, owned more than 600 slaves during his adult life. Jefferson’s slaves were held captive at his main residence, Monticello, near Charlottesville, Virginia. It was here that he fathered several children with an enslaved woman called Sally Hemmings.
President James Madison
James Madison kept several enslaved people—he came from a large slaveholding family. By 1801, Madison’s slave population at Montpelier, his plantation estate, was slightly over 100. That figure eventually numbered over 300.
Like Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe outwardly condemned the institution of slavery as evil, and advocated its gradual end. But he, too, still owned many slaves.
President Andrew Jackson
Like most planters in the South, Andrew Jackson used forced labor. Over his lifetime, he owned a total of 300 slaves, most of whom were put to work in the cotton fields of his plantation, The Hermitage, near Nashville, Tennessee.
President Martin Van Buren
Martin Van Buren was ensconced in the White House during the Amistad Case, a freedom suit that resulted from the successful rebellion of African slaves on board the Spanish schooner La Amistad in 1839. Van Buren viewed abolitionism as the greatest threat to the nation’s unity, and he resisted the slightest interference with slavery in the states where it existed. Later in life, Van Buren belonged to the Free Soil Party, which opposed the expansion of slavery into the Western territories, but not immediate abolition.
President John Tyler
William Henry Harrison owned several inherited enslaved people before becoming president in 1841.
John Tyler owned as many as 50 slaves throughout his lifetime, including during his tenure as White House incumbent. In 1845, Tyler oversaw the annexation of Texas as a slave state.
President James K. Polk
President James K. Polk was generally tolerant of slavery. He owned several plantations and even purchased enslaved people during his term in office. His will provided for the freeing of his slaves after the passing of his wife, Sarah Childress, though the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ended up freeing them long before her death in 1891.
President Zachary Taylor
Zachary Taylor owned slaves throughout his life. In fact, of the other presidents who owned slaves, Taylor benefited the most from slave labor.
Taylor had enslaved servants in the White House, and it was in Washington where he also supervised his Mississippi plantation’s operations. As president, however, he generally resisted attempts to expand slavery in the territories, and he vowed to veto the Compromise of 1850, which granted enslavers greater authority to seize supposed fugitive slaves in Northern states, as well as other extremely controversial measures.
President Andrew Johnson
Assuming the presidency following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson was one of the last US presidents to personally own slaves. Despite being an enslaver, Johnson had been chosen as vice president by Lincoln as a gesture of unification, with Johnson supporting many of Lincoln’s policies, although he did lobby for Lincoln to exclude Tennessee from the Emancipation Proclamation. But as President Johnson, his Reconstruction goals were to reunify the Union by readmitting former Confederates as citizens of the United States and to limit emancipated people’s civil rights.
President Ulysses S. Grant
The last president to personally own enslaved people was Ulysses S. Grant. As the former commanding general of the Union Army, Grant had kept one enslaved black man named William Jones. He was freed in 1859.
Harvard University President Claudine Gay resigned Tuesday January 2, 2024 amid plagiarism accusations and criticism over testimony at a congressional hearing where she was unable to say unequivocally that calls on campus for the genocide of Jews would violate the school’s conduct policy.
Obviously she was pressured to resign after many well off Jewish alumni demanded her removal.
More than 1,600 alumni of Harvard Universitysay that they will withhold donations to the school until Harvard takes urgent action to address antisemitism on campus, part of a wave of challenges to colleges across the county in addressing hate speech sparked by the Israel-Hamas war.
High-profile billionaire alumni like Pershing Square founder Bill Ackman and former Victoria’s Secret CEO Leslie Wexner have already said that if Harvard doesn’t take steps to fix the problem they could face a donor exodus, but now the largest group yetof alumni — most of whom do not have billionaire status — are threatening to withdraw their donations.
Addtionally more than 70 U.S. lawmakers demanded the governing boards of three of the country’s top universities remove their presidents, citing dissatisfaction with their testimony at a hearing about antisemitism on campuses, according to a letter seen by Reuters.
In the letter, Republican Representative Elise Stefanik and Democratic Representative Jared Moskowitz demanded that the board of governors at Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology oust their presidents or risk committing “an act of complicity in their antisemitic posture.”
Coast Contact 