Photo source: Firefox image search wbur
This letter has been digitized by the Clements Library at the University of Michigan.
Here is the Link to the scanned original doc.
“This manuscript broadside advertised a festival on July 5 of 1852, featuring a reading of the “Glorious Declaration of 1776” and a speech by Frederick Douglass under the auspices of the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society. His oration praised the greatness and bravery of the founding fathers before eloquently illuminating the anniversary as a deceitful mockery in the face of American slavery. This speech, now better known as “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July,” is widely considered to be one of the highest points of 19th-century American oratory.”
Douglass would proclaim: “I am not included within the pale of glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn…
What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.”
We need Junteenth to be a Federal Holiday.
Older but relevant
Just a little humor
Trump has achieved each point below. He must be removed with all haste.
- improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;
- behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and
- misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.
Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President, 1 Vice President, and all federal
civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. 2 This tool was inherited from English practice, in which Parliament impeached and convicted ministers and favorites of the Crown in a struggle for to rein in the Crown’s power. Congress’s power of impeachment is an important check on the executive and judicial branches, recognized by the Framers as a crucial tool for holding government officers accountable for violations of the law and abuses of power. 3 Congress has most notably employed the impeachment tool against the President and federal judges, but all federal civil officers are subject to removal by impeachment. 4 The practice of impeachment makes clear, however, that Members of Congress are not civil officers subject to impeachment and removal. 5
While judicial precedents inform the effective substantive meaning of various provisions of the Constitution, impeachment is at bottom a unique political process largely unchecked by the judiciary. While the meaning of treason and bribery is relatively clear, the scope of high crimes and misdemeanors lacks a formal definition and has been fleshed out over time, in a manner perhaps analogous to the common law, through the practice of impeachments in the United States Congress. 6 The type of behavior that qualifies as impeachable conduct, and the circumstances in which impeachment is an appropriate remedy for such actions, are thus determined by, among other things, competing political interests, changing institutional relationships among the three branches of government, and legislators’ interaction with and accountability to the public. 7 The weight of historical practice, rather than judicial precedent, is thus central to understanding the nature of impeachment in the United States.