Alfred Emanuel Smith was an American politician who served four terms as Governor of New York and was the Democratic Party’s candidate for president in 1928. The following unknowingly prophetic speech [*defined by borders] was delivered to The American Liberty League Dinner in Washington, D. C on January 25th, 1936. A short biography of the man is attached at the end of this article. Interspersed with Smith’s speech are my comments on the relevancy of the matter both historically and in these sad days. Among those whose own comments will, I hope, tend to manifest the depth of the problem are two American Presidents – supposedly the two considered to be America’s “very best.” I certainly agree with the first conclusion, that is, George Washington, but the second, Abraham Lincoln, was the man the consequences of whose actions are reflected in Mr. Smith’s comments and all that they define:
“The Facts in the Case”
At the outset of my remarks let me make one thing perfectly clear. I am not a candidate for any nomination by any party at any time, and what is more I do not intend to even lift my right hand to secure any nomination from any party at any time. Further than that I have no axe to grind. There is nothing personal in this whole performance so far as I am concerned. I have no feeling against any man, woman or child in the United States . . .
I was born in the Democratic Party and I expect to die in it. I was attracted to it in my youth because I was led to believe that no man owned it, and furthermore that no group of men owned it, but, on the other hand, that it belonged to all the plain people in the United States.
I must make a confession. It is not easy for me to stand up here tonight and talk to the American people against the Democratic Administration. This is not easy. It hurts me. But I can call upon innumerable witnesses to testify to the fact that during my whole public life I put patriotism above partisanship. And when I see danger – I say “danger,” that is, “Stop, look, and listen” to the fundamental principles upon which this Government of ours was organized – it is difficult for me to refrain from speaking up.
Now, what are these dangers that I see? The first is the arraignment of class against class. It has been freely predicted that if we were ever to have civil strife again in this country, it would come from the appeal to passion and prejudices that comes from the demagogues that would incite one class of our people against the other.
The problem of class strife was mentioned by our first President, George Washington in his famous Farewell Address to the American people as he vacated an office that was, for all intents and purposes, his “for life” had he chosen to retain it. (Remember, the Constitution did not include any “term limits” with regard to holding elective office in the federal government!) Washington sees this danger in the form of regional disputes and divisions that could (and eventually did) do damage to the union formed by the Constitution:
“In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, [my emphasis~vp] Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of a party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured?” ~ G. Washington
In these remarks, Washington addresses the natural fears arising in the mind of the American people at that time who had only just become a single “people” and thus retained suspicion that those living in other areas of that same country might make use of their strengths against them. Washington points out here that, in the West, the treaties made with both Spain and Britain have guaranteed “Western” Americans safety in their holdings and lives. He therefore asks whether it would be right for these people to look toward their fellow Americans with trust and filial affection as those responsible for their newfound safety.
But back to Mr. Smith:
In my time I have met some good and bad industrialists. I have met some good and bad financiers, but I have also met some good and bad laborers, and this I know, that permanent prosperity is dependent upon both capital and labor alike.
And I also know that there can be no permanent prosperity in this country until industry is able to employ labor, and there certainly can be no permanent recovery upon any governmental theory of soak the rich or soak the poor.
The next thing that I view as being dangerous to our national well-being is government by bureaucracy instead of what we have been taught to look for, government by law. [my emphasis-vp] Just let me quote something from the President’s message to Congress*: “In thirty-four months we have built up new instruments of public power. In the hands of a people’s government this power is wholesome and proper. But in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people.” [*Quote from President Roosevelt’s Annual Message to Congress, January 3, 1936-vp]
Now, I interpret that to mean: If you are going to have an autocrat, take me, but be very careful about the other fellow. There is a complete answer to that, and it rises in the minds of the great rank and file, and that answer is just this: We will never in this country tolerate any law that provides shackles for our people. We don’t want autocrats, either in or out of office; we wouldn’t even take a good one.
The next danger apparent to me is the vast building up of new bureaus of government, draining the resources of our people into a common pool and redistributing them, not by any process of law, but by the whim of a bureaucratic autocracy. [my emphasis-vp]
Well now, what am I here for? I am here not to find fault. Anybody can do that. I am here to make suggestions. What would I have my party do? I would have them re-establish and re-declare the principles that they put forth in that 1932 platform . . . No Administration in the history of the country came into power with a more simple, a more clear, or a more inescapable mandate than did the party that was inaugurated on the Fourth of March in 1933. And listen, no candidate in the history of the country ever pledged himself more unequivocally to his party platform than did the President who was inaugurated on that day. Well, here we are. Millions and millions of Democrats just like myself, all over the country, still believe in that platform. And what we want to know is why it wasn’t carried out. [my emphasis-vp] And listen, there is only one man in the United States of America that can answer that question . . .
Let’s take a look at that platform, and let’s see what happened to it. Here is how it started out:
“We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people, to be faithfully kept by the party when entrusted with power, and that the people are entitled to know in plain words the terms of contract to which they are asked to subscribe. The Democratic Party solemnly promises by appropriate action to put into effect the principles, policies and reforms herein advocated and to eradicate the political methods and practices herein condemned.”
My friends, these are what we call fighting words. At the time that the platform went through the air and over the wire, the people of the United States were in the lowest possible depths of despair, and the Democratic platform looked to them like the star of hope; it looked like the rising sun in the East to the mariner on the bridge of a ship after a terrible night. But what happened to it?
First plank: “We advocate immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance to accomplish a saving of not less than 25 per cent in the cost of the Federal Government.”
Well, now, what is the fact? No offices were consolidated, no bureaus were eliminated, but on the other hand, the alphabet was exhausted in the creation of new departments. And – this is sad news for the taxpayer – the cost, the ordinary cost, what we refer to as housekeeping cost, over and above all emergencies – that ordinary housekeeping cost of government is greater today than it has ever been in any time in the history of the republic. [my emphasis-vp]
Another plank: “We favor maintenance of the national credit by a Federal budget annually balanced on the basis of accurate Executive estimates within revenue.”
How can you balance a budget if you insist upon spending more money than you take in? Even the increased revenue won’t go to balance the budget, because it is hocked before you receive it. What is worse than that[?] . . . [W]e have borrowed so that we have reached a new high peak of Federal indebtedness for all time. . . [T]he sin of it is that we have the indebtedness and at the end of three years we are just where we started. Unemployment and the farm problem we still have with us.
Washington was not unmindful of the danger of public debt, a matter that had almost been the ruin of the revolution and those times directly after when the States and their toothless “Confederation” were not able to create a viable means of constructing much less governing the new nation:
“As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.” ~ G. Washington
And Smith continues:
Now here is something that I want to say to the rank and file. There are three classes of people in this country; there are the poor and the rich, and in between the two is what has often been referred to as the great backbone of America, that is the plain fellow [a/k/a the “middle class” vp]. That is the fellow that makes from one hundred dollars a month up to the man that draws down five or six thousand dollars a year. They are the great army. Forget the rich; they can’t pay this debt. If you took everything they have away from them, they couldn’t pay it; there ain’t enough of them, and furthermore they ain’t got enough.
There is no use talking about the poor; they will never pay it, because they have nothing. This debt is going to be paid by that great big middle class that we refer to as the backbone and the rank and file, and the sin of it is they ain’t going to know that they are paying it. It is going to come to them in the form of indirect and hidden taxation. It will come to them in the cost of living, in the cost of clothing, in the cost of every activity that they enter into, and because it is not a direct tax, they won’t think they’re paying, but, take it from me, they are going to pay it. [my emphasis-vp]
Smith was speaking of financial obligations being assumed by the federal government that were not part of its original duties. Worse, these were being assumed without even the attempt to amend the Constitution to legitimize those efforts; they were being treated as if this was a legal right of the government to pursue. Washington also spoke to the People about making changes in the Constitution should they perceive it to be desirable, but he also pointed out that no such actions should be taken without the proper guidelines being followed; that is, that the Constitution as written was the law of the land until legally amended:
“There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. [my emphasis – vp] To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.” [my emphasis – vp] ~ G. Washington
And Smith continues:
Another plank: “We advocate the extension of Federal credit to the States to provide unemployment relief where the diminishing resources of the State make it impossible for them to provide for their needs.” [*Remember, this was during the Great Depression! vp]
That was pretty plain. That was a recognition in the national convention of the rights of the States. But how is it interpreted? The Federal Government took over most of the relief problems, some of them useful and most of them useless. They started out to prime the pump for industry in order to absorb the ranks of the unemployed, and at the end of three years their affirmative policy is absolutely nothing better than the negative policy of the Administration that preceded them.
“We favor unemployment and old age insurance under State laws.” Now let me make myself perfectly clear so that no demagogue or no crackpot in the next week or so will be able to say anything about my attitude on this kind of legislation. I am in favor of it. And I take my hat off to no man in the United States on the question of legislation beneficial to the poor, the weak, the sick, or the afflicted, or women and children. Because why? I started out a quarter of a century ago when I had very few followers in my State, and during that period I advocated, fought for, introduced as a legislator, and finally as Governor for eight long years, signed more progressive legislation in the interest of the men, women and children than any man in the State of New York. And the sin of this whole thing, and the part of it that worries me and gives me concern, is that this haphazard, hurry-up passage of legislation is never going to accomplish the purposes for which it was designed. And bear this in mind, follow the platform – “under state laws!”
Here Smith has spoken of the interaction between the federal government and the States. Washington also spoke to this, but from a different set of circumstances. He was attempting to take thirteen disparate “states” and make of them one nation. Washington understood that many “Americans” feared a powerful “central authority” because they saw it as a “monarchy in disguise,” even a “constitutional monarchy” acting through a body like the Parliament – and they wanted nothing to do with it. On the other hand, without a unified central authority able to make decisions, raise revenues and protect all the states, the new nation would soon simply be engulfed by foreign powers including the Empire they had just defeated, Great Britain! This “consolidation” feared by those of Washington’s day was voiced by the great patriot Patrick Henry who refused to vote for the ratification of the Constitution in Virginia. Henry voiced his objections thusly:
“A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls.” – Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention [June 9, 1788]
But the situation to which Smith is referring is the result of the second American President here involved, Abraham Lincoln. For it was Lincoln who destroyed the very concept of “states’ rights” and substituted in turn, an all-powerful central/national government that no longer governed under the constraint, that is, the “will” of the People. Certainly, the people of eleven Southern States could legitimately make that charge, proving it with their blood and the virtual destruction of their way of life! However, Lincoln did not openly admit to his intention to nullify the Constitution. Indeed, he tended to speak well of the document, but in many of his utterances, the true meanings of his actions are revealed!
“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.” Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, March 4th, 1861
Lincoln’s understanding of the nature of the federal government vis a vis its relationship with the States is expressed in a November 20th, 1863, letter in which he reiterates the doctrine he and many of like mind believed regarding the primacy of the central government to that of the States, a primacy that served to nullify the rights of both the States and the People of those States. This was no longer a relationship among a People forming a “government” or “national union,” but simply a different expression of the governments that already existed in Europe at the time; that is, a central authority that bestowed upon its citizens what it saw as their “rights” together with the concomitant “right” to remove same if that government so determined. How very different was this from the American concept of “God given rights” that could not be legitimately removed by any government!
“The point that was made against the theory of the general government being only an agency whose principals are the States … is one of the best arguments for the national supremacy. [my emphasis-vp]”
In other words, the “national government” in its relationship to the states is supreme. Hardly a constitutional construction and certainly not one that Washington would have embraced! Yes, he knew that the federal government had to have sufficient powers to manage the whole country, but none of that power given by the Constitution was sufficient to control much less overthrow the God given rights of the People and their States. Lincoln thought otherwise and once that is understood all else that comes after becomes comprehensible.
Let us look at one particular matter that became the foundation of all the actions taken by the federal government in the Civil War. The word “treason” was much used before, during and after that war but few people even know the constitutional definition of that act as found in Article III, Section 3:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
As the definition of treason is “making war upon them” – “them” being the States – let us hearken back to Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address in which he refers to those Southern States that had already seceded from the Union or were considering or in the process of doing so:
“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war.”
Notice two things: Lincoln speaks of taking an oath to defend the government. But the oath found in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states:
“…I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Nowhere does the word “government” appear in that oath! Lincoln swore to uphold the Constitution, not specifically the “government” formed by that Constitution unless it continued to adhere to its constitutional limits! In that case, “defending the Constitution” would, perforce, defend the federal government! as well And so, when Lincoln entered the Office of the Presidency, he was already prepared to sacrifice the Constitution to protect the government as he – Lincoln! – saw it, thus failing to make the connection that Washington had immediately made that as the one produced the other, to destroy the Constitution would also destroy the federal government – and vice versa – as it had been constitutionally conceived and put into place. The Constitution had not changed! The office had not changed! What had changed was the man assuming the presidency – and that made all the difference in the world!
Lincoln states unequivocally that the result of secession will be civil war. But civil war is a war between two factions vying for control of a nation. The States of the South wished only to leave the old union and create a new union more favorable to the needs of its people, for by 1860, the Southern States were in permanent economic and political subjugation and being reduced yearly into greater and greater poverty despite producing more economically than the rest of the Union combined. This situation was identified by Missouri Senator Thomas H. Benton in 1828 three decades before the Cotton States acted to escape political and financial servitude. Benton, speaking on the floor of the Senate accurately stated:
“Before the (American) revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth … Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, … has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. … Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue …Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows…northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this!” ~ Thomas H. Benton
But whatever the reasons for secession—and they were many—Lincoln saw them as an attempt to, in his words, “destroy the government,” and when, after threatening civil war during his inauguration, he condemned the people of the South by saying, “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.” Lincoln’s belief that secession was designed to “destroy the government”—not the nation or even the Union, became the mantra throughout the war—and even after. Thus, it was to prevent the destruction of the government that all of Lincoln’s actions addressed. He promised—and initiated—war for that purpose in direct contradiction of his duties as the President of the United States. His motives do not change or mitigate his actions—that is, to wage war in the name of the “government” upon the states of the South. And since the federal government is not a state but a creation of the Constitution which itself is a creation of the States and voted into existence by the States—upon some of whom Lincoln was now waging war—a better definition of treason cannot be found. And not only was Lincoln and his government guilty of treason, but so was every person and every state in the Union that bore arms giving aid and comfort to his treason.
Lincoln refused those restraints which the Constitution placed around and upon his “government” because to his mind the now national government was the repository of all power and answerable to no one, certainly not the States. And this mindset was never seriously contested by members of the other two branches of that same government. Indeed, when Lincoln denied the right of habeas corpus, a power given only to Congress under severely restricted circumstances, the Supreme Court challenged his actions. His response was then to threaten the Justices with military internment, a matter that in all practicality destroyed the very Federal Government that the man so wished to preserve! Thus “strengthened” in his apostasy, Lincoln went forth to initiate, sustain and triumph in the most bloody and brutal war ever fought by the United States and in so doing, his crimes against the Constitution were many and grievous:
As President-elect, he planned and carried out a “false flag” action against the government of South Carolina and the newly created and constitutionally legitimate Confederate States of America in violation of both the Constitution and the accord reached between President Buchanan and that State not to attempt to rearm and send troops and supplies to the federal fort in Charleston. We know this from his correspondence with various people involved in the matter. His own Cabinet violently disagreed with his intentions referable to Sumter, stating that his actions would be correctly seen as a declaration of war by the Confederacy!
As President, he declared war on those States that had seceded from the Union. But the Constitution gives the power to declare war only to the Congress! Article I, Section 8 states that Congress is able: “To declare War…; To raise and support Armies. . .; To provide and maintain a Navy; … according to the discipline prescribed by Congress…”
As earlier noted, he suspended habeas corpus, another power relegated to Congress alone in Article I; Section 9 on the duties of the Legislative Branch. Habeas corpus can be suspended, but only by Congress. Needless to say, Congress was not consulted on the matter.
He made use of the military to control the election of 1864, sending soldiers to vote where they did not reside and using them at the polls to intimidate voters, something facilitated by the use of colored ballots indicating the voter’s intentions before his vote was cast. Gen. Benjamin Butler telegraphed Lincoln from New York City declaring that not one Democrat had voted in that place.
He established martial law in States within the Union and in areas that were not in a war zone. In a letter of August 9th, 1864, he suspended civil rights to what he termed “military necessity:” “Nothing justifies the suspending of the civil by the military authority, but military necessity, and of the existence of that necessity the military commander … is to decide.” In other words, if the military commander on the ground thought it necessary to suspend God-given constitutionally guaranteed liberties, the Constitution was immediately nullified and all protections given American citizens under it, voided.
He authorized the trial of civilians by military tribunals in areas that were not war zones; this practice was continued even after the war. Consider the trial of his assassins which was military in nature, though none being tried were in fact in the military or charged with acting as members of the military.
He gave his blessing to the waging of war contrary to those rules of war in place at that time in the “civilized world,” a strategy that intentionally targeted civilians and non-combatants and involved the destruction of the enemy’s way of life, his culture, his history and his identity; that is, what today we would call “cultural genocide.”
He created the State of West Virginia, from territory legally part of the State of Virginia contrary to the constitutional requirement of the approval of the State, from which territory is taken to make any new State.
And these are only a few of the actions taken by Lincoln that were contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, for all intents and purposes rendering that document null and void not only in those states of the South that were in secession, but in those that remained in the Union. Indeed, between what Lincoln did during the war and what his government did after his death, the Constitution has never recovered.
Thus, when Smith speaks of “state laws” and “the rights of the states,” he forgets that Lincoln’s war was waged to remove “states’ rights” as previously understood under the Constitution with the States – North and South – becoming little more than “counties” under the central government. Such “rights” as they retained were minimal and could be removed by that same government without recourse to any other or higher authority – and certainly not We the People.
Here are some quotes from Lincoln referring to the Constitution. While many of these may sound orthodox, his sentiments—like his much-vaunted General Order 100—are filled with caveats and admissions that, in the end, he would do what was necessary rather than what was understood to be constitutional.
“Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”
Lincoln’s only concern was that the Constitution would interfere with him and hence, he was determined to ignore it from the outset.
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
Here Lincoln speaks of himself in terms of the royal “we,” but he alone is “master” which he proved by virtually nullifying the other two branches of government. And while Lincoln assures his listeners that he only intends to “overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution,” he neglects to point out that he is chief among them.
“Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?”
In a rhetorical question, Lincoln sets up a false dichotomy, validating his treason by presenting it as the only means by which the country can be saved. Unfortunately, the very “saving” Lincoln offers encompasses the original country’s destruction.
“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”
Lincoln sees the Constitution as “inadequate” for the “stormy present”—a present that he has made stormy—and validates his chosen course by speaking about “disenthralling ourselves”—that is, throwing off the yoke of constitutional limitations. This particular statement in his December 1st, 1862, Annual Message to Congress is Lincoln’s version of Orwell’s “double think.”
“Can this government stand, if it indulges constitutional constructions by which men in open rebellion against it, are to be accounted, man for man, the equals of those who maintain their loyalty to it?”
Again, Lincoln excuses an unconstitutional act—the creation of West Virginia and its admission into the Union—by calling into question the patriotism of those who oppose it. He points out that those who support the government—again, not the Constitution—are “loyal” while those who disagree are “rebels” and “insurrectionists” intent upon destroying it (the government). But the Constitution says nothing about motives or the government. An act is constitutional, or it is not; it stands or falls by no other criteria.
In writing to Reverdy Johnson in July of 1862, Lincoln states:
“…I must save this government if possible. What I cannot do, of course, I will not do; but it may as well be understood, one for all, that I shall never surrender this game leaving any available card unplayed.”
That is, he assures Johnson that he will not do what the Constitution forbids him doing—but then he turns around and assures Johnson that he intends to do whatever he has to do to “save this government.” Part B clearly revokes Part A especially given what he had already done that which was directly understood to be unconstitutional.
Lincoln’s intention to abandon the Constitution is confirmed in a letter to Albert G. Hodges on April 4th, 1864:
“Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb.”
In other words, the nation cannot be saved – at least as Lincoln wishes it to be saved – through adherence to the Constitution and therefore it (the Constitution) must be “amputated,” that is, removed. In this statement, Lincoln thus embraces the Hobbesian philosophy that the ends justify the means. Of course, in the loss of the Constitution, the nation as founded in 1789 also is lost and thus, in 1936, Mr. Smith finds himself dealing not with the nation of George Washington, but with that was left after the Lincoln presidency!
In a letter of July 12th, 1863, Lincoln addressed stated and written concerns about the many arrests and imprisonments of those who disagreed openly with his actions. To a New York Democratic Convention he wrote:
“The resolutions quote from the constitution, the definition of treason; and also the limiting safe-guards and guarantees therein provided for the citizen, on trial for treason, and on his being held to answer for capital or otherwise infamous crimes…But these provisions of the constitution have no application to the case we have in hand, because the arrests complained of were not made for treason—that is not for the treason defined in the constitution…nor yet were they made to hold persons to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crimes; nor were the proceedings following, in any constitutional or legal sense, ‘criminal prosecutions’. The arrests were made on totally different grounds, and the proceeding following, according with the grounds of the arrests.”
This is a rather spectacular example of Lincoln’s ability to parse words. He assures the Convention that nobody was being arrested for real treason – that is, treason as defined by the Constitution! Rather, the arrests and all that followed had been made “on totally different grounds”—grounds which Lincoln refuses to identify much less explain how they can be called “treason” given the constitutional definition of that heinous crime! This has the same moral, ethical and legal value as the response of a more modern President to another difficult question: “It all depends upon what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” And we can be sure, that both statements were made to the same purpose; to obscure, protect, excuse and justify criminal activities by a President and his government.
Going back to his First Inaugural we look again at Lincoln’s attempt to establish the concept of the national government’s perpetuity, an essential definition in expounding his actions.
“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.”
If Lincoln had not been a lawyer or had been unfamiliar with the Constitution, perhaps some excuse could be made for this statement, but as he was both, the only conclusion we must reach is that his ambition was greater than his honesty. For four centuries prior to the Constitution, English common law held that there was no such legal construct as a contract in perpetuity. True, the Articles of Confederation spoke of a “perpetual union,” but the Constitution deliberately did not—and neither was it implied. Indeed, three States, New York, Rhode Island and Virginia put secession language into their ratification documents! These documents were accepted as written and as is the case with all contracts or compacts, the rights of any single signatory are bestowed upon all other signatories! Therefore, every signatory state at the time of ratification or at any later date on which the state involved joined the Union, there existed a constitutional right for that state to secede from that Union! This right had never been in question and this was the reason why the “attack” of Fort Sumter was required for Lincoln to declare war using the “first shot fired” maxim. Unfortunately for Lincoln, that “maxim” actually puts blame on the side causing that “first shot” to be fired rather than the side that fired it! So, Sumter or not, Lincoln and his government and his Union, were the aggressors in the so-called “Civil War.”
As well, as seen above, any contract—which is what the Constitution was (and is!)—cannot be considered perpetual given British common law, simply by adding the word “perpetual”—as in the Articles—or the phrase “implying same,” as did Lincoln in his speech. Of course, Washington hoped that the Constitution and the government it formed would remain; that is, be perpetual. The difference is that Washington wanted the Constitution to remain as the foundation and bulwark of the federal government as it had been created. What Lincoln wanted was his vision of an all-powerful central government, something that, interestingly enough, the Constitution was deliberately designed to prevent!
Abraham Lincoln came into office with an agenda involving a total restructure of the government of the United States. Obviously, such an agenda required a total disregard of the Constitution from which that government had gotten its form and substance. From the time of his election, he was in contact with, among others, General of the Armies, Winfield Scott concerning any response available to the government referable to the secession of the Southern states. He was asking—and receiving—advice on his options under various circumstances once he assumed the office of President and, as we have seen by his sentiments expressed in his first inaugural address, those actions included a plan to initiate war against any state that attempted to leave the Union—a clear act of treason.
Washington was not like Lincoln for he found himself in a series of unique and difficult positions with no guides and no “history” for reference, having to scramble as best he could to deal with circumstances that even a Solomon would have found challenging. Lincoln, unlike Washington, not only had history for a guide – as Washington did not – but he also was a lawyer – another matter Washington was not. He knew the Constitution, including that which, as President, he was—and was not—permitted to do. However, it is also apparent that what he wanted, and in fact, would do as President required him to violate that document and render it ineffective as the Law of the Land! But, for Abraham Lincoln, that didn’t matter. For him, if he could do it, he would do it in order to prevail. He held to the belief that might made right, the ends justified the means and, as a result, he was willing—nay eager—to do anything and everything necessary to triumph. In the end, he was successful, but his success led to the creation of a new nation and an altered government based upon his own understanding of and desire for, both – as we can see in Mr. Smith’s ongoing address:
. . . Another one: “We promise the removal of Government from all fields of private enterprise except where necessary to develop public works and national resources in the common interest.”
The NRA, [Established by the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933, the National Recovery Administration sought to coordinate the activities of labor, industry and government through voluntary codes to reduce what the Roosevelt administration thought was inefficient competition. The Supreme Court ruled the NRA unconstitutional in 1935] a vast octopus set up by government, that wound its arms around all the business of the country, paralyzed big business, and choked little business to death. Did you read in the papers a short time ago where somebody said that business was going to get a breathing spell? What is the meaning of that? And where did that expression arise? I’ll tell you where it comes from. It comes from the prize ring. When the aggressor is punching the head off the other fellow, he suddenly takes compassion on him and he gives him a breathing spell before he delivers the knockout wallop.
Lincoln’s war had “armed” Lincoln’s government with weapons to use against its own people. In the name of “saving the nation” the nation continued (and continues!) to be dismembered and replaced by a tyranny disguising itself as a Republic, or, worse, a democracy. Washington had warned of this outcome, placing the blame on the creation and perpetuation of political parties, a matter certainly well evidenced in the very unusual election of, of course, Abraham Lincoln:
This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency [my emphasis-vp]. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. ~ G. Washington
And we now return to Mr. Smith who was attempting to deal with the consequences of all of the above:
Here is another one: “We condemn the open and covert resistance of administrative officials to every effort made by congressional committees to curtail the extravagant expenditures of Government and improvident subsidies granted to private interests.”
. . . [A]s to subsidies, why, never at any time in the history of this or any other country were there so many subsidies granted to private groups, and on such a huge scale. The fact of the matter is that most of the cases now pending before the United States Supreme Court revolve around the point whether or not it is proper for Congress to tax all the people to pay subsidies to a particular group.
Here is another one: “We condemn the extravagance of the Farm Board, its disastrous action which made the Government a speculator of farm products, and the unsound policy of restricting agricultural products to the demand of domestic markets.”
What about the restriction of our agricultural products and the demands of the market? Why, the fact about that is that we shut out entirely the farm market, and by plowing under corn and wheat and the destruction of foodstuffs, food from foreign countries has been pouring into our American markets – food that should have been purchased by us from our own farmers. In other words, while some of the countries of the Old World were attempting to drive the wolf of hunger from the doormat, the United States flew in the face of God’s bounty and destroyed its own foodstuffs. There can be no question about that.
And do we not see that today? America’s foodstuffs and supply chains being openly destroyed, our farmland sold to our known enemies and our farmers being attacked and harassed by the very men and women we have put into office to sustain us and our nation. Frankly, I don’t think that even Lincoln would have considered that acceptable, never mind useful. Whatever else he wanted, Lincoln did want a “United States” even if the original understanding of that entity had been lost. As for Washington, I do not think he would have spared the gallows for those who would wage such a war against his countrymen having personally suffered the effects of privation and want during the Revolution!
And Smith continues:
Now I could go on indefinitely with some of the other planks. They are unimportant, and the radio time will not permit it. But just let me sum up this way:
Regulation of the Stock Exchange and the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment*, [*this Amendment was ratified January 16, 1919, and banned “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States . . . for beverage purposes.”] It was repealed by the 21st amendment, ratified December 5, 1933] plus one or two minor planks of the platform that in no way touch the daily life of our people, have been carried out, but the balance of the platform was thrown in the wastebasket. About that there can be no question.
At this point, Smith complains about the socialist nature of the Roosevelt administration. Although he was indeed a “progressive,” Al Smith was a tried-and-true patriotic American as he makes clear in this address:
Let’s see how it was carried out. Make a test for yourself. Just get the platform of the Democratic Party, and get the platform of the Socialist Party, and lay them down on your dining room table, side by side, and get a heavy lead pencil and scratch out the word “Democrat,” and scratch out the word “Socialist,” and let the two platforms lay there. Then study the record of the present Administration up to date. After you have done that, make your mind up to pick up the platform that more nearly squares with the record, and you will put your hand on the Socialist platform. You couldn’t touch the Democratic. And, incidentally, let me say, that it is not the first time in recorded history, that a group of men have stolen the livery of the church to do the work of the devil.
If you study this whole situation, you will find that that is at the bottom of all our troubles. This country was organized on the principles of representative democracy, and you can’t mix Socialism or Communism with that. They are like oil and water; they refuse to mix. And incidentally, let me say to you, that is the reason why the United States Supreme Court is working overtime throwing the alphabet out of the window three letters at a time. [Smith alludes to the acronyms by which the new agencies created by the Roosevelt administration were known.-vp]
It is interesting for us to note that Karl Marx was very fond of Abraham Lincoln and that many in Lincoln’s government and military had been old “48ers” – Socialist revolutionaries from a decade prior to the Civil War! This was neither an accident nor merely an interesting aside; it went to the heart of Lincoln’s method of governing and his intentions for an American Empire and its people.
Smith has identified the problem and now he goes on to make clear what happened and who was responsible above and beyond the Party’s Standard Bearer and what “good Democrats” had to do about it:
Now I am going to let you in on something else. How do you suppose all this happened? Here is the way it happened: The young Brain Trusters [The “Brains Trust” was the name commonly given to Franklin Roosevelt’s closest advisers during the 1932 campaign and the early years of the New Deal.-vp] caught the Socialists in swimming and they ran away with their clothes. It is all right with me. It is all right with me if they want to disguise themselves as Norman Thomas [Norman Thomas (1884–1968) was a Presbyterian minister who was the Socialist Party of America candidate for President six times beginning in 1928.-vp] or Karl Marx, or Lenin, or any of the rest of that bunch, but what I won’t stand for is to let them march under the banner of Jefferson, Jackson, or Cleveland. [Grover Cleveland (1837–1908) a leading Democratic politician and the 22nd and 24th President of the United States.-vp] What is worrying me is where does that leave us millions of Democrats? My mind is now fixed upon the Convention in June, in Philadelphia. The committee on resolutions is about to report, and the preamble to the platform is: “We, the representatives of the Democratic Party in Convention assembled, heartily endorse the Democratic Administration.” What happens to the disciples of Jefferson and Jackson and Cleveland when that resolution is read out? Why, for us it is a washout. There is only one of two things we can do. We can either take on the mantle of hypocrisy or we can take a walk, and we will probably do the latter.
At this point in his address, Smith steps away from the Party platform and now begins to look to what he believes can help “fix” what he has proved to be happening in his party and the country. And here, at last, is the crux of the matter, for Smith goes back to two documents: the Declaration of Independence – not a legal document but a piece (an excellent piece!) of pro-American propaganda intended to sway the feelings of European governments to the support of the American revolution – and the Constitution in which the writer has placed all of his confidence a la Washington:
Now leave the platform alone for a little while. What about this attack that has been made upon the fundamental institutions of this country? Who threatens them, and did we have any warning of this threat? Why, you don’t have to study party platforms. You don’t have to read books. You don’t have to listen to professors of economics. You will find the whole thing incorporated in the greatest declarations of political principles that ever came from the hands of man, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Always have in your minds that the Constitution and the first ten amendments to it were drafted by refugees and by sons of refugees, by men with bitter memories of European oppression and hardship, by men who brought to this country and handed down to their descendants an abiding fear of arbitrary centralized government and autocracy. And listen, all the bitterness and all the hatred of the Old World was distilled in our Constitution into the purest democracy that the world has ever known.
As he finishes his points, Smith makes plain that he is defining the Constitution as it originally was understood. Still, as a man who had seen all the evils regarding the might of the “federal government” extended everywhere and over everything, one does not quite understand how he can blithely go on to mention “States rights” as if that concept – including “home rule” – had survived that Second American Revolution originally identified as a civil war by Abraham Lincoln! This could not be made more clear by his statement in the second paragraph below that the Federal Government was “. . .strictly limited in its power. . .” Actually, as Smith soon discovered (along with the rest of us!), there were no limitations on federal power unless the central government willingly accepted them – usually in an election year!
There are just three principles, and in the interest of brevity, I will read them. I can read them quicker than talk them.
“First, a Federal Government, strictly limited in its power, with all other powers except those expressly mentioned reserved to the States and to the people, so as to insure state’s rights, guarantee home rule, and preserve freedom of individual initiative and local control.”
That is simple enough. The difference between the state constitutions and the Federal Constitution is that in the state you can do anything you want to do provided it is not prohibited by the Constitution. But in the Federal Government, according to that document, you can do only that which that Constitution tells you that you can do. What is the trouble? Congress has overstepped its powers. It went beyond that constitutional limitation, and it has enacted laws that not only violate that, but violate the home rule and the State’s rights principle. And who says that? Do I say it? Not at all. That was said by the United States Supreme Court in the last ten or twelve days. [*Smith here refers to the U.S. Supreme Court decision U.S. v. Butler, that struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 as unconstitutional. The Court held that Congress, through this program, was using constitutional means — taxing and spending — for an unconstitutional purpose — regulating agricultural production. Regulation of agricultural production was viewed as unconstitutional in Butler because the Supreme Court reasoned that it was a power delegated exclusively to the states, and thus it was in violation of the Tenth Amendment. – vp]
At that point in time, the Supreme Court still held some of its constitutional values, though certainly, as noted earlier, not all. And, of course, this was the reason that Roosevelt and his commie minions moved to “pack the Court” with fellow “progressives” when decisions like Butler were handed down. Today’s use of the legal system as a political club is nothing new! Indeed, that strategy was never abandoned by the Left as we see in the Biden “presidency.”
Again, Smith goes on to point out what was (supposedly) the original intentions of that document with regard to the duties of the three branches of government. Here, however, he obviously recognizes what actually happens when a larger plan is put into place that requires a different response from the branches. In Smith’s day, the High Court had failed the Left, but, in Smith’s words, Congress was a more willing accomplice:
Secondly, a government, with three independent branches; Congress to make the laws, the Executive to execute them, the Supreme Court, and so forth. You know that. In the name of Heaven, where is the independence of Congress? Why, they just laid right down. They are flatter on the Congressional floor than the rug on the table here. They surrendered all of their powers to the Executive, and that is the reason why you read in the newspapers references to Congress as the rubber-stamp Congress. We all know that the most important bills were drafted by the brain-trusters and sent over to Congress and passed by Congress without consideration, without debate and without meaning any offense at all to my Democratic brethren in Congress, I think I can safely say, without ninety per cent of them knowing what was in the bills, what was the meaning of the list that came over. And beside certain bills was “must.”
What does that mean? Speaking for the rank and file of American people, we don’t want any executive to tell Congress what it must do, and we don’t want any Congress or the Executive jointly or severally to tell the United States Supreme Court what it must do. And, on the other hand, we don’t want the United States Supreme Court to tell either of them what they must do. What we want, and what we insist upon, and what we are going to have, is the absolute preservation of this balance of power which is the keystone, the arch upon which the whole theory of democratic government has got to rest, and when you rattle it, you rattle the whole structure.
The third one is methods of amending the Constitution. Of course, when our forefathers wrote the Constitution of the United States it couldn’t be possible that they had it in their minds that it was going to be all right for all time to come. So they said, “Now, we will provide a manner and method of amending it.” That is set forth in the document itself, and during our national life we amended it many times. We amended it once by mistake, and we corrected it. [A reference to the 18th amendment, also known as Prohibition.-vp] What did we do? We took the amendment out. Fine! That is the way we want to do it, by recourse to the people. But we don’t want an Administration that takes a shot at it in the dark, and that ducks away from it and dodges away from it and tries to put something over in contradiction of it upon any theory that there is going to be a great public howl in favor of it, and it is possible that the United States Supreme Court may be intimidated into a friendly opinion with respect to it. [Consider the present issues in the High Court. What would Al Smith have thought of that, I wonder? -vp] But I have held all during my public life that Almighty God is with this country and He didn’t give us that kind of Supreme Court. [We’ll see. . .vp]
Now Smith begins to bring up his party’s past in which certain “socialist” persons figured greatly. Alas, he did not know that Mr. Lincoln was himself very involved with the socialists and communists of his time as noted earlier. Indeed, Karl Marx very much favored Lincoln and wrote to – and about – the man. And, as noted, Lincoln had many of the “48ers” – failed socialist revolutionaries – in his government and military and his desire was to “centralize” and “control,” – hardly acceptable aspects of the Founders’ Republic although, as noted earlier, Virginia’s Patrick Henry had pointed out that under the proper circumstances, such would be the result of a government founded on the Constitution! The only difference here is that both Mr. Lincoln’s Republicans and Mr. Smith’s Democrats are playing the same game under the same governing philosophy.
For the rest of his address, Smith rejects what he is seeing as socialist influence in the government and the country, never realizing – because it was never taught! – that what America had become was the direct result of a war that was seen by all Americans save those in the South as the validation of our original Revolution and our Founding documents! Fool that he was – and fools that we are! – not to realize that the socialists won their war not in 1932 or 2020 but in 1865! But here are the final words of a good man who never realized what was, in fact, killing the country and the party that he loved:
Now this is pretty tough on me to have to go at my own party this way, but I submit that there is a limit to blind loyalty. As a young man in the Democratic Party, I witnessed the rise and fall of Bryan and Bryanism, [William Jennings Bryan, a Democratic congressman from Nebraska, unsuccessfully ran for president in 1896, 1900, and 1908. He and his supporters fought for the monetization of silver, leading him to be regarded by many, even in his own party, as a dangerous radical.-vp] and I know exactly what Bryan did to our party. I knew how long it took to build it after he got finished with it. But let me say this to the everlasting credit of Bryan and the men that followed him, they had the nerve and the courage and honesty to put into the platform just what their leaders stood for. And they further put the American people into a position of making an intelligent choice when they went to the polls.
Why, the fact of this whole thing is (I speak now not only of the executive but of the legislature at the same time) that they promised one set of things, they repudiated that promise, and they launched off on a program of action totally different. Well, in 25 years of experience I have known both parties to fail to carry out some of the planks in their platform, but this is the first time that I have known a party, upon such a huge scale, not only not to carry out the planks, but to do the directly opposite thing to what they promised.
Now, suggestions – and I make these as a Democrat anxious for the success of my party, and I make them in good faith. Here are my suggestions.
No. 1: I suggest to the members of my party on Capitol Hill here in Washington that they take their minds off the Tuesday that follows the first Monday in November. [Election day -vp] Just take your minds off it to the end that you may do the right thing and not the expedient thing.
Next, I suggest to them that they dig up the 1932 platform from the grave that they buried it in, read it over, and study it, breathe life into it, and follow it in legislative and executive action, to the end that they make good their promises to the American people when they put forth that platform, and the candidate that stood upon it, one hundred per cent. In short, make good.
Third, I would suggest to them that they stop compromising with the fundamental principles laid down by Jackson and Jefferson and Cleveland.
Fourth, stop attempting to alter the form and structure of our Government without recourse to the people themselves as provided in their own constitution. This country belongs to the people, and it doesn’t belong to any Administration.
Next, I suggest that they read their Oath of Office to support the Constitution of the United States. And I ask them to remember that they took that oath with their hands on the Holy Bible, thereby calling upon God Almighty Himself to witness their solemn promise. It is bad enough to disappoint us.[no comment necessary!-vp]
Sixth, I suggest that from this moment they resolve to make the Constitution again the civil bible of the United States and pay it the same civil respect and reverence that they would religiously pay the Holy Scripture, and I ask them to read from the Holy Scripture the Parable of the Prodigal Son and to follow his example. “Stop! Stop wasting your substance in a foreign land and come back to your Father’s house.”
Now, in conclusion let me give this solemn warning. There can be only one Capitol – Washington or Moscow. There can be only one atmosphere of government, the clear, pure, fresh air of free America, or the foul breath of Communistic Russia. There can be only one flag, the Stars and Stripes, or the Red Flag of the godless union of the Soviet. There can be only one National Anthem. The Star-Spangled Banner or the Internationale. [A celebrated hymn of the socialist movement since the late 19th century, the Internationale became the first national anthem of the Soviet Union.-vp] There can be only one victor. If the Constitution wins, we win. But if the Constitution – Stop! Stop there! The Constitution can’t lose. The fact is, it has already won, but the news has not reached certain ears.
Sadly, Alfred Emanual Smith was wrong. The Constitution lost. It lost not under Roosevelt, but under Lincoln and it lost in a war fought not between nations, but between a central government advanced in power beyond its founding principles together with Sovereign States motivated by ideology, money and the desire for Empire. Yet, despite all, even today, we rejoice to see such men as George Washington and Al Smith even when they lose. It is nice to know as the darkness closes over what was once great and glorious, that such men did exist and spoke out and fought against that darkness.
Short Biography of Alfred Emanuel Smith (December 30, 1873 – October 4, 1944)
Al Smith was an American politician who served four terms as Governor of New York and was the Democrat Party’s candidate for president in 1928. Smith grew up on the lower east side of Manhattan and resided in that neighborhood for his entire life and though he remained personally incorrupt, as with many other New York City politicians, he was linked to the notorious Tammany Hall machine. Smith served in the New York State Assembly from 1904 to 1915 and held the position of Speaker in 1913. He also served as Sheriff of New York County in 1916-17. Smith was first elected governor in 1918 but lost a bid for re-election in 1920. However, he was re-elected to that position in 1922, 24 and again in 1926.
Smith was the first Roman Catholic to be nominated for president of the United States by a major party. His 1928 presidential candidacy mobilized both Catholic and anti-Catholic voters and many Protestants (including German Lutherans and Southern Baptists feared his candidacy believing that his actions would be dictated by the Pope. Smith was also against Prohibition and as Governor had repealed the States prohibition law. In the election of 1928, incumbent Republican Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, aided by national prosperity, the absence of involvement in the European war and anti-Catholic bigotry defeated Smith in a landslide
In 1932, Smith again sought the Democratic presidential nomination but was defeated by Franklin D. Roosevelt, former ally and successor as Governor of New York. Smith then entered business in New York City, became involved in the construction and promotion of the iconic Empire State Building as well as becoming an increasingly vocal opponent of Roosevelt’s New Deal (see above speech).
Smith died at the Rockefeller Institute Hospital on October 4, 1944, of a heart attack, at the age of 70 having been broken-hearted over the death of his wife from cancer five months earlier, on May 4th. Al Smith is interred at Calvary Cemetery.
It isn’t the crass and crude voice of what is referred to as “The Media” that are the enemy of the concept of sovereign people, as its voice is like a child who does not know because it will not know because it will not learn.
It is those who claim a voice of so-called “conservative media” who can learn but would rather not. They are the “true” liars.
Great teaching in this article.